[epistasis]

> Having written these thoughts out I now realize your statement presumes we can ever (and always) meet 100% of electricity demand with wind/solar/hydro in the first place.

If you don't believe that we can meet our needs with wind/solar/hydro/batteries, then you haven't bothered to study the problem at all.

There's soooo much literature out there on how to do this.

And even without 100%, getting to 90% wind/solar is super cheap and deployable today, and by the time we spend the 15+ years deploying that, we will have tons of new tech to deal with the remains few percent.

Even France never got to 100% nuclear carbon free power, why not do the cheap thing to get to better than France levels of low carbon energy?

[plasmatix]

To be clear, I don't see it as either/or. No doubt a mixture of solutions is the optimal strategy.

If you have any literature to recommend, I'm happy to read it.