[Manuel_D]

A geographically large grid will require extensive transmission network upgrades. That has to be factored into the cost competitiveness of these sources.

Renewable generation itself is cheap. But what's expensive (or straight up unfeasible) is everything required to mitigate the intermittent production. Storage at the scale of tens of terawatt hours can't even be feasibly built with current technologies. Moving electricity over thousands of miles, across mountain ranges, would require HVDC lines to be constructed in very rugged terrain.

[cryptonector]

Europe's and the U.S.'s grids are geographically large.

[Manuel_D]

Correct, but most generation is still produced close to demand. If you look at a map of where power plants are located (https://synapse.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/201fc98c0d74...) you'll see they're concentrated near cities. The grid spans a large area, but most energy is transmitted over a short distance.

Renewables, due to their low energy density and specific weather requirements, need to be built in remote areas. This has led to situations where the grid cannot accommodate transmitting the amount of energy that proposed renewable plants will produce: https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-ene...

People often cite the decentralized nature of renewables as an advantage. It's not. It's a significant disadvantage as it has a much bigger burden on the transmission infrastructure.