Every back of the envelope calculation of this makes the same basic mistake of acting like every watt is sacred and that spending billions on barely used batteries to save 1 Watt every 5 years makes sense.
It's just silliness disguised with maths. Which is excusable the first 10 or so times its done, but is getting old now.
What's really getting old is claiming renewables are cheap and easy to build while not calculating all the additional requirements that are needed to have a stable power supply such as overbuilding, storage etc.
That is a fair point, but what are you actually advocating for?
Tainting public perception of renewables with cost-related FUD more strongly?
IMO the need for storage and better grid connectivity gets brought up in every discussion about electromobility and renewable power already anyway, so everyone seems well enough aware of it.
I'd also like to point out that glossing over this is SUPER comparable with assuming >80% capacity factors for nuclear plants which the anti-renewable crowd always eagerly does.
> Tainting public perception of renewables with cost-related FUD more strongly?
Or maybe bring actual discussions into public perception, and not just the unquestioned undebatable "renewable everything will solve everything by magic"?
> so everyone seems well enough aware of it.
Of course very few are aware of it.
All the discussion is doe-eyed "we just need to replace everything with renewables". No one talks about the need to overbuild, and how much. Storage is assumed a solved issue even though it's not anywhere near the required scale.
It's just silliness disguised with maths. Which is excusable the first 10 or so times its done, but is getting old now.