Batteries for that would cost $90 billion and take up a football field 100 stories tall. Cost is certainly a reasonable argument to make. But not the "football

Batteries for that would cost $90 billion and take up a football field 100 stories tall. Cost is certainly a reasonable argument to make. But not the "football field" argument for how much area it would take. Given how small a number that is, I just can't see how that is concerning at all. And besides, nobody is going to place $90 billion of batteries into a single structure. A football field is 5351.2 square meters.[1] Instead of a single 100 story tall structure, how about 100 separate single story structures? That's 535120 square meters. Let's consider a site in the Pacific Northwest that has lots of excess land available, the Hanford Site[2] (for some reason, nobody wants to use it for shopping malls or residential subdivisions). That site is 1,518 square kilometers. You could place those 100 football fields of batteries onto 0.035% of the land area of the Hanford site. There are probably still functional high voltage transmission lines there, and if not, then building new lines to get that battery power to BPA's nearby grid wouldn't be difficult or expensive. Anyway, I'm just being silly. It doesn't make sense to put those batteries into either a single $90 billion dollar 100 story building, or onto cheap land at the Hanford site. But having 20 or even 100 separate battery sites scattered throughout the area is certainly feasible. Your overall point is valid, even though batteries will eventually become much cheaper. It's currently difficult to store large amounts of intermittently generated power. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_field [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site