How exactly do you create power when it's dark and there's no wind?

An "international market" doesn't help with electricity: you can't transport electricity feasibly across oceans.

It helps by (geographically) spreading production units. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...

Underwater electricity links do exist, and many are planned. https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/Publicat...

I don't see any underwater links in that map that are crossing an ocean. You really think you can have an underwater link that crosses the Atlantic?

Yes, I do, albeit I fail to find why this is a prerequisite for renewables to provide most of consumed electricity. The referenced study analyzes continental-scale.

However some existing links are encouraging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed

Projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable#Proposed...

The underlying approach is not new and is rather rather quickly adopted and improved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects

Overbuilt wind + transported solar (yes you transport feasibly across oceans)

Sure, let's outsource critical infrastructure like energy generation on outside powers. It will have no geopolitical consequences whatsoever.

Like many European countries were doing with oil and gas, which had no geopolitical consequences whatsoever when Russia invaded Ukraine ... Oh wait

And that’s how everyone’s power grid ends up affected by some dispute in the Balkans.

There are more than a few countries nobody in their right mind would ever want to tie their power grid to.

Same story with other energy sources. If you don't have coal, natural gas or uranium reserves, you have to import it. You could argue the risk with renewables is higher, but given the history of oil embargoes in wars I wouldn't say it's a substantial difference, at least not to the point where it's worth destroying the planet over.

I have only argued one thing: since there are many countries barely able to manage their own power grid, if even that, and since no sensible nation will want to tie their grid to such countries’, an international energy market isn’t a solution for everyone.

That’s all. Nothing else.

> an international energy market isn’t a solution for everyone.

Revealed preferences today show that it is a solution, given countries are currently happy to be dependent on other nations for the energy source via oil and gas imports. If importing oil and gas is acceptable, then importing solar should be equally acceptable, if not even more acceptable given you can import from more reliable allies instead of authoritarian rogue states that will engage in energy blackmail.

I think you may once again be missing my point.

Your point of view seems to be that of wealthy or semi-wealthy and relatively stable nations, without massive rampant corruption. And sure, for those, it may very well work. Who am I to even have an opinion on that?

But who will accept to connect their power grid to that of those countries who are still having weekly, if not daily, blackouts?

The kind of country where corrupt officials accept being paid to get chemical waste dumped into their laps, and consider it a grand idea to dump those into their country’s power plants crude oil?

The kind of country where people just randomly plug themselves into power lines, without any consideration for safety, and regularly burn down a whole block because of it, and shut down power for an entire city in the process?

The kind of country currently facing a war, civil or otherwise, and who’s grid’s instability would affect anybody connected to them?

Nobody in their right mind would willingly expose themselves to such risks.

So sure, like you so eagerly anticipate, rich and stable countries will happily link their power grids together in some grand international energy market, and maybe it will, as you surmise, solve all their problems. I really have no opinion whatsoever on that.

But where do the others fit?

The non-rich countries would only be consumers/importers to start with. Natural gas and coal is cheaper so they'll transition later. But that's moot since all that's needed is for rich, stable democracies to build it out amongst themselves, there's enough diversity of sunlight and wind between them to get above 90% with no storage. You can even easily go above 70% in many countries with no storage and no international network, just purely domestic sources. The international network is just a cherry on top which reduces the need to overbuild by too much. But it's largely doable without. The nice thing that people forget is that wind and solar are negatively correlated, so the variability is self-cancelling within a country.