The issue is that renewables require extensive, expensive redundancies which are misleadingly excluded from the ubiquitous “renewables are cheaper” studies.
First give me a world that runs on 90% renewables all the time. The last 10% is really not something that will have weight.
Actually I consider complaining about that bad faith. Too many countries run on pretty much majority fossils, reducing that has the largest impact and setting an example will help there. A world where we run on 90% renewables is a good one.
First of all, to avoid the 2 degrees warming threshold, we need to be at net 0 emissions in like 10 years. Which absolutely requires 0% fossil fuels in electricity and heating, all year round, all over the world. 10% fossil fuels in electricity is nowhere close to good enough.
Secondly, the current best for renewables is nowhere close to 90% year round. Those 6 days in the article are a huge record for Portugal. 90% would essentially mean 330 days of exclusive renewables use, which no one in the world is close to, except maybe Iceland.
no, they do not. The vast majority of studies that estimate the LCOE for renewable generators consider only the spot price of electricity and OPEX costs. The cost of reliability is absolutely not factored into this energy cost.