Technology

72592 readers

6508 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

582

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

submitted 5 days ago by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 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.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] rollerbang@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Not where I live. By far. Not to mention that it doesn't even cover winter months at all. Battery or no battery it doesn't cover even the usage most of the time when the sun is out, let alone charge the battery.

Edit: care to explain the downvote?

load more comments