It cuts both ways. Solar and wind are great but intermittent, and the storage issue seems to be treated as a solvable ergo solved problem. Add a sprinkle of "overcapacity", gas peakers and demand shaping and we can have a fully green grid.
So why didn't this happen anywhere - except perhaps two of the sunniest and windiest places in the world, Australia and California, where energy demand (AC) also matches production? Where are the seasonal battery storage facilities that places like Europe or I guess most of NA would need?
My only conclusion is that renewables are also far more expensive than the sticker price, due to the needed grid investment, batteries and frankly unsolved problems of seasonal storage.
I don't mind being wrong, but status quo seems to be, let's not build nuclear because it's too expensive, we're sort of building renewables, but CO2 emmissions, never mind levels, keep on increasing.
What doesnt add up? Almost all western industrialized nations are on a downward trajectory (or flat) regarding electricity use.
So there is simply little economic incentive to "greenify" electricity quickly because demand is already met by existing infrastructure.
Lots of people are completely unwilling to pay more for energy just to decrease emissions quickly (you might be surprised about peoples selfishness!).
But if you look at countries where electricity demand grows, you can clearly see renewables overtaking everything else; China had more growth in solar PV energy (GWh/y) in the last 2 years than nuclear power in 2 decades (and they're a pretty nuclear-friendly environment, too).
These Western countries are also still exporting their manufacturing and energy use to China. Meanwhile, Chinese CO2 emmissions are still increasing, regardless of how much renewables they are building. This would mean that the marginal cost of burning coal is still lower for them than the "dirt cheap" renewables, when accounting for everything. Either that or China can't count, which I doubt.
In any case - displacing fossil fuels is cheaper than operating a fully renewable grid - because you have the luxury of simply dialling back gas or coal production when it's windy and sunny. The proble starts when you dont rely on these at all - this is my point. I haven't seen this happen anywhere or anywhere close to it either.
It's one thing to provide some marginal power generation in a grid based predominantly on fossil fuels, and another to do the same thing without that backup. The typical solar PV plant doesn't care at all about energy storage - it's someone else's problem, and hence cost as well.
Why would you expect people to go for fully renewable grids right now? You'd need no pre-existing dispatchable power for that to be appealing to start with, and this is the case approximately nowhere (excluding countries that get free hydro from their geography here).
Electric storage to get rid of the last percent of dispatchable fossils in the grid is invariably gonna be the last thing that happens because its just not appealing economically; future overprovisioning is gonna eat into your margins, capex for batteries is non-negligible and you are basically making a longer term investment into rapidly improving tech which is always rough.
But just consider a single household right now: You can just slap panels on the whole roof for peanuts and put 100kWh of batteries somewhere (that's basically a single chunky car-battery)-- that's pretty much autarky right there, and it is very feasible (but if you rely on a bit of dispatchable fossil grid power instead that's still cheaper and easier for now).
In my opinion all that we would need to accelerate this tremendously is like a $300/ton in carbon tax, then just re-emit the gains into mainly lower income tax brackets (poor-ish people might even come out ahead!) and tax literally every import comparably that can't demonstrate a clean chain of the same CO2 taxation for its inputs. But people would wine endlessly, because suddenly flying into vacation 3 times a year or similar BS becomes actually expensive, oh the horror...
So why didn't this happen anywhere - except perhaps two of the sunniest and windiest places in the world, Australia and California, where energy demand (AC) also matches production? Where are the seasonal battery storage facilities that places like Europe or I guess most of NA would need?
My only conclusion is that renewables are also far more expensive than the sticker price, due to the needed grid investment, batteries and frankly unsolved problems of seasonal storage.
I don't mind being wrong, but status quo seems to be, let's not build nuclear because it's too expensive, we're sort of building renewables, but CO2 emmissions, never mind levels, keep on increasing.
It doesn't seem to add up to a coherent story.