| > I do not get where you think that need of a fossil grid comes from? This comes from the assumptions made when computing LCOE. For example in Germany last month they ran on almost all fossil for a whole month. Paying for the ability to not do that is not included at all in Lazard LCOE numbers. Who cares if 100% renewable is possible. Of course it is. Things are either forbidden by the laws of physics, or possible. Things that are possible are not necessarily desirable or logical. For example, "renewable" is a meaningless term. Biofuel is included in renewable, though it leads to a high ("but stabilized!") atmospheric concentration of CO₂ and deadly particulate emissions. Sustainable and low-carbon are much more specific, well-defined, and important characteristics for a future world energy system. If you go for 100% sustainable and low-carbon, nuclear is in and biofuel is out. The main people publishing 100% renewables papers are hardcore anti-nuclear leaders like MJZ. For every 100% renewable publication, there are many others showing that a judicious mix of 24/7 nuclear plus renewables is a far more flexible, resilient, robust, and cheap mix. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://unece.org/climate-change/press/international-climate... I don't understand why people want to fight nuclear so much. With so much fossil and biofuel in operation, there's way more than enough room to build everything that's low carbon, sustainable, and safe. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy > I do not get where you think that need of a fossil grid comes from? |