> I'm not seeing anyone state any numbers, though.
You aren't stating any numbers either, yet you seem very confident that it can work out.
> Just a bunch of handwaving about how it's totally impossible, which strikes me as simplistic BS.
Same to you, just a bunch of handwaving how it's totally possible, which I might call "simplistic BS" as well.
I could give some of the source material that my opinions are based on, but then you will just complain about how the sources are biased or how the calculations are too pessimistic, and so on. Been there, done that, it's a waste of time. Therefore, I suggest you do your own research and believe what you want to believe. I don't care if you change your mind.
Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), existing nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round number, different sources have slight variations). Onshore wind and natural gas are currently pushing $40, and PV solar is under $60 and dropping rapidly.
Numerous nuclear plants in the US (and MANY coal plants) are being shut down before end-of-life, due to losing key customers to cheaper alternatives. It costs more to keep the plant running than to shut it down.
We have a couple of decades of data on wind consistency and variation, scaling from minutes to years - enough data to do very reliable projections on storage needs. Solar has a consistent schedule, which also helps projection, and of course we know loads. So computing just how much storage is needed is a straightforward exercise.
Tesla and other companies are stepping hard into the utility-scale storage game. It's a very exciting field because there are billions to be made. And there are billions to be made, because once costs drop below a certain line, wind/solar + storage will be cheaper than anything except fracked gas, and will take over the coal/nuclear markets as fast as it can be built.
A lot of people who are smarter with money and know the field more than you and me are expecting to make fortunes on this. That says more than any numbers I could throw at you.
> Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), existing nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round number, different sources have slight variations). Onshore wind and natural gas are currently pushing $40, and PV solar is under $60 and dropping rapidly.
So what? This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Coal, nuclear, natural gas are all delivering stable supply 24/7. PV and Wind are highly volatile both intraday and seasonally. Why don't you add in the cost of storage?
> We have a couple of decades of data on wind consistency and variation, scaling from minutes to years - enough data to do very reliable projections on storage needs. Solar has a consistent schedule, which also helps projection, and of course we know loads. So computing just how much storage is needed is a straightforward exercise.
Computing the cost is not the problem. Paying the cost is the problem:
> A lot of people who are smarter with money and know the field more than you and me are expecting to make fortunes on this.
It's a reasonably safe bet that western governments will push green energy and penalize fossil energy in the future. Of course you can make a lot of money off of that.
> That says more than any numbers I could throw at you.
It really only says that speculators are speculating that green energy will yield a big payout.
