We're almost there with PV Solar price/performance.

[Kevin]

Another option would be some smaller nukes as a base load backup to buy us another 50 years of research.

While there are still waste issues with nuke, I still tend to be in favor. I was reading this today

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physic...our-times/

which made me think of the 50 years. Fusion is still a future dream, but it's nice to see progress. 50 years sounds more reasonable than 20 for it to be a reality. Of course who knows how long it would take to commercialize and make cost effective even if we get to the point where it's possible to make reactors. Then if you have it, do you bother with other renewable sources with fusion as the on demand source. I suppose if it could take the whole load and it really is 50 years away, you might be at a point where the renewable infrastructure is needing major maintenance / replacement anyway so it would be a natural transition. Wouldn't that be convenient.


Though to speak a little more directly to Jester's point. Solar and wind will at times be offline at the same time, but wind can be 24/7, and of course when solar is offline demand is usually lower. There are even times when solar isn't online where wind will be more available, such as storms. Though that requires wind generation to be more variable than it currently is. I know some turbines have to be shut off or heavily governed if the wind speeds get too high.

I don't think that wind and solar and good batteries will be enough, I do think the grid will still need other sources to feed it during different times. But I do think converting as much as possible is still the way to go.