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.
From what I can tell, without. Looks like they used the Lazard LCOE+ standard metric which doesn’t factor in government subsidies.