Storage batteries are going to fill gaps in generation swings, not power gigawatt scale grids for more than a few minutes. This is the crux of my point and i st

Storage batteries are going to fill gaps in generation swings, not power gigawatt scale grids for more than a few minutes. This is the crux of my point and i stated it as such. A lot of smaller batteries is effectively equivalent to a single larger battery and that does not get around the problem from above - they simply cannot store enough energy for more than short periods. A handful of large hydro reservoirs store more potential energy than all chemical batteries in the world combined. Meanwhile, extreme weather events are getting more common. Texas - for example - had a nearly 10,000 MW shortfall between their forecast and the actual, served demand. Is a battery every going to supply capacities like that for hours on end? No. During that cold snap, some wind turbines froze, some didn't see enough wind and much of the solar wasn't generating at full tilt. What then? Do we shrug our shoulders and say "no heat, too bad"? Chemical storage batteries cannot power large grids for extended periods and that is the fundamental problem being ignored, not their cost. The problem with HN is that people do not think outside their silicon valley and techbro bubble. Another comment here suggested that domestic loads can be served with a battery. Sure, if you live in California and don't need much heat. This is the problem - when someone points out that what is proposed is not viable everywhere and that a mix of solutions is needed, it gets downvoted because it doesn't follow the "renewable energy is the be all and end all" argument.