cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/39964313
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.
We’re getting there!
What about winter in Sweden, for example?
Hydroelectric go brrrrrrrr
I think that’s what they use mostly.
Yes, hydroelectric is the primary source. Nuclear is still number 2, however.
I’m in Canada with solar, and I was thinking of supplementing with a wind turbine, as the snow and short days have a much less of an effect on output.
Molten calcium batteries could be fine for long term storage like that. You’ll still need a ridiculous surface area for the panels though.
they still get a bit of sun in winters. however, off shore wind parks and energy trading with neighbours should easily fill the gap