The comment you are replying to was not "trolling"; it raised a legitimate, technical objection to a policy in a manner that invites constructive responses (for example, "with storage technology" is a common response I see).

It is trolling because the answer -- storage -- is well known to anybody who cares enough to do the most shallow of research. So, everyone left is a troll.

Then it'd be good to mention what this storage mechanism is, and examples of existing commercial deployments said storage mechanism and their cost history. It's odd to see someone insist that the solution is so obvious that anyone who doesn't recognize it is trolling, yet they neglect to mention what that solution is.

Storage is a common answer, but it has problems of its own. Presumably the OP considers these problems fatal; if you disagree, say so and explain why.

OP could explain why they imagine fatal problems. Would, if they were not just trolling.

Intermittency is one of the most difficult parts of building a majority renewable grid. Dismissing the biggest challenge in building a renewable grid as trolling is not a good look.

Intermittency is not, in fact, a "serious problem", because simple technical measures mitigate it.

Only trolls insist it is "difficult", to suit their agenda.

All this has been explained to you numerous times. Your trolling is no more welcome this time than any dozen previous times.

> because simple technical measures mitigate it.

And what simple technical measure mitigates it in a cost effective manner? Hydroelectricity is one, but it's geographically dependent. Sweden already has about 30% of it's electricity coming from dams, but it still needs to built more nuclear plants to fulfill it's demand. And most countries have even less hydroelectric generation than Sweden.

Besides hydroelectricity, there's batteries which are not able to be built at scale. Then there's experimental solutions like compressed air, chemical storage, or giant flywheels. But none of those have been deployed commercially and thus there's no real-world cost history.

Proclaiming that the solution is simple, yet neglecting to actually specify it is not an effective way to make the case for storage. If you want to make the case for a plan to provision storage, make it and we can discuss that. But apparently, the solution is apparently so simple it defies explanation. How convenient!

Well in that case: we don't need fission, renewables, or storage. I know of a fusion breakthrough that will make electricity to cheap to meter! And it's so obvious I don't need to explain how it works, and anyone who doubts me is a troll.

You may troll, and, troll, and troll again.

But all know you are lying, this time same as last.