this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
487 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

72360 readers
3058 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 14 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Funny enough lots of people hate that. Lots of people have binary thinking, it's either 100% coal or 100% solar.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NotJohnSmith@feddit.uk 1 points 7 hours ago

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