If you've got a grand plan that costs that much I'd like a job please.

Craig,

Funny you should mention it, but the laughable 100% renewable scheme that you posted a link to, at their own costings came to $800bn, and at costings based in the USA came to double that.

Awesome, you actually read something!

It's interesting that you're now trying to discredit that particular plan's economics, when only a couple of days ago you were trying to pretend that there was some imaginary technical barrier.

Here's an interesting idea for you, SM: try thinking beyond the next paypacket.

Yet another back down Craig? You seem to be doing a lot of those.

I said that there is a technical limit to the % of renewables that you can add to a network without having to add backup. Presently that appears to be around the 30% figure. If this is not true, perhaps you could explain why Germany is building new coal fired power stations? I guess that you will cower away from that too.

I never said 100% renewable power was impossible as anything is possible with enough money. The problem is that it can't be done without creating massive economic hardship. A $1tn debt to replace existing and functioning infrastructure, or raising the wholesale price of power in the order of 4-10x is lunacy

What do you think I'm "backing down" from SM?

I'm glad to see you've now accepted that renewables are feasible though. What took you so long?

Shadow,

I don't have a fantasy about endless free money. Of course there's a cost, but I don't make unjustified assumptions about what that cost is, nor do I care your fantasies about limits to the amount of money available to sovereign governments.

Under the current arrangements, the cost of financing renewables far exceeds the cost of the renewables themselves. So the obvious step in making renewable energy cheaper is to stop trying to make a profit financing it, and instead just aim to break even and pass the savings on the the electricity users.