[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Blue Bomber Man

I will look up some sources tomorrow. But for now consider this, Denmark has 20% from wind, read: one source

But Denmark is one small part of Europe. If their wind turbines aren't making enough electricity, they can import some from German coal plants, French nuclear, or Swiss hydro.

The concept I am talking about integrates many different sources. Additionally they cover a much larger area with varying climates and weather patterns.

Only if you keep on with the wishful thinking. You have basically two sources, solar and wind. Climates and weather patterns are interrelated, and it regularly happens that conditions are such that you'll have very little generation over the whole area covered by your grid.

You are so adament that wind and solar are not practical, but the reality is coal and other fossil fuels are the energy sources not practical; they are just artificially cheap because we do not buy the energy at the actually price we pay.

Now who's been saying that? They're perfectly practical, and a good thing, as long as they are not more than say 10-30% of the total grid generation, and you have reserves to cover the times when they aren't producing. Again, you keep on assuming linearity: that because they can provide say 10% of the total generation at a cost of $X, then providing all of the generation would only mean building 10 times as much, and only cost $10X. It just doesn't work that way.