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.

  • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Absolutely can’t wait for new battery tech for grid storage too! Sand batteries that can use otherwise-unusable sand, sodium-Ion batteries (or mainly inverters that can handle the expanded voltage range compared to Lithium-based), expansion of pumped water batteries where it works. This is about to be THE time for government-funded alternative batteries across the world. Energy would get so plentiful that it wouldn’t even be profitable for fossil fuels anymore. That is the dream. Of course there is a 99% chance that every single government in the world drops the ball completely.

  • Redex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I don’t get the third graph, isn’t it saying that we’d need less battery capacity to flatten out the energy usage in Birmingham than in sunnier cities, how does that make sense?