Every Briton should stockpile water and food supplies, government advises

Again you use fallacies you do not understand wrongly.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. He is correct.
I am not arguing kilowatt day or kilowatt hour and you are engaged in a argument in your own head.
Guess what? That's how electricity is measured...by power over time. The Watt-Hour.
I am simply relaying to what the top energy officials in Texas are reporting with data and facts.
Courtier's fallacy. You are ignoring Ohm's law and the related Power law. You are ignoring how little solar and wind produce compared to a natural gas power plant. You are ignoring that solar does not work with it's covered with ice. You are ignoring that wind turbines cannot work in icing conditions.
And it is not a "single unusual event" and is two significant events within a short period of time that made Texas see the massive cost in both dollars (productivity, damage, etc) and lives lost when the grid that does not have a built in redundancy fails.
It does, Kewpie. All interconnects do.
They all have multiple generating plants.
They all have multiple switchpoints to isolate sections of it.
You refuse to read what is in those links and what Texas is reporting because it is NOT what you WANT to believe.
You are making shit up again, Kewpie.
Again the argument is NOT that the Renewable energy has to be 100% of the solution
You are saying it is. Make up your mind, Kewpie.
and thus your question of "show me how a PV solar array can supply 24 hours of energy".
It doesn't of course. Indeed, during the winter storm 2025, they produced nothing. They were covered with ice.
That is a stupid question by a stupid person. Just as an hybrid that has a battery and gasoline engine BOTH does not need to show you how it can run endlessly on the battery. It is the hybrid approach that allows it to run on fossil fuels when needed but also to run and be backed up with Renewables and battery when the other fails.
Natural gas is renewable.
Oil is renewable.
Both wind and solar were useless in that Texas winter. What kept it going at all was natural gas generating plants and shedding load.
 
Argument of the Stone fallacy. He is correct.

Guess what? That's how electricity is measured...by power over time. The Watt-Hour.

Courtier's fallacy. You are ignoring Ohm's law and the related Power law. You are ignoring how little solar and wind produce compared to a natural gas power plant. You are ignoring that solar does not work with it's covered with ice. You are ignoring that wind turbines cannot work in icing conditions.

It does, Kewpie. All interconnects do.
They all have multiple generating plants.
They all have multiple switchpoints to isolate sections of it.

You are making shit up again, Kewpie.

You are saying it is. Make up your mind, Kewpie.

It doesn't of course. Indeed, during the winter storm 2025, they produced nothing. They were covered with ice.

Natural gas is renewable.
Oil is renewable.
Both wind and solar were useless in that Texas winter. What kept it going at all was natural gas generating plants and shedding load.
Are you for real?
 
No it is you who have no idea what you are reading while pulling up old data and ignoring the new CHANGED DATA.
No changed data. It's the same data.
Everything you say is out of date and wrong.
Inversion fallacy.
Data from both ERCOT (Texas) and CAISO (California) directly refutes the idea that battery storage is "unaffordable" at scale.
Batteries don't produce energy, Kewpie.
In fact, grid operators are building batteries precisely because they are the most cost-effective solution to maintain reliability and lower system-wide energy costs.
Batteries are extremely expensive, Kewpie. They are also dangerous.
1. Battery Costs Have Plummeted by 90%
Bullshit.
The argument that batteries are too expensive relies on outdated pricing data.
Prices have gone up, like everything else. An artifact of the two economic depressions under Obama/Biden and Biden/Obama.
  • The Reality: According to the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and BloombergNEF, utility-scale lithium-ion battery pack prices have plummeted by nearly 90% over the last decade.
Nope. Prices have gone up.
  • The Result: This massive cost reduction is exactly why private developers are flooding the Texas and California grids with storage—not because of government mandates, but because batteries are highly profitable.
Batteries are not generating plants. They don't produce energy.
2. California Proves Scale is Already Happening Affordably
Attempted proof by void.
The poster claims large-scale storage is a fantasy, but California has already built it.
Nope. It's a fantasy. California hasn't built anything of significant size.
  • The Reality: California’s battery fleet routinely exceeds 21,000 MW of capacity.
Which means an additional 21000MW of load to charge them.
  • The Data: During the evening peak hours, these batteries don't just help
They harm. You have to charge them, which means that power is not available elsewhere.
  • —they handle over 40% of the state's total electricity demand.
No, Kewpie. They ADD to the demand.
  • Batteries are successfully functioning as a reliable, massive bridge when the sun goes down, completely displacing the need to build expensive new gas "peaker" plants.
California currently imports almost all their power on two overloaded lines (one in the south and one in the north). These lines are fed by the WRIC, covers Canada (BC, Yukon, Alberta), Washington, Idaho, Montanna, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and of course, California.

All of these places are generating sufficient power on their own EXCEPT California.
If those overloaded lines trip, the WRIC will NOT sacrifice itself to save California. It will disconnect it.
All of those solar plants and wind generators haven't a prayer to handle that load, Kewpie.

3. Texas Data Shows Batteries Lower Wholesales Costs

The Reality: In the deregulated Texas market, batteries make money through arbitrage—buying cheap electricity when solar/wind are abundant and selling it back when demand spikes.
  • The Data: An analysis by the University of Texas determined that the combination of renewables and batteries saved Texas consumers over $30 billion by suppressing extreme wholesale price spikes. Without batteries, ERCOT would have to pay fossil-fuel plants exorbitant scarcity prices ($5,000/MWh) to stay online, which is far more expensive for consumers than battery storage.

4. Re-framing "Baseload"
It is an old 20th-century concept of "baseload" (coal/nuclear plants running 24/7). Modern grid operators do not look for a single baseload source; they look for dispatchability.


  • Gas and coal plants frequently fail or trip offline during extreme weather (as seen during Winter Storm Uri in Texas).
  • Batteries respond to grid stress in milliseconds, a level of speed and reliability that thermal power plants physically cannot match.
Natural gas lines are easily protected from cold weather. They are used even in the harsh winters of Montana and Wisconsin.
Coal plants are even more reliable. They are used all over the western half of the United States, the Midwest, and in the South.
All you really need is a rail line.

Batteries are not power generating stations. They are a LOAD, not a source.

Generators at power plants adjust second by second, simply by adjusting the field current in them. That's all you need. It's more than adequate since the interconnect itself acts as a load ballast.
 
Last edited:
No it is you who have no idea what you are reading while pulling up old data and ignoring the new CHANGED DATA.

Everything you say is out of date and wrong.



Data from both ERCOT (Texas) and CAISO (California) directly refutes the idea that battery storage is "unaffordable" at scale.

In fact, grid operators are building batteries precisely because they are the most cost-effective solution to maintain reliability and lower system-wide energy costs.


1. Battery Costs Have Plummeted by 90%
The argument that batteries are too expensive relies on outdated pricing data.
  • The Reality: According to the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and BloombergNEF, utility-scale lithium-ion battery pack prices have plummeted by nearly 90% over the last decade.
  • The Result: This massive cost reduction is exactly why private developers are flooding the Texas and California grids with storage—not because of government mandates, but because batteries are highly profitable.

2. California Proves Scale is Already Happening Affordably
The poster claims large-scale storage is a fantasy, but California has already built it.
  • The Reality: California’s battery fleet routinely exceeds 21,000 MW of capacity.
  • The Data: During the evening peak hours, these batteries don't just help—they handle over 40% of the state's total electricity demand. Batteries are successfully functioning as a reliable, massive bridge when the sun goes down, completely displacing the need to build expensive new gas "peaker" plants.

3. Texas Data Shows Batteries Lower Wholesales Costs

The Reality: In the deregulated Texas market, batteries make money through arbitrage—buying cheap electricity when solar/wind are abundant and selling it back when demand spikes.
  • The Data: An analysis by the University of Texas determined that the combination of renewables and batteries saved Texas consumers over $30 billion by suppressing extreme wholesale price spikes. Without batteries, ERCOT would have to pay fossil-fuel plants exorbitant scarcity prices ($5,000/MWh) to stay online, which is far more expensive for consumers than battery storage.

4. Re-framing "Baseload"
It is an old 20th-century concept of "baseload" (coal/nuclear plants running 24/7). Modern grid operators do not look for a single baseload source; they look for dispatchability.


  • Gas and coal plants frequently fail or trip offline during extreme weather (as seen during Winter Storm Uri in Texas).
  • Batteries respond to grid stress in milliseconds, a level of speed and reliability that thermal power plants physically cannot match.
Batteries at $100 a kwh are not affordable. Currently, commercial battery storage per kwh is running $290 to $700 a kwh.


California has proven the inefficiency of solar in that their planned taking Diablo Canyon nuclear offline had to be postponed by a decade, and likely will never be achievable.

Baseloading is still a thing. Roughly 70 to 80% of a large grid's load is continuous. The other 20 to 30% is variable. Solar cannot reliably be used for base loads.



Arguing that a "smart" grid will work has been demonstrated wrong by Germany who has tried to do exactly that.

In the case of California, dispatchability has raised the cost of electricity in that state markedly as the California grid operators pay Nevada and Arizona to take their excess solar and wind generation at a premium price.

Gas and coal plants rarely fail and the example of Texas is an exception, not the rule.

Batteries are grossly expensive in needed quantity. They may be able to replace peaking plants to a degree, but on the whole they are unaffordable and cannot be relied on for base loading.
 
Texas is the premier ENERGY State in the US
Yup. Based on coal, natural gas, and oil.
so acting like it is not relevant to this discussion and ignoring their findings and data, as you do, is just stupid. Texas is finding RENEWABLES ARE DRIVING DOWN COST as well as providing vital redunancy.
Natural gas is renewable.
Oil is renewable.

In comparing Texas to California your information is cherry picked and not up to date.
You can't blame you problem on anybody else, Kewpie.
Both California and Texas. are demonstrating success models for Renewables integration into a grid but California is a parallel pioneer facing entirely different operational and structural constraints than Texas.
California does not produce sufficient energy. They must import it.
Texas produces all the energy it needs.
While the two states have taken radically different paths to integrating renewables, data shows that California's grid (CAISO) is successfully executing a massive clean energy transition.
A grand failure. California does NOT produce sufficient energy and must import most of it.
Evaluating the core metrics reveals why California’s model is distinct and working:
It isn't.
1. The Battery Powerhouse of America ...removed remaining AI slop...
A battery is not a generating plant. It is a LOAD.
If Texas is a success story for rapid utility-scale wind deployment,
Piddle power. Texas depends on coal, oil, and natural gas.
California is the blueprint for battery storage integration.
Battieries are not a generating plant.
  • The Scale: California has built the largest battery energy storage market in the country, surpassing 21,000 MW of capacity.
Nope. Just 16,000 MW. At California's current rate of consumption, that would last about 2 minutes (assuming the inverters could handle the load, which they can't.

In other words, the battery system will trip out too.
  • The "Duck Curve" Solution: For years, critics pointed to California’s "duck curve"—a severe drop in midday net electricity demand followed by a steep evening spike—as proof of failure. However, data from 2026 demonstrates that CAISO's battery fleet has flattened the duck. During evening peaks, California's batteries frequently discharge over 13 GW of power simultaneously, single-handedly covering over 40% of the state's total electricity demand. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Nope. The total battery capacity in California is a mere 4.3% of the total load.
2. Displacing Natural Gas with Solar
Solar does not use natural gas. Natural gas does not use solar.
Data from the first half of 2026 reveals a fundamental shift in California's power mix:
California has woefully inadequate generating capacity. It must import most of its power.
  • Utility-scale solar generated more electricity than natural gas on 82% of days during the spring months.
Not possible. Argument from randU fallacy.
  • Solar usage spiked 22% while natural gas reliance plummeted by 51% over a two-year tracking window.
Lie. California depends on importing power from the WRIC, which generates it using coal, oil, natural gas, and hydroelectric power.
  • Clean energy successfully met the entirety of CAISO's demand portions on 92% of days in early 2026. [1, 2]
That it did, since coal, oil, and natural gas power plants are very efficient.
...deleted remaining Ai slop...
You really gotta stop worshiping a computer program, Kewpie.
 
Batteries at $100 a kwh are not affordable. Currently, commercial battery storage per kwh is running $290 to $700 a kwh.


California has proven the inefficiency of solar in that their planned taking Diablo Canyon nuclear offline had to be postponed by a decade, and likely will never be achievable.

Baseloading is still a thing. Roughly 70 to 80% of a large grid's load is continuous. The other 20 to 30% is variable. Solar cannot reliably be used for base loads.



Arguing that a "smart" grid will work has been demonstrated wrong by Germany who has tried to do exactly that.

In the case of California, dispatchability has raised the cost of electricity in that state markedly as the California grid operators pay Nevada and Arizona to take their excess solar and wind generation at a premium price.

Gas and coal plants rarely fail and the example of Texas is an exception, not the rule.

Batteries are grossly expensive in needed quantity. They may be able to replace peaking plants to a degree, but on the whole they are unaffordable and cannot be relied on for base loading.
Once again you are citing out dated data costs for batteries and AS ALWAYS your own cite you post here disputes what you are saying.

The report debunks the idea that grids need traditional baseload plants.

“Constructing new baseload power plants constrains the development of the future power generation mix. A flexible generation mix, enhanced grid infrastructure, demand-side options and energy storage can all be combined effectively with variable renewables to ensure reliable power supply.”

You also are conflating Residential Prices with Utility-Scale Costs.

The claim that commercial battery storage runs "$290 to $700 a kWh" is factually incorrect for grid-level storage. [1]
  • The Error: The poster is quoting prices for individual home backup systems (like residential solar batteries), which do cost around $400 to $700/kWh due to retail markups and small-scale installation costs. [1, 2]
  • The Reality: Data from energy benchmarks indicates that real turnkey capex for utility-scale grid battery systems has dropped to $100–$150 per kWh


    This massive cost collapse is exactly why grid operators are building them at an unprecedented scale. [1]
You information on Germany is spin and lies.

Germany Proves a Renewable-Heavy Grid Works Better.

The poster claims Germany tried a smart grid and failed. The official grid infrastructure data proves the exact opposite. [1]
  • The Data: Renewables supplied over 58% of Germany's electricity consumption. [1]
  • The Reliability: If the poster's claim were true, Germany's grid would be failing. However, Germany's SAIDI score (the global standard for measuring annual power outage duration per customer) fell from 12.3 minutes to just 7.1 minutes. [1, 2]
  • According to the Federal Network Agency, Germany's grid has become highly automated and "self-healing," boasting a 99.997% annual reliability rate that far outperforms the United States, where the average consumer loses power for over 90 minutes per year. [1, 2]
And lastly you live by a fallacy.

The "Baseload" Fallacy
The poster’s math assumes that 70% to 80% of a grid's power must come from continuous, unmoving "baseload" plants (like coal or nuclear). Modern grid operators have abandoned this 20th-century mindset.
  • Grids do not need plants that run constantly; they need flexibility. Traditional baseload plants are rigid—they cannot quickly ramp up or down when demand spikes or drops.


  • A dynamic grid balances variable solar and wind with rapid-response battery storage. Batteries can inject gigawatts of power into a grid in milliseconds during an evening peak, a physical feat that traditional baseload plants cannot achieve. [1]
 
@T. A. Gardner is the type that will nitpick everything that the Wright brothers do.
And he is just flat out wrong in everything he is posting and is posting citations that directly contradict what he is saying while pretend they are proof.

There simply is no question any more that a mix of Renewables with traditional energy sources improves most grids in almost all ways. Cost, reliability, peek needs, and redunancy.

No one is forcing Texas to push ahead and be a world leader in this area. Investment dollars flow in despite Trump trying to stop it and penalize it. All the Data from the State, the Research Universities and Grid Operator cite how renewables have not just made the costs cheaper for all Texans but made the grid much more reliable.

What Terry has to say to that is 'not reading that... nuh uh, i disagree' and then posts lies about Germany as his rebuttal. He wants us to ignore what is happening in Texas and says so.
 
And he is just flat out wrong in everything he is posting and is posting citations that directly contradict what he is saying while pretend they are proof.

There simply is no question any more that a mix of Renewables with traditional energy sources improves most grids in almost all ways. Cost, reliability, peek needs, and redunancy.

No one is forcing Texas to push ahead and be a world leader in this area. Investment dollars flow in despite Trump trying to stop it and penalize it. All the Data from the State, the Research Universities and Grid Operator cite how renewables have not just made the costs cheaper for all Texans but made the grid much more reliable.

What Terry has to say to that is 'not reading that... nuh uh, i disagree' and then posts lies about Germany as his rebuttal. He wants us to ignore what is happening in Texas and says so.
I've decided him to be a contrarian and told him so.
 
Being a contrarian would be fine if he was an honest and smart one.

Posting articles constantly, as he does, pretending they help his argument when they say the exact opposite and destroy his argument, is either lazy or stupid or both. Using old and wrong data is also lazy or stupid or both.
True. I've pointed out to him that the articles he linked to are either opinion pieces or contrary to what he claimed often.
 
Texas is the Case Study Terry wants to ignore but no one can. A model of integration of Renewable with traditional energy sources and success based on cost savings to citizens, reliability of a grid saving lives and avoiding big outages and a much more robust grid for future massive growth needs.


--------------


- Texas grid data is determining that the rapid expansion of renewables (wind and solar) paired with battery storage is fundamentally transforming grid reliability, shielding consumers from skyrocketing costs, and absorbing unprecedented demand from data centers and extreme weather.

- Historically, extreme summer heatwaves triggered widespread panic and dozens of emergency conservation appeals in Texas. However, data from the summer of 2026 determined that the grid can successfully handle record-breaking demand (peaking at a massive 91.3 GW) without a single conservation alert. [1, 2]

- Solar output has scaled so rapidly that it now routinely provides over one-third of the state's electricity during the day, frequently reducing the grid's mid-day reliance on natural gas. In fact, for 94% of summer days in recent months, the grid was powered by a majority of clean energy at some point during the day. [1, 2, 3, 4]

- Utility-scale battery storage capacity expanded exponentially, reaching nearly 14 GW by 2026. Data proves that these batteries successfully bridge the critical 8:00 p.m. evening peak—when solar drops off but demand remains high—by discharging an average of 4,000 MW into the grid, offsetting thermal and gas outages. [1, 2, 3, 4]

- According to data compiled by the University of Texas, the presence of zero-fuel-cost wind and solar in the market has saved Texas consumers over $30 billion since 2010 by driving down wholesale electricity prices. [1]
 
Back
Top