> This is a worldwide assessment. Look at Northern Europe, and notice the complete lack of dots on the map. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

> This is a worldwide assessment. Look at Northern Europe, and notice the complete lack of dots on the map. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Northern Europe generally doesn't need the kind of sites that this study was looking for (a pair of locations vertically separated and horizontally close with a river close to the lower location); they already have "once-through" hydro plants on rivers with reservoirs high in the mountains. > Want you bet your freezing bottom on it? "Less likely" does not cut it for a vital commodity. I don't have to "bet my freezing bottom" on it. The "less likely" part means lower expected value of energy needs not satisfied by a combination of solar and wind power. This lower expected value translates into lower expenditure of backup supplies such as synthetic gas being expended for that purpose, and therefore the lower average annual cost of using such supplies. That makes this approach viable.