The problem with this 90% solution is that the more renewables are added, the more natural gas capacity is required to cover the capacity. Good problem for the natural gas industry.
Going clean with nuclear isn’t cheap right now, and it shouldn’t be. It wasn’t at the start of renewables when solar was expensive.
There already is a massive amount of natural gas generating capacity. But if this capacity is used one tenth as much as it is currently used it will only use one tenth as much natural gas and will last much longer.
> The problem with this 90% solution is that the more renewables are added, the more natural gas capacity is required to cover the capacity.
That can be the case only if the demand also increases. If the demand stays the same, adding more wind and solar can only decrease how much the natural gas power plants are used, and the required capacity (that is, how much they can produce at full power) either stays the same or decreases (if the newly added wind and solar are non-correlated enough to reduce the chance of all of them "going dark" at the same time).
or if existing plants shut down, for example coal and nuclear plants
they are in fact shutting down in many cases because they can't compete with renewables, and the result is that more grid-scale storage or peaker capacity (or demand response!) is needed
but this is a good kind of problem to have, if you replace 900 megawatts (produced) of coal with 400 megawatts (produced, not nameplate) of solar and 500 megawatts of gas, you've still cut carbon emissions by two thirds, and lowered electricity prices at the same time
Going clean with nuclear isn’t cheap right now, and it shouldn’t be. It wasn’t at the start of renewables when solar was expensive.
Cheap, reliable, clean; pick two.