Nuclear can achieve this and you can reform capacity market to guarantee 60%cf if you need, because you know, you still need firming power and maybe you want to avoid too high transmission expansion and grid forming inverters.
If ren strategy alone can't achieve this due to gas firming, then you deploy less ren. Sweden can expand ren as long as hydro can firm it. Past that, you don't have other realistic option than nuclear if you want to phase out fossils entirely
It seems like you are looking at this from a binary stance.
Willing to waste 10x as much resources and money because 99% is not 100% even though we still need to decarbonize shipping, aviation, agriculture and industry. Laser focused on one sector ignoring all else.
That sounds like a juvenile position coming from an ideologist rather than someone vying for the quickest possible decarbonization of our entire society.
I’m not sure why you latched on to hydrogen? Maybe because that is the one you could hope to ”debunk”?
We of course also have biofuels, the ethanol blend in for US gasoline is enough to run the entire grid without help for 16 days.
Just repurpose that, while ensuring the inputs also decarbonize, as we switch our transportation fleet to BEVs.
This does not have to be solved today, it is a problem for the 2030s so let’s not jump ahead of ourselves when Poland still runs 70% on fossil fuels.
What you are saying is that we should force the market to build nuclear power despite the insane cost through subsidies. Vogtle running at 60% is still a completely insane 30 cents per kWh excluding transmission costs.
Please do explain what is scary with grid forming inverters? In the latest Chinese auctions the lots with grid forming inverters added ~$20/kWh to the storage price.
And then you circle back to the completely binary world. You do know that Sweden has a huge oil power plant running a few hours per year in a capacity reserve? It just never gets called in due to not being needed.
With your logic nothing is worth doing until that power plant is entirely phased out even though it runs for a fraction of a percent per year?
Hydrogen firming is extremely expensive per Lazard, it's strange you are bringing it up while complaining about nuclear. Needless to say their numbers are for US. For europe it'll be more similar to Germany https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/shipping-green-hydrogen... https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/eu-report-says-making-g...
Nuclear can achieve this and you can reform capacity market to guarantee 60%cf if you need, because you know, you still need firming power and maybe you want to avoid too high transmission expansion and grid forming inverters.
If ren strategy alone can't achieve this due to gas firming, then you deploy less ren. Sweden can expand ren as long as hydro can firm it. Past that, you don't have other realistic option than nuclear if you want to phase out fossils entirely