It is a legitimate risk of your proposal.

Did you reply to the correct comment? I didn't propose anything.

Nuclear power plants also have a low probability catastrophic failure mode. If it was a risk we’d engineer to mitigate it.

The referenced plan was to explicitly not do so. And ‘happens every decade or so in the US’ is a lot more frequent than meltdowns, and not very far down the tail as far as such things go.

Where is the accusation exactly?

I was pointing out the real risks involved, and asking them if they were ok with them. Statistically, such a plan would result in that outcome pretty quickly.

Personally I just assumed they had no idea, not that they didn’t care.

Roughly 0% of experts behind more renewables and storage agree with you. But maybe you don't realize that, given that you'd drive them away with this style of argument.

Really, 100% of experts think we need only a few hours of storage and reserve if we connect all the grids?

Cites appreciated! I currently see zero.

No, no one said that but you.

It was literally the comment I originally replied to.

You replied to

> I heard recently of a study that found 2-4 hours is sufficient along with an interconnected grid.

That, literally, is not the same as:

> Really, 100% of experts think we need only a few hours of storage and reserve if we connect all the grids?

Again, you're not going to have a good conversation if you keep on doing this.

I take it I hurt your feelings?

Tell me where those two statements you quoted are materially different (keeping in mind I was including the 0% of experts reply later), if you’d like to continue. Or don’t.

I don't see the difference either*. I would also appreciate you elaborating.

* The parts describing the grid look the same to me, and the percent of experts came from you, when you said 0% of experts agreed with their skepticism.