Correct me if I’m wrong, b it we can maybe, just about, for a lot of money, store electricity for a couple of hours. Maybe days with hydro. Multiple months seems like an impossibility.

The link you provided seems to just mention plans and studies, not building subsea electricity cables. Also says

> The project failed twice due to the problem of transportation and cost-inefficiency.

Like I said, it would be a huge investment. But without huge investments, we will not get rid of the dependency of oil or dictators either way. The question is what kind of investment. And the studies of desertec implied that it is technical possible. Since then solar dropped in price a lot and oil the other way up.

And if you have a european wide grid (high voltage, direct current) you would not need to store for months, because the sun is still shining in the south and wind is blowing somewhere. You only would need to store for the rare situations of little wind and little sun.

It will be a mix either way, I am not against nuclear as base load, or backup. But they are expensive, too.

At least nuclear is more under your control geographically. If an enemy missile can hit a solar field in a North African country and cripple you, you aren't very resilient.

How about an enemy missile hit your nuclear plant?

Did you understand what I was saying?

Not sure. First I thought you did sarcasm, but it seems, you are actually serious.

Well then, when you have lots of solar and wind fields, then it doesn't matter too much, if one gets destroyed. But even those you can defend, even with your own troops, by making adequate contracts.

On the other hand, if you have to rely on nuclear - then a potentiell enemy only needs to target those and you are screwed in many ways. It would be not too hard, for a dedicated commando to blow up, or at least render useless, a nuclear reactor with enough preparation.

But when you are only thinking in military terms: the hard parts to defend with dessert power are the power cabels. But they are also an essential part of nuclear plants and you cannot defend the whole grid.

Er no, wasn't being sarcastic. My point was that importing solar power from North Africa means you're less in control in the event of a conflict.

Your point about cabling is equally valid.

Your point about nuclear less so. I'm more comparing locally generated power, where your power generation can be covered by your own defences, with remotely generated power, which can't.

" But even those you can defend, even with your own troops, by making adequate contracts."

Making a deal with the moroccean government, would include their troops defending the investment, or could be modified to include own troops.

But like I also said above, the south of europe has plenty of sun, too.

If this is priced into the cost of the solar, then fair enough, although to bring this particular risk down to what it would be if the generation were in one's own borders would I think be prohibitively expensive, or impossible.

Little wind and little sun is every calm night. It is definitely not a rare occurrence.

But nights don't last for months (except in the far north, but they have plenty of hydro).

Storage only for nights, is very managable.