A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

Yes most of the time, but not always: for instance during peak heat in summer most p.v. still produce more than the actual owner consumption while EDF have issues producing enough electricity since almost anyone have A/C full power and many NPP are offline due mostly to the decade old lack of investments/minimal maintenance of them for private profits. The same private profit that now get 10 billion € to sell the last private slice of EDF to the State, who will made the needed investments and probably give EDF back to the private sector once done and that's not enough they want to sue the State for lack of profits due to the maximum price roof (bouclier tarifaire) imposed till this year end...

TURPE fees is not expensive, true, and also EDF have issues keeping the frequency of the national grid with many p.v. systems on-line, true again, BUT the justification that EDF (energy production) and ERDF (energy distribution) are now two different companies and so while you gift the former you have to pay the latter is hard to digest... As a results many prefer zero injection even if means consuming a bit more from the grid.

Beside that consider a thing: the State made anything at start, NPPs, electricity grid, TLCs etc then sold them to the private sector at a very cheap price "to made quick evolution and lower prices", none of witch happen, instead happen the exact opposite. The private sector invest FAR LESS than the public and leave a mess as a result, than when things became really bad the State came back to sort out the mess at Citizens expense. What you call it?

Personally since the State now act with the famous "revolving doors" with the private sector I call it high treason for the public officers part, embezzlement and crimes against the State for the private part. To be a bit back on topic: I have invested in p.v. to guarantee my energy supply in case of blackouts, just for that because so far the investment is not really profitable, it would be without lithium storage but in that case I'll get no backup and the relevant profit is far little to justify the investment. Those who made profits are those who sell p.v. systems and all the energy giants, both "green" and "fossil". Me as a citizen get less wealthy to protect my comfort, less wealthy citizens can't protect themselves and to "compensate" those who can, also get far higher prices to be even more pushed to poverty, because that's the 2030/WEF target [1] is this fair? Is this "free market" since the enormous difference between the giant and the others?

Take just an example: in France few municipalities kept the water public, most go private. Mine is one of those who have remained public: I pay water a bit less than 1€/m³, the nearby municipality is with Veolia, get the water from the very same source of mine but people pay ~12€/m³. They also have leaks and service continuity issues we have not. Does suffice as example? Beside that since EDF is now 100% public it's target must be offering a service, not making profit, so why IF the target of the Green Deal is a Green Deal really for environmental reasons why not actively subsidize p.v.? And even more: https://www.economie.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services... if the government itself publicly state that France can't now and can't in the foreseeable future going really on renewables what we are talking about? Some, interested or sponsored by interest parties, say that we are just an inch behind the ability to going fully on renewables while public bodies (and personal experiences) state the exact contrary... In the meantime energy prices artificially skyrocket to maximize some westerners speculators, those who have invested in the green deal barely get the investment paid back but are anyway far less wealthy and those who have not suffer from prize rise just more. I see ALL the ingredient of a SCAM and nothing about the technical feasibility of a new deal green in the environmental sense, instead I see one in the dollar main color sense and in the stereotypical chemio-radioactive waste spilling out of rusty barrels...

Try going further:

- new buildings needed to consume less enough to being able to heat and cool on heat-pumps only => private costs for the owners, profits just for those who sell heat pumps and ENR stuff, the break even of such new constructions surpass their operational life anyway;

- BEVs needed, integrated to homes electricity (a thing that's still not there, at least without any proper standard and again seems not that around the corner) who cost around the double of equivalent ICEs vehicles and again profits only for their OEMs;

- massive renewable installations who made the grid unstable to push people further investing in renewable, similarly with artificially skyrocketed energy prices => again profits only for the giants.

Non-giants just get breadcrumbs, in little compensation for their investments and continuity of services, who happen to be evidently artificial. Oh and of course, the pollution issue not resolved at all, just hidden since with the new deal polluting productions happen in exotic places so people do not see it, but globally is not different than pure fossil. Meanwhile just seeing https://app.electricitymap.org/map nuclear seems to be the only really green (to a certain extent) electricity source we have with the bonus of being perfectly stable. Yes I make it sound unfair. Because it is in general. And I was even very polite in using the term "unfair"...

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s...

The most advanced modeling I know of is coming from Christopher Clack, whose latest models show that deploying lots of storage at the grid edge now will pave the way for much cheaper energy in the future. I thought this was more recent but it's 16 months old now:

https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-146-why-local-sol...

Even if there are grid upgrades, getting a higher utilization factor, or more precisely, knocking off the highest peaks of demand, has huge cost savings on the grid size.

So as we shift spending away from fossil fuel, that money will be going to utilities which will allow them to do the grid upgrades.

Unfortunately utilities make the best profits on grid upgrades, so unless there are really good utility commissions, utilities will not be looking to decrease their grid investments or make grid utilization better, the are literally incentivized to make transmission and distribution costs as high as possible.

If you live in California and have PG&E check out how many times more they charge you to deliver a kWh than to generate it, and you'll be fairly shocked and annoyed at CPUC for having done such a terrible job of reigning in PG&E's management.

Everybody leaves out Iowa when mentioning wind energy! Iowa and Oklahoma are both larger into wind that California.

https://windexchange.energy.gov/files/slideshows/wind-energy...

So you're saying Russia made sunshine more expensive?

Or did we secretly build nothing but gas power plants because renewable are so intermittent nothing else can be turned on and off fast enough, leading to rising electricity prices world wide even before the latest shock?

Curious to know the relative costs of HVAC vs battery per megawatt/hour offset from peak solar production.

4000 KMs east to west is about 2.4 hours offset geographically. Would it be cheaper to have 2.4 hours of storage closer to the east coast of Australia, with solar farms close to the consumption? Or would building a 4000km HVAC transmission line from the west coast of Australia to the east coast be cheaper? I'd imagine there would be a tipping point where one option is more economical than the other.

Personally, I'd like to see WA's electricity network connected through to SA, and connect SA's through to NSW, but I also like the idea of many independent microgrids for the resilancy they'd offer.