My question was focused around, basically, this part: "Getting to at least 98% reliable 100% solar power (which isn't that great as it means seven days a year of extreme electricity shortages) is another problem entirely, requiring ludicrous amounts of storage ..."
How ludicrous are we talking here?
Also I still struggle to see (even after years of reading NNadir and yourself) how if one takes an area who's energy is 100% sourced from natural gas, and build out a renewable installation that can replace 30% of that natural gas ... how this is not a net-positive effect? You're burning less carbon. Yes it only lasts so long (like anything else), and yes, you need 'land' to do so, but in the net I'm just not quite sure why it's a terrible idea?
These practical concerns need to be factored into the calculations if the alternative is 'replace the gas plant with nuclear': You can get politicians onboard easier, build it out quicker, with much less stringent permitting, and much less NIMBY pushback. It also makes funding simpler I'd imagine, as initial outlay is likely much less.
Even if you run out of money on your renewable installation, you just install fewer panels.
Run out of $$$ on an NPP, and you never end up w/a single KW.
I get that it's a drag that this scenario essentially perpetuates NG usage, but ... didn't you already start that way?
Let's just say I've yet to be entirely convinced that renewables don't make at least reasonable sense in areas with a lot of sunlight or wind, where current needs are mostly or wholly served by fossil fuel plants 
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read