Norway is already 100% renewable because it has lots of hydropower. Germany on the other hand, would suffer from an extremely unreliable grid even with 50% overproduction and 12 hours of storage. The further a region is from the equator, the more variability in the production of wind and solar. This study models how reliable grids would be with wind, solar, and storage: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z

The issue is that electrical grids have very high reliability requirements (upwards of 99.95%). Plenty of models claiming that small amounts of storage required neglect to mention how frequently they will encounter insufficient generation. Remember, even fulfilling demand 99% of the time is a 20x increase in blackouts.

Also, even just 12 hours of storage globally would be 30,000 GWh of storage. That's still about 50 times the amount of batteries produced annually. The reality is that hydropower is the only feasible form of grid storage.

More applicable than FUD.

I am, as I said, still waiting for models which demonstrate that it is wildly different...

I actually worked on such a model professionally (as in "being paid for it") in 2006, for Germany.

Here's a good overview article: https://energytransition.org/2017/07/germanys-worse-case-sce...

> Germany will always need dispatchability roughly at the level of its annual peak demand

The solution they're proposing is power-to-gas. Which so far has been way too expensive to matter.

P2G isn't actually horrendously expensive compared to nuclear power, it's just horrendously expensive to regular old natural gas.

Power to gas for the "worst case scenarios" would also be the last thing you'd do to transition a grid from 97% carbon free to 100% carbon free.