this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
262 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

75258 readers
3597 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
 

Neat breakdown with data + some code.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 34 minutes ago

Why limit it to an electric battery rather than some subterranean storage where the excess electricity is turned into stored heat.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago

We have a whole home generator that runs in natural gas. They’re not the quietest things. Been tossing around the idea of having batteries added so that when the power cuts we go to battery. Then when the battery gets low the generator cuts on just long enough to charge the batteries. Wash rinse repeat.

[–] FreedomAdvocate 3 points 4 hours ago

To be completely off grid you would ideally want to be able to go at least a week with minimal to no power generation. Personally that would mean I would need at least 100kWh of batteries.

I would also then want/need a petrol generator powerful enough to power everything that would usually run in a normal day, so that meant be a 15000W one which would be very expensive.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

There was an article posted somewhere on Lemmy a few months back where someone tried to do similar calculations for the US as a whole. What I took from the result was 95% renewable was achievable and still cheaper than fossil fuels. However the over provisioning of renewables and over double the storage needed to reliably achievable 100% made that infeasible with today’s proving and technology. Basically you can install storage to cover when the sun is not shining but it’s much more difficult to cover weeks of gloominess

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Solar isn't the only renewable choice, though. It's just the easiest to do on an individual level. Also, there are plenty of areas for which weeks of gloominess will never (on human timescales) be an issue.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Guessing it would be more practical to have enough solar panels to fulfill energy needs in winter.

[–] edent@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Not really. As I say in my article, our roof is full. On a bad day in winter, we might generate 0.5kWh (assuming the panels aren't covered in snow). So we'd need 20x the panels - there's no room for that.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago

Hmm, I missed the part about being maxed-out on roof space. Great article and blog by the way!

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

What a detailed and rigorous inquest into a question he admits from the outset is absurd and not applicable.

load more comments
view more: next ›