The storage costs are the issue.

The grid cannot realistically be more than about 20-30% solar PV without matching storage.

Storage is expensive, like 20-30 cents/kWh expensive.

It's just not competitive with natural gas which is available for ~6 cents/kWh.

Storage is not 20-30 cents/kWh. Storage alone, provided by Solar City in Hawaii, is 14.5 cents/kWh as of this year [1]. These costs will only continue to decline [2].

The price of natural gas will increase again [3] (and currently, its closer to 7-10 cents/kWh, not 6); when that does, it only makes renewables more competitive. Renewables will never get more expensive than they are today; coal will be gone in the next 3-5 years, and natural gas not far behind.

[1] http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/19/solarcity-deploy-tesla-e...

[2] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/26/ev-battery-costs-already...

[3] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm

That's certainly an improvement from 20-30 cents/kWh.

However for solar PV with storage to replace natural gas their combined cost is going to need to be less than 6 cents/kWh.

The combined cost of solar PV and storage is currently 20-50 cents/kWh.

Do you really see a 10x performance/cost improvement right around the corner?

> Do you really see a 10x performance/cost improvement right around the corner?

I see batteries under $100/kWh in <5 years.

There's a big gap between potential and making it work risht now. How much would that cost?

A nuclear plant costs ~$9 billion (before cost overruns) per generating unit, and ~10 years to build. Whether that's less or more than solar isn't the point; there isn't time, and no one will finance one.

Utility scale solar is ~$1/kw, and can be operational in a fraction of the time. Importantly, costs continue to decline.

Planned utility scale generation coming online in the next year: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.... (note its almost exclusively solar and wind)

Battery storage costs are falling as fast, if not faster, than renewables did:

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_re...

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-...

There is no other option other than wind and solar, full speed ahead.

The calculations regarding the relative feasibility of energy sources include the decline in expense. Assuming molten salt energy storage progresses, storage costs decline steeply. Even including these (very optimistic) projected price declines, solar and wind energy are not enough.

Hence why the very same leading climate scientists who first alerted the world of global warming wrote a detailed public statement pleading for use of nuclear power, and stating that renewables are insufficient to stop climate change.

To believe that all four of them, PhDs hailing from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country with decades of experience, failed to include projected price declines is simply incorrect.

Well, the drop in price of solar has been pretty unprecedented. I'm not quite sure what happened, but it's been a pretty sharp drop, which isn't really seen in other energy sources. Like a 90% cut in prices in the past 20-odd years.

http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/06/disruptive... (This is log scale)

> there isn't time

There's even less time when you're taking existing power capacity offline.

And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage.

Build. more. renewables. faster.

> And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage.

And I'm sure that's exactly what the regulators and the politicians controlling the regulators want to hear. Smart business sense, given the political climate in a state that sees its insurance commissioner trying to strongarm insurance companies doing business in the state into not owning anything related to coal.

Which means they could have put out twice the clean energy in ten years time if they didn't have to shut down the nuclear plant.