> This is pretty vague. Practical challenges such as? The practical challenges of deferring load to eliminate the need for batteries include significant disrup

> This is pretty vague. Practical challenges such as? The practical challenges of deferring load to eliminate the need for batteries include significant disruptions to daily life and economic activities. Changing consumption habits on such a large scale would increase living and labor costs, thereby impacting the economy. Asking millions, if not billions, of people to change their habits is unrealistic, especially on a long-term basis. The discontent experienced during COVID-19 restrictions illustrates how difficult it is to enforce such changes, and doing so permanently would be even more challenging. Additionally, in democratic societies, politicians proposing such drastic measures would likely face significant opposition. > I’m under the impression that brownouts or blackouts are a little more common in developing countries, so if we’re going to have to deal with intermittent supplies we probably should be asking them for advice. While developing countries do have experience dealing with intermittent supplies due to frequent brownouts and blackouts, implementing advanced load-shifting strategies without substantial support and investment remains challenging. Economic implications are just one part of the issue. Many people in developed countries already struggle with stability, and further destabilizing their energy supply could lead to large-scale social and economic disasters. > This is true. But I don’t really see any ideology in the idea of load shifting though. It is actually a practical answer. Renewable generation capacity that isn’t backed by batteries is always cheaper than that which is unless batteries somehow become free. So, the pragmatic answer is to combine the two. Batteries are a cost, and strategies to avoid them should be taken. That doesn’t mean 0 energy storage, though. The most feasible and cost-effective solution to minimize battery use and costs is to use nuclear power as a baseload. This approach is pragmatic and unideological, focusing on what we can realistically achieve. Unrealistic proposals often overlook the practical implications of their implementation. The economic and social impacts of load-shifting strategies are substantial, and most electric infrastructure cannot support such changes without significant upgrades. Smart grids are not yet widespread, and the amount of rare earth elements required for battery production is a critical concern. In Italy, a research institute found that a 100% renewable future using batteries would demand 70 times the world's annual lithium production. Even if we reduce this demand by 99%, it remains impractically high for just one country. Given these challenges, it is more sensible to prioritize solutions that are already proven effective, such as the renewable and nuclear combination. This approach requires less effort relative to what you propose and avoids the significant economic and social disruptions associated with large-scale load shifting. In conclusion, I do not want to rule out that your proposal could be a solution in some areas of the world, for some parts of the population. And I hope it could help in decarbonization. But what I would like to hear, is a realistic comparison with the solutions we already have. And before certain proposals can become a real solution, you have to accept and consider the huge implementation limitations in order to have pragmatic solutions.