585
Solar + Battery (covering 97% of demand) is now cheaper than coal and nuclear (ember-energy.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
101 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
[–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

it's a trade-off. the average generation curve depends on the inclination; each has its pros and cons

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Also if one chose to have some tree for natural shading it kind of forbids to have verticals. Shade was more appropriate in our case so there’s a very limited direct sun exposure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent