What is important is that not a single country had a solution when they started their programs. That is the point. You said it's been researched for 30 years no

What is important is that not a single country had a solution when they started their programs. That is the point. You said it's been researched for 30 years now. But why is that ok when you insist that renewables should've figured out details like grid improvements before doing anything? Why is it ok to waste billions on temporary storage solutions for decades if it's not ok to invest in renewables before you improve the grid first. Both things can be viewed as wasteful, but you only have a problem with the second. It's nit-picky in the case of renewables and inconsistent. It's what you said, I am not putting anything in your mouth. They are paid off, but if you are struggling with debt with those, you will not be able to finance anything new. Look at residents of South Carolina: their cancelled nuclear plant cost 9 billion, and they are now paying for non-existing electricity on their bills because the company needs to pay it off [1]. It's simple. Relevant quote: "Thanks to a state law passed in 2007, residents in South Carolina are footing the bill for a massive failed nuclear reactor program that cost a total of $9 billion. Analysts say that corporate mismanagement and poor oversight means residents and their families will be paying for that failed energy program — which never produced a watt of energy — for the next 20 years or more." [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/ https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new...