You moved the goalposts pretty substantially there. Your original statement was "You will not be able to ever run 100% renewable with today's technology" When this was proven false, you've narrowed the field to the US, as though the US is the only country that has this problem, and your only point appears to be that the US is bigger than some other places, and that parts of the US don't have much renewable generation yet.

Some forms of renewable energy provide spinning inertia themselves, and as I've pointed out above, spinning inertia can be provided from storage rather than generation. The technology already exists and is in use elsewhere.

>You understand Costa Rica is the size of West Virginia and has more opportunities to use thermal power and wind power than the majority of the world?

Scotland. 97% powered by renewable sources in 2020. Similar time period to Costa Rica for number of days powered 100% by renewables.

>The grid needs spinning inertia to be stable. You will not be able to ever run 100% renewable with today's technology.

That's what you wrote. I'm pointing out that there is "spinning inertia" even with renewables, and it is possible to supply power with 100% renewables, contrary to your claim.

> My only point was that right now in the United States we can't go 100% renewable.

Then why didn't you write that, instead of what you actually wrote?

>There isn't enough renewable spinning inertia to do it

All renewable sources except PV have "spinning inertia". And it has been proven to be possible to supply 100% of power via renewable sources.