Yes agree. A lock step step together ist ideal solution for most countries. A few with the right topography like Austria and Swizzerland can also settle on hydrodynamic power. E.g. Austria is in the lucky position to produce almost 80% electricity from 100 year old artificial lakes. Nowadays those lakes would have no chance anymore because of environmental protection reasons.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/90ee3ff51540589312d1d840757eed1d4e3faf2b2e89f8b2b766b4e5df99d2e6.jpg
Trying to ‘store’ excess wind and solar, by enhancing the cables between small european countries, is also a bad idea… When the wind dies down, it often is over a larger area than several countries.

Could you please explain what you mean by solar and wind being “extremely volatile?” Did you actually mean variable and unreliable for continuous feed to energy grids?

Germany’s abandonment of nuclear power in light of Fukushima was a political and not an intellectual decision. The fear of a nuclear accident similar to the one that struck Japan at existing German nuclear power plants is infinitely small.

As for energy storage, the capacity build up has yet to match the build out of renewable capacity. That is the single biggest mistake in the strategy to date. The two need to be in lock step together for renewable energy to become the reliable continuous grid delivery system that matches coal and natural gas thermal plants.