Technology

72360 readers

2817 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
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.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

366

Solar + Battery (covering 97% of demand) is now cheaper than coal and nuclear (ember-energy.org)

submitted 15 hours ago by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/technology@lemmy.world

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 24 points 11 hours ago (11 children)

97% sounds impressive, but thats equivalent to almost an hour of blackout every day. Developed societies demand +99.99% availability from their grids.

[–] queueBenSis@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

i’m sure you can squeeze out a measly 3% from wind and hydro, no?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 37 minutes ago

using old/existing FFs 3% of the time instead of 100% is a 97% emission reduction.

load more comments (9 replies)