> Yes, emissions-wise it is very good! A 'renewable'-based energetic system could do the same.

Norway has 110% renewable electricity production compared to consumption, despite having almost 100% of heating be electricity (or "biomass"=firewood) based. Fossil heating of residential housing has been banned since 2020. So you are right, in theory, 100% renewable for electricity is possible. If you have a lot of hydro.

For countries with little hydro, and especially for those who rely primarily on wind power 90+% becomes exceedingly expensive without massive investments in storage, given current pricing for storage

> Denmark already more than half of its electricity thanks to wind power, officially plans to reach 84% in 2035

Denmark's current wind power productin already relies on Sweden and Norway to store surplus production in hydro plants. As more wind power is built in most countries, and with directly lines from Norway to Germany and the UK, this storage capacity will reach its limit soon. (Also, the electricity trade is becoming extremely unpopular in Norway and Sweden, since consumers, who in those cases rely on electricity for heating, are getting tired of paying Danish prices.)

And this is for a small country for Denmark, with the perfect neighbours for this trade. Such storage is not available for the larger Europen countries, such as Germany, France, Poland, UK, Italy, Spain, etc.

> As stated above we know how to compensate for most of intermittency by spreading out (at continental scale) production units and using a mix (wind, solar...): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...

As far as I can tell, the development has been in the opposite direction. More trade has led to greater fluctuations, since many countries produce too little for their own consumption. (Denmark imports 17% of their consumption, for instance). If this continues, it is highly likely that the Norwegian (and possibly Swedish) governments is forced to withdraw from such cooperation due to public outrage. One thing is to pay $0.2 to $0.4 per kwh if your heating is done by natural gas. Another is to pay that amount when you live in an arctic or near-arctic climate and rely on electricity for everything, including the car, when you are used to historical prices of about $0.05 per kwh. (And that is with high taxes, production cost for hydro in Norway is about $0.015 per kwh)

In my opinion, the only way to reach 100% non-carbon-based power is for consumers to be able to buy it at prices no higher than about $0.1 per kwh, preferably $0.07 or so. That means that levelized costs need to be a bit lower, perhaps around $0.05 per kwh.

For renewables (apart from hydro), a lot of storage must be added (several days to over a week) to reach such levelized costs, even if there is plenty of trade. Also, transfering power from Naples to Stockholm is pretty expensive, both in transfer loss and grid capacity.

The estimates I've seen, is that this (ie acceptable prices for stable/stored renewables) will become realistic around 2050, possibly a bit sooner.

Meanwhile, levelized costs for nuclear may, for countries able to do it as efficiently as Korea and China, already be there.

https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/report-claims-uk-nu...

If there is enough focus on building affordable nuclear, Europe should be able to do the same. At such prices, Europe would be able to shift a significant percentage of its energy production over to emission-free production, without breaking the bank.

An ideal mix for the total EU area, given current technology might be something like:
50% nuclear
40% renewable
10% other (hydro, gas, hydrogen, etc)

As storage technologies gets better, nuclear can then be gradually phased out over the next 100 years or so (or be replaced by fusion if/when it arrives).

I believe such a mix would enable a stable supply, at a price that people are willing to pay use for heating/air conditioning for their houses, recharge their cars, and not just to keep the light on using LED bulbs.