Scale is missing in your analytsis. For instance in New England, the peak demand goes from 15GWh (average) to 16.5GWh down to 10GWh. Solar and wind on the othe

Scale is missing in your analytsis. For instance in New England, the peak demand goes from 15GWh (average) to 16.5GWh down to 10GWh. Solar and wind on the other hand, need supplemental for 100% of its installed capacity the day there is no wind... In France, 70% of the electricity is nuclear, 15% is hydro, pumped by the excess nuclear power generated at during the night. Now for your arguments: 1. Wind goes from 0 to 50mph at sea. No reliable wind corridor exists. Even if Market Street in San Francisco makes me think otherwise frequently :) 2. The concept of wind proliferation has been debunked, at least on the European level. We built a network between Denmark, Germany, Portugal and Italy. It doesn't work. 3. If you don't have wind, putting 3 wind turbines won't help you more. Germany learned it the hard way where their CO2 emission flat lined since 2009 instead of going down despite their all in on the wind and solar energy. If you install 3 times more than what you need, you also have the side effect of making your renewable energy 3 times more carbone intensive. It kills solar as a viable, scalable option for instance. 4. Yes that would be the required breakthough to change the game. Right now batteries production pollute way too much and cost too much to be climate efficient.