>>520289561
>also, there's a cost to fossil fuel infrastructure as well, that infrastructure didn't grow on trees
Solar costs about 1 million per MW capacity, with a 9-10% output relative to installed capacity.
So building a 650MW solar powerplant will require the installation of 6840MW capacity (plus batteries and storage, but let's assume it is free) giving us a total of about $7 billion.

A standard coal plant costs <3200 per MW (stable output) for a total of 2.1 million.
LNG burning plants cost about the same.

Yeah, that infrastructure aint free, but when you compare it to renewables it sort of is.

Let's say you can use it 20 years, this gives a capital cost (without interest, land and other stuff) of 5.23 cents per KWh.
Competitive in October.
If we assume it is financed at 4% interest, we suddenly go to 7.6 cents per KWh, not even competitive in October without gibs.
Now assume you need to replace 10% of the panels during the 20 years, cost is now over 8.3 cents per KWh.

On top of this we should add operating costs and energy storage.

Sure, we might eventually get to a point where it is profitable.
But we are not there and it's still far to go.

You are right that fossil fuel costs shouldn't be ignored.
But for the moment, and quite a bit into the future, it's cheaper to match the green capacity with LNG plants to have as grid balancing than investing in batteries.

IMO the best solution is kinetic storage in artificial dams but that's a different topic and not suitable everywhere.