Absolutely true. What each country needs is an engineered plan, not a mish mash of politically driven subsidies that encourage rent-seekers to develop the most cost efficient solution for themselves.
When this is done you end up with papers like the (pro renewable) Royal Society's one for the UK, which suggests that a true net zero non nuclear grid will need MONTHS of storage to get around rare but crippling dunkelflaute events.
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources ... y-storage/
Similar analysis for other grids suggests that several weeks of storage may be sufficient if you can import energy at scale, but I haven't seen any others based on 37 years of weather data.
My own modelling based on (only) 2 years of actual data from UK wind and solar farms suggest that the most cost effective solution before subsidies is a mix of solar and onshore wind and several days of storage, with no offshore wind at all. That's got big NIMBY issues (which to a large extent I agree with). That of course will fall over at least one in 37 years.
If you allow a gas peaker to operate 10% of the time the system gets much smaller and cheaper (50% from memory).
A grid that is wind+solar+storage , basically what Australia is proposing, will struggle to provide baseload power at night, and will have mad excesses during the day, sometimes.
