> How many houses can 13 GW of battery (+ whatever amount of solar to charge them fully every day) can power? I suppose that's the confusion; you don't have "g

> How many houses can 13 GW of battery (+ whatever amount of solar to charge them fully every day) can power? I suppose that's the confusion; you don't have "gigawatts of battery". Batteries store GWh of energy: GW is a flow rate, GWh is flow rate for time. So at 13GWh it could power 2.5 million households for 4.3 hours or so. The article seems to use "GW" when it means "GWh" and "GWh" when it means "GWh per hour". > How many houses can 13 GW of battery (+ whatever amount of solar to charge them fully every day) can power? Probably way less than that, given that even in the summer, there are at least 12 hours every day when solar panels don't produce enough power. But it really doesn't matter. Texas uses far more power than their solar capacity can produce at any moment in time, and solar charging batteries is solar not powering homes. In the long run when renewables outstrip fossil fuels, yes, you need lots of battery capacity for the night and when the wind isn't blowing. But in the meantime, it serves a different purpose entirely. Until the point when renewables cross that threshold, much of the stored power _isn't from renewables_. Spinning fossil fuel generation up and down is slow. Besides buffering spiky demand, you use the batteries to soak up excess power as you spin down fossil fuel generation, and then keep that extra generation offline for longer (spinning it back up more slowly). When solar and wind can satisfy all demand during the day, batteries can obviously capture the excess for use at night. But it can also allow a much smaller amount of fossil fuel generation to come online at any time to fill the batteries for night (regardless of demand, because that's already satisfied). Spinning up a small amount of generation for longer is much cheaper and environmentally friendly than spinning up a lot of generation for a short amount of time.