this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
245 points (94.5% liked)
Not The Onion
19062 readers
785 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was thinking solar + battery energy storage for when the sun is 'unavailable'. It's not like having like 1k MW capacity and nothing to power makes any sense, but an area with panels and storage can definitely get things started, at least....
For sure, and that can definitely work. But, you will need three times the number of solar panels (since half the time the panels are doing nothing and if you're storing a lot of energy, that means there's a proportional amount of storage losses.)
And I honestly don't know how much mass in batteries would be needed for 15 days worth of storage, but my instincts say too much.
Keep in mind that total mass to deliver can sometimes be the biggest cost limitation. A nuclear generator that gets delivered in one launch could be cheaper than otherwise much simpler solar panels and batteries if that solution requires two or three launches.