The only answer is nuclear power. Thorium based molten salt reactors.
To think we can store power in batteries on the scale that is needed is ridiculous.
The trouble is the left doesn’t want to solve problems, but rather to use them as controllers.
Problems as power tools, as it were.
I agree with the first statement, but not the second. It is another theortical technology invented to solve a problem that doesn't exist - the international shortage of Uranium that existed in 1947. Turns out U238 is plentiful.
It is not ridiculous and as a physicist I learned long ago not to make predictions about technologies. However, there is no demonstrated path to energy storage on that scale and one thing I have learned is not to rely on theoretical "technologies." Of course if it isn't demonstrated it isn't actually a technology. But, at this point there is no practical economic power storage system, and there is a theoretical limit based upon physical chemistry/physics, engineering, chemical engineering and economics as to what can be done. There exists no demonstrated laboratory technology that is ready for scale-up to these scales.
I do know a concept that is ridiculous - mining of asteroids for bulk raw materials. The energy costs of getting something to the asteroid so that you can get mined material back, and reenter the atmosphere without burning up or destroying our civilization are unachievable. That is a back of the envelope calculation based upon Newton's laws.
“Problems as power tools, as it were.”
“Power tools” require higher order thinking to be able to use them correctly. I think this is as basic as the old saw about “when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” In this case, they are trying to use the most esoteric, elegant, and expensive solution(s) possible with either solar or wind yet have failed to think about the whole system.