Sources? Anyway, to get a good sized grid to smooth out intermittency, you’ll need to connect all Europe or more. I think there’s already some of that, but the longer distances you go, the more loss. I agree pumped hydro is a good option, but the promising sites tend to be quite limited when you try to scale up to a full grid. Plus the ecological concerns that come with dams need to be weighed too.

Finite resource goes for battery minerals even more so, and solar production capacity is also limited.

Agree on offshore wind, but it’s also got intermittency.

You can save money with solar and batteries, but only after about 30 years. That’s a much longer payback time than any other forms like nuclear. Plus you wouldn’t have representative grid loads overnight.

The costs you cited are just for the panel electricity, not taking into account any storage.

Right now it costs about $400/kwh. You’ll need about 12 hours storage to cover over night, which means about $50k/kw. If the lifespan is 20 years, (which is generous) that means the added cost is 28 cents per kwh just for the storage. I’m sure the batteries will get more efficient, but they will also be in more demand, so that price could go up or down.

Do you have better numbers showing 100% solar is cheaper than nuclear? Why is nuclear bad? It’s less deaths than even wind energy and is a proven technology to minimize emissions. Why limit yourself?

I’ll need substantiation on the cheaper. Batteries are expensive! And transmission loses get excessive after very long to distances.

Batteries plus solar to equal a constant output power is much more expensive than nuclear. It’s when you have other sources that you can have less storage that solar gets cheaper.

It’s still to be determined if at a 90% renewable grid whether adding nuclear or wind/solar will be cheaper. You’ll need a whole lot more energy storage the closer you get to 100% intermittent renewable, so having some reliable base load with nuclear is likely cheaper.