With proper system design this becomes a non-problem. This adds cost, but done properly it's cheaper than a system based on nuclear, especially going forward as renewable and storage costs continue their relentless decline (at a pace nuclear could only dream of).

In more detail: you want two kinds of storage, one optimized for daily charge discharge, and one for long term storage, to handle different frequencies in the power spectrum of the power-demand mismatch curve. The first is batteries, and the second is various techologies (like thermal or hydrogen) that will be brought into play for the last 5% or so of grid decarbonization.

▲

Paradigma11 3 days ago | parent [-]

And we do have detailed weather data for the last 70 years in Europe.

So it should be easy for proponents of renewables plus batteries like you to show that their proposed solutions would have worked all those years.

▲

pfdietz 3 days ago | parent [-]

One can do modeling based on weather data, yes. There's even a web site where you can do that and obtain cost optimized designs (under various cost and technology assumptions): https://model.energy/

▲

tstrimple 2 days ago | parent [-]

Nuclear proponents seem incapable of avoiding the exact same debunked arguments over and over again year after year. Did you know that the sun doesn’t always shine? Checkmate solar power! Bet you never thought of that. I am very clever.

	▲	pfdietz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		They use the bad arguments because they don't have any good arguments. It's a tell.