https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/french-po...
Seven countries are expected to end the use of coal by 2025: Portugal (2021), France (2022), Slovakia (2023), the UK (2024), Ireland (2025) and Italy (2025) (per Europe Beyond Coal)
Politics and entrenched interests will have no choice but to accept market forces. The sun dumps enough power on the Earth in an hour to power all of humanity for a year, and it's mostly free for the taking.
[1] http://ddnews.gov.in/business/pm-modi-dedicate-nation-750-mw...
[2] https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/07/new-report-fin...
[3] https://english.elpais.com/economy_and_business/2020-06-29/s...
[4] https://electrek.co/2020/07/14/worlds-longest-subsea-power-c...
[5] https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2019/10/26/australias-...
That number doesn't say much, since the actual output will be a small percentage of that (15-20%).
That struck me as odd, because Denmark is flat as a pancake - it's basically an overgrown sandbank laid down by Norway's fjords. But the article explains that the cable will carry power from Norwegian hydro plants, which for some reason comes via Denmark. There is a direct cable from Norway to the UK, but i suppose this adds some redundancy, which is good. And, as the article notes, allows the UK to export surplus power (from wind?) to Denmark.
On Denmark being flat, here is its highest point - note that in the photo, the highest point isn't visible, because it's behind a barn:
Correct. Quite a bit of offshore wind potential Great Britain.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2020/06/12/great-britai...
[1] https://openinframap.org/#4.88/56.67/8.34/L,P
By going via Denmark the distance under water is shorter. Also continental Europe, mainly Germany and Benelux slurped the power first, so the infrastructures have already been there. Why not use them as much as possible, i guess? Although recently some direct point-to-point has been built.
Here's a retrospective, ie an attempt at looking at how things have actually played out compared to projections we're often fed, https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/downloads/retrospective-be... (Chapter 5 of pdf is what looks into your question)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source also aggregates information to try answer your question
You can NOT replace nuclear with wind and solar. Because you can't choose when the sun shines and when the wind blows.
Hydro in France is already built-up everywhere it was feasible. There are no more spots to build meaningful hydro power capacity. Too bad since hydro is the only renewable that can really replace the nuclear power plants.
This is a terrible argument. There is always some place on the grid where the wind is blowing and (during the day) the sun is shining.
https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/baseload-ene...
I recommend 2030.
That's what grid energy storage is for. Traditionally this is often implemented with hydro (sometimes even by pumping water up to a high-altitude reservoir during periods of excess power generation). There are many more exotic methods as well - e.g. the crane that stacks concrete blocks, or the train with concrete that goes up and down the hill.
More recently, grid-scale batteries are being installed at increasing scale (e.g. Tesla's Megapack), and the cost efficiency of that solution seems to be improving rapidly.
In a nutshell, either there's wind everywhere, or not.