upvote
Large geographic networks like the EU really help to smooth that variance out. Anyway, on average is all that really matters here. Remember, I’m not saying we can only have batteries and if they run out we’re in the dark. We’ll use gas to fill the gaps, and emit emissions for it. All that matters is the total emissions for the year.

Yes, im explicitly considering it only in one direction, as I said I’m optimistic. I have seen plenty of data, my own & others reasoning that leads me to believe in the optimistic case here.

EDIT: look at the graph in that second McKinsey link. Look at the step for 2024, and then the massive step for 2025. And then they project much tinier steps for 26 and beyond? That’s obviously nonsense. And we can tell it’s nonsense as the number for 26 are coming in at another 60% increase y/y, and all reports point to huge increases in deployed capacity this year. And they have it at like 20%. Cmon, that’s nonsense.

reply
That link is a graph of battery electric storage, specifically. Mckinsey's projections have battery production continuing to accelerate, but the lion's share of the output dedicated to electric vehicles rather than grid storage: https://www.mckinsey.com/features/mckinsey-center-for-future...

Rather than just proclaiming the projection as "nonsense" it'd be a lot more productive if you shared an alternate projection and explained why it's methods are superior.

reply
We of course can’t scale the grid portion of battery production as fast, or even faster than what we’ve done for BEVs?

And this also disregards that second life automotive batteries are incredibly hot on the market. All those TWh of batteries will become available for stationary use when the cars are scrapped.

Maybe not in western markets due to labor costs, but definitely in developing economies.

reply