>>16779778
shit man, go on and live your miserable life I am convinced there is something genuinly wrong with you.
For everyone else who doesn't want to scroll up here is the best explanation of how it works:
Wind and solar are intermittent, so we only get power when its windy and sunny. Usually, these periods of no power are less than 24 hours or localized so they can be carried by importing power from another location and batteries. However area-wide wind and solar droughts of several days can happen. It is not considered acceptable to be unable to meet demand for these periods. Usually, utilities rely on gas turbines for these periods.
Fundamentally all wind and solar is a function of penetration, as the market share of intermittent renewables approaches 100%, you require increasingly large amounts of batteries and transmission for a shrinking fraction of the time severely hurting the economics. A 60% wind and solar grid will have far more in common with a 30% wind and solar grid than a 90% wind and solar grid. (assuming the climate is good)
Gas turbines sidestep this entirely, so in the real world there is always an optimum where however much we value not burning gas does not exceed the cost of removing the remaining gas, along with a small cost penalty for needing to pay for a fleet of peakers (not too bad honestly but measurable).
In some areas with poor climates for wind and solar, all combinations come out ahead of the cost of a nuclear fleet, so nuclear essentially caps the cost of decarbonizing because wind and solar can USUALLY do better, but if they can't nuclear will work anywhere.
This can be found out with simple computer models and is generally how real-world utilities interesting in minimizing fossil fuel use are planning.
