> This truly is getting quite sad. Who cares if the 1 in 36 year event is solved with fossil fuels, biofuels, synfuels, hydrogen or whatever? Because it requir

> This truly is getting quite sad. Who cares if the 1 in 36 year event is solved with fossil fuels, biofuels, synfuels, hydrogen or whatever? Because it requires maintaining costly infrastructure that needs to provide more than 100% of normal generation for these cases. And even without considering _extreme_ events, normal weather variations still require multi-day storage capacity which is _still_ prohibitively expensive. > The study of course did not specify what level of renewables they implemented. What would a 20% overbuild lead to? 50%? It would still cost a fraction compared to new built nuclear power. Renewables need 10x (1000%) overbuild to ride through Dunkelflaute in Germany. And that's a conservative estimate. > But whenever a cold spell hits that export flow is reversed to imports and they have to start up local fossil gas and coal based production. Why are Greens always lying? https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240118-france-reclaims-title-as-europe-s-biggest-exporter-of-electricity https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240118-france-reclaims-title-... France had a rough 2 years when they took offline multiple plants due to deferred maintenance and bad luck. Now it's back to normal.