>> Most if not all renewables require either energy storage, or much better energy transport, which must be factored into their price. >This was the big one fo

>> Most if not all renewables require either energy storage, or much better energy transport, which must be factored into their price. >This was the big one for me. Many people underestimate the complexity of energy transport over long distances. At some scales, this is still a materials science research topic, but even when it has been commercialised it's exorbitantly expensive over the international distances that would be required. There's plenty of long distance electricity links that operate commercially, and they are cash positive simply due to price differentials between regions. To give you some examples, both Sweden and Norway are connected to Denmark/Germany and essentially power countries like Italy or France when the demand is there. Essentially much of the European energy grid is already integrated and it is profitable to build extra links simply because of price differentials due to weather. So if you have different evidence, please provide it. > As for storage, despite the medium scale battery deployments we've seen in the last ~5 years, and pumped hydro, I'm remaining unconvinced that storage is something we'll rely on for industrial-scale grid usage in a post-fossil fuel world. These solutions need to be able to power a country, with all its industry, for ~days while wind and solar aren't running at necessary levels. Again if your grid is large enough you really don't need to power the whole country, but even so unlike nuclear and fusion, storage solutions are on an exponential cost reduction curve (however you are correct that they are currently still expensive).