Some key insights from the article:
Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.
Funny enough lots of people hate that. Lots of people have binary thinking, it’s either 100% coal or 100% solar.
No, but I don’t think you’re appreciating how difficult it would be to fill that 3%. It’s not just about having 3% more power from something. It’s having it at the right time. It needs to be on demand. Having something on demand that has to cover all it’s costs selling just 3% isn’t easy.
It’s more resilient to have mixed supply where multiple types of generation take a proportion. Then when one falls short another can scale up a little.
I understand, but other people lose their shit at not having that 3% and basically equate it to being 100% coal. I basically hear:“We’re still burning coal, so it was a complete and total failure! B b both sides same.”
Yeah, they do, and they pretend to be wise adults while doing it. Like they’re the only ones who thought of this.
EVs, too. No, we don’t have to wait until they can all do 1000 miles and charge in 5 minutes. 350 miles and 20 minute 10-80% charge is fine for the vast majority of the market.
Urgh, the ones that say “well my ice car can do 700 miles on a tank so until EV can do that I’m not doing it” annoy the hell out of me.
I know damn well they’re never driven that far without stopping at least once