> it depends on a lot of countries participating. Maybe Greece has other ideas?

Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining and selling gridpower. Even if they aren't the geographic regions where wind regimes are not well-correlated with those of rich nations (Western Europe) are huge, hosting many nations.

>> 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.

This is very difficult to say, however incidents and accidents do wildly raise costs, and shady practices raise the probability of incidents/accidents.

> Nuclear seem to have lower emissions than all "renewable" sources

This is contested as there was no solid assessment since 2014, and in the meantime recycling of renewable units progressed quite a bit, to the point of now being mandatory in more and more jurisdictions. Not to mention better load factors. On the nuclear side those are current estimated emissions, but they may sharply climb if more reactors are built as we will need more uranium => lower and lower ore grade => more emissions: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332

>> 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%.

This, indeed, is not an option for the time being. I doubt it may become one before at the very least 2040. Too little, too late. In the meantime I can't see why the renewable boom won't continue.

> if there really is will to do it, it absolutely can be done

France really wants it, and struggle in a quagmire since the mid 2000's.

> Europe is unlikely to act with such resolve, though.

Indeed: member nations have too different conceptions and hopes about energy.

>> 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.

Very probably, however not being able to build nuclear reactors at realistic delays and costs stops it in the starting block, without even considering other potential problems (potential major accident, uranium dependency, dangerous waste disposal, effective decommission costs...)

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

This is fully determined by a detailed perspective (characteristics of an adequate (continental) mix).

> Northern Europe is almost at "Peak Renewable" already

There is potential (in Germany the current challenge is grid-related: North to South), and it becomes huge while going a little bit towards the South. France offshore wind potential, for example, is gigantic and completely untapped.

> (and Southern Europe doesn't seem very interested)

As far as I understand due to a lack of financial resources. Saturation of production units in Western Europe will diverse investments.

> 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.

This is only true globally and on average. Any new turbine implanted in a geographic zone enjoying wind regimes with sufficiently low correlation to the zones were existing fleets exist will produce when the spot price is high, and therefore be a very good investment.

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

As long as it is profitable there will be investors, for example willing to play low risk (compensating low ROI), and satisfying the demand (energy consumption) usually leads it to grow.