I can predict you, that the wind on the sea is way stronger and stable, than on land, so your base assumption might be wrong.
(Offshore windparks are still not the solution of course.)
You are maybe not aware, that for stationary batteries, there are way more options than lithium based. Natrium for example, is quite common, so you can make literal saltwater batteries.
We can wait for some scientific advances, but it is whishful thinking to hope that in a few decades they will invent the ultimate solution.
Hydroelectric plants are the only large-scale storage, but they are highly dependent on the geology of the country.
They are not a solution to seasonal storage.
For me it is useless to go on all these big trips, the solution is very simple: mix of nuclear for base load, and renewable for peak.
Pumped hydro is not, in fact, "highly dependent on the geology of the country". It needs a hill. Hills are very common.
A "solution to seasonal storage" is not, in fact, needed or useful. NG backup works and will continue working into the indefinite future.
Good day.
No one will deploy seasonal storage, so the point is moot. NG backup works today, and will continue working into the indefinite future.
Chemical batteries are the most expensive of many storage alternatives, with advantages for very short-term use. Lithium is a poor choice for utility requirements, so its supply is irrelevant.
There is no place for nukes, which cost radically more than all other alternatives, most especially for only intermittent use.
90% EAF for nuclear is a complete fiction, even in the US it only looks that way because the nameplate value isn't increased when expensive upgrades are made so you're averaging 120% output for 75% of the year with 30% or 0% in the rest. Before Fukushima, Japan's program was around 65%.
Cost for cost, a mixed renewable system will produce at least as much as a nuclear plant for at least as large a portion of the year.
Nuclear can be a good choice and probably is in this instance, but the only ideology here is the same set of slimy lies that the fake pro-nuclear crowd always uses to attack renewables.
How much does some renewable energy cost me at night when there is no wind, +infinity?
Just look at the average capacity factor of renewables, on average it is as if 60-70% of the time they produce nothing during the course of a year.
In contrast, a nuclear plant can easily reach 90+% capacity factor, which makes it very reliable as a power source.
I am not saying that renewables suck, but to say that they cost little and are the solution to all problems is simply false. Some countries may go 100% renewable, but to claim that everyone must adopt renewables is ideological propaganda.
P.S. It is useless to talk about batteries and storage systems, which do not exist on a large scale, except through dams, whose existence is highly dependent on the geology of the country. (By the way, these would be projects that would greatly increase the price of renewable energy, but they are always omitted for idology)