> https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline

If the price of batteries continues to decline exponentially, then absolutely, renewables will be great. I don't they will be 4x cheaper per decade going forward, though. Maybe 2x cheaper per decade for a few more decades is more likely, if so 2050 might be a break-even point.

> Complement: V2G will be a key, here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

V2G can absolutely make some contribution for very short-term fluctuations (such as for from Nuclear ramp up/down cycles, but the capacity several orders of magnitude too small to compensate for a few weeks of almost no wind in the North Sea.

> Prices fluctuations?

Yes. The extreme price fluctuations seen this winter (both from day-to-day, but also compared to earlier years) is due to coming very close to reaching max capacity. For Norwegian consumers, this is already extremely sticky, since many households are experiencing increased costs of $1000-$2000 per month (more in some cases), even after government subsidies.

Also, the reservoirs in the hydro systems are already unusually low. so next year may be worse. I don't think any Norwegian government will survive that.

In other words, Denmark should expect that at some point soon, Norway will shut down exports until the situation has normalized.

>> Denmark imports 17% of their consumption

> Denmark officially targets 84% electricity wind by 2035.

What happens to Danmark's electricity market if they are no longer able to import power from Norway and Sweden?

> This is mainly a financial matter. A 'cooperation' achieved thru a market lets some buy production surpluses on the spot market at a bargain, store them then sell with a profit wipes out such outrage.

You would be right if Norway were able to coordinate that internally in ways that did not hurt the population. But in Norway, since electricity is used for heating (and it is cold here). That would have to mean a setup where households were able to buy electricity at prices close to the historical prices, in other words, it would require us to do the very thing that stops a market from working. We could still sell excess production (after reservoir levels return to "safe), and could also offer foreign energy companies to "rent" available storage in our hydro systems.

But being a full member of the open energy market simply doesn't work for Norway at these price levels. It's kind of being members of an open market for food when your population is starving, even if you're a net exporter. (I'm sure Denmark would strangle food exports, if the price became so high that danes could no longer afford to eat.)

> Yes, a very low LCOE offers financial provisions for the infrastructure (grid, storage...). Renewable sources' LCOE is low and falls sharply. Nuclear-produced electricity cost, on the other hand, is way higher and raises. Surprises (real building costs, waste management, decommission, accident...) may further extend the gap.

The prices of nuclear is caused by political choices. With rational (or only
sightly paranoid) regulations, nuclear would be a lot cheaper.

> The current (awful) nuclear-building capacity needs a miracle to adjust.

You may be right. Still, there are a lot more pro-nuclear people now, than when I advocated for nuclear 15 years ago.

> A continental mix reduces this need.

Not below "several days". Also, long distance energy transfers are expensive, and require massive investments in infrastructure. Not only that, it depends on a lot of countries participating. Maybe Greece has other ideas?

> The last Korean president was against nuclear and practically froze it in Korea.

The newly elected president is pro-nuclear, though. I'm aware of some shady dealings with earlier plants, but I didn't see any good argument that it shifted the cost enought to really matter for the long term electricity price.

> Nuclear isn't emission free (building, obtaining the fuel, waste management, decommission... aren't emission-free).

True, but the same goes for all other energy sources, and Nuclear seem to have lower emissions than all "renewable" sources, as far as I can tell from your link.

> In any case who will build them?

I said ideal, meaning that should be the goal. Every movement toward that goal would be positive. 30% is much better than going to 15%.

However, if there really is will to do it, it absolutely can be done. Unless there is some extreme event (such as a Russian nuke landing in Poland), Europe is unlikely to act with such resolve, though.

> We more and more know how to build 'renewables'

Yes, but like with nuclear, there is a lot of fudging the number even when not accounting for storage needs.

And for the storage part, all we have is some kind of hope that it will become cheap enough in the future.

And without enough storage, Northern Europe is almost at "Peak Renewable" already (and Southern Europe doesn't seem very interested). For every new windmill we build from now on (without storage), we are going to add to price fluctuations, meaning that the sales price for wind (before subsidies) will be reduced for each mill.

Being about 30 times lower than natural gas (without carbon capture) is only a rounding error away from zero, imo.