>>13101258Source is this with the aforementioned 16-17% efficiency assumption.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf>Sure, we can cover all of California in solar panelsCalifornia is 163,696 square miles, this would be 10,000 square miles that can be disrupted across numerous states and areas that are already in use like roof tops.
You're changing your argument again, you said that batteries had poor demand response which is objectively false, not that they cost too much based on some random study that also said "the analysis indicates that wind-heavy or solar-heavy U.S.-scale power generation portfolios could in principle provide 80% of recent total annual U.S. electricity demand". 100% renewable generation is decades out, their current economic assumptions are worthless if they don't include the falling cost of batteries. You don't understand that batteries are replacing the natural gas peaker plants the come online for short periods to meet demand and are extremely expensive per kWh. If you use cheap solar produce during the day baseline power is undesirable unless it's also cheap so you may as well turn on natural gas plants.
>>13101303You mean building something costs more than using something that already exists?
>it’s better than any renewable in every wayExcept cost and if you can actually get it built which are the only two things that matter outside your fantasy land. I'm pro nuclear, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not economically viable and our support for it is worthless. You may as well go scream at the sun.
