An odd criticism about the paper being four years old. I assure you, the laws of physics both existed back then, and we had a good understanding of how electricity is generated. Solar and wind costs have reduced since then but nowhere close to bridging the gap. Feel free to provide some evidence if that’s what you’re implying. Let’s take a look at CSIRO report, because I don’t think you have.
The ERCOT LFSCOE-95 scenario assumes another generation source supplies the remaining 5% of demand. Even then, wind and solar cost $97/MWh versus $32 for gas. And in Germany, the same model gives $220/MWh for wind and solar, $90 for nuclear and $31 for gas. So even your preferred scenario doesn’t support the conclusion you’re drawing.
Dismissing a peer-reviewed paper published in Energy because it’s four years old is particularly weak when you haven’t demonstrated which assumptions are invalid or how newer data overturn its conclusions.
And here’s a May 2026 peer-reviewed ERCOT study using detailed hourly dispatch modelling. It found that a more renewables-heavy electricity mix increased average costs by 12.1% relative to the alternative:
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/19/9/2195
As for externalities, those are legitimate additional costs to quantify, not an excuse to pretend that intermittency, storage, backup capacity and grid integration are free.
Calling a quantitative study an “opinion” while offering little more than your own opinion is rather ironic.