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.
I don't get the third graph, isn't it saying that we'd need less battery capacity to flatten out the energy usage in Birmingham than in sunnier cities, how does that make sense?
Less sun -> Less electricity produces -> Less electricity needs to be stored
Basically in Birmingham you need a lot more solar panels to have the same impact.
Ah ok that makes sense!
i honestly don't get that either :-/