> If your argument depends on selecting expensive rather than cheap versions of a technology, It doesn't. It depends on available versions of a technology. No

> If your argument depends on selecting expensive rather than cheap versions of a technology, It doesn't. It depends on available versions of a technology. Not "approaching" versions of a technology. > Read it again. The limits it discusses are on hydro generation, not hydro storage. That turns out not to be the case. Try reading it again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > The gas generators would not run in baseload mode; That is EXACTLY the point. You need to overbuild enormous amounts of very expensive infrastructure triply-redundantly and then have it sit around idly most of the time. So all of this highly expensive triply-redundant and massively overbuilt infrastructure has to be financed by subsidies, as it can't be paid for by producing electricity. As it isn't actually producing any electricity most of the time. To quote the study again: "...which challenges the economic sanity of 100% intermittent renewable targets." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... > about 1/20th the capital cost of a nuclear plant per unit power Yeah, not even close. Anyway, I think we've reached the limit of what can be accomplished by discussion.