100% renewable capacity is where Denmark sits right now, so it can be used as an small example. In good conditions they can operate exclusively on wind.
It actually a bit above 100% to the point where the price can go into negative during optimal conditions. This has put a damper on the enthusiasm for further expanding beyond 100%.
By my estimates, with land wind parks operating on an average ~30% capacity per year and ocean wind parks at around 60%, the average during a year is about half the energy grid generated from renewable and the rest from fossil fuels.
my pet peeve with people mentioning Denmark as the poster child of renewable energy is that has one absolutely enormous advantage - access to two large and stable electric grids to account for the variations and uncertainty of renewable energy.
The continental European grid is massive and Denmark has power lines to Germany, Sweden and Norway. The Nordic grid has massive amounts of hydro power.
Not every country has such access to allow them to go all-in on renewable energy.
The real poster-child for large-scale renewable integration is the UK.
Most importantly it can utilize 82 terawatt-hours of pumped hydroelectric energy storage in Norway. So energy storage is much cheaper than for most areas in the world.
It actually a bit above 100% to the point where the price can go into negative during optimal conditions. This has put a damper on the enthusiasm for further expanding beyond 100%.
By my estimates, with land wind parks operating on an average ~30% capacity per year and ocean wind parks at around 60%, the average during a year is about half the energy grid generated from renewable and the rest from fossil fuels.
Going beyond that is going to be hard.