The pricing analysis assumes that costs for renewables scale linearly as they approach 100% of grid capacity, but they do not. Other comments in this thread speak to this phenomenon well. Without viable energy storage, operating in parallel with something like load-following nuclear is necessary for wind and solar to remain as cheap as currently quoted. If viable scale energy storage is invented, it will not be free.
It doesn't matter. Both HVDC and batteries are cheaper than nuclear, by a lot.
The cost of solar, *including storage* is $40/MWh in Arizona *today*. Running that $40/MWh power to NY over HVDC is cheaper than a nuclear power plant. And according to the author, generating and storing the power in New York via solar or wind would be even cheaper.
This essay's math literally relies on linear continuation of current price trends for over a decade with no justification of the linear assumption in order to reach this conclusion.
