[Schroedingersat]

Your 'study' by fossil fuel interest using flawed statistics and outdated data that triple and quadruple counts costs that don't even show up until renewable penetration is 3x the current amounts and are already being internalised by hybrid and internal storage programs means nothing.

It does make for a pretty good demonstration of the type of shilling Shellenberger does though, so props on that part.

[ETH_start]

Plenty of studies look at renewables through rose colored glasses and are funded by groups with ideological agendas and financial conflicts of interest. This study is quite sober compared to them.

The study projects out the costs of going 100% renewable in Minnesota as the current plan calls for, so the assumption of 3x penetration is appropriate. I also don't see the basis for your claim that it triples/quadruples costs.

>>by fossil fuel interest

Which fossil fuel interests?

The study says that Minnesota could achieve the 100% zero carbon goal without unduly burdering the state's residents if it depends on hydroelectric and nuclear, neither of which is fossil fuel.

[Schroedingersat]

If your 'study' is counting costs for storage (which is load balancing), and for curtailment (which is load balancing) and for load balancing and is charging all three on curtailed energy. And is doing at all at double current prices rather than projected future prices. Then maybe 'sober' isn't the best adjective.