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.
w/ or w/o subsidies?
We’re getting there!
What about winter in Sweden, for example?
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.
they still get a bit of sun in winters. however, off shore wind parks and energy trading with neighbours should easily fill the gap
Hydroelectric go brrrrrrrr
I think that’s what they use mostly.
Yes, hydroelectric is the primary source. Nuclear is still number 2, however.
Molten calcium batteries could be fine for long term storage like that. You’ll still need a ridiculous surface area for the panels though.
