[reaperman]

On one hand, solar and wind are very cheap - significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. On the other hand, you still also need either a significant amount of fossil fuel capacity or energy storage available to kick in during hours when solar and wind can't provide as much production. So instead of building enough fossil fuel production for 110% of your peak need, you might lower that to 50% and then still also build 110% of your need in renewable energy -- so you'd be over-capitalized at a total installed capacity of fossil fuels + renewables at about 160% of peak need.

So, marginal cost is lower. Total capital outlay might be higher. Portugal provides energy at an average of 9.7¢ / kWh which presumably is high enough to pay back all the capital costs in addition to the marginal costs. Mississippi only has 1% renewables and provides electricity at 11.55¢ / kWh.

So it would appear at a very rough glance that the answer to "At what cost?" is..."Negative cost".