Some links to various things have been posted over the years on novel battery chemistries. I'm referring instead to studies on the possibility of grid-scale battery support for power generation systems, which is something entirely different.

(the last bit is assuming anon coward is replying to me not Luckyo - it's not entirely clear).

I'm very aware of the time taken to manufacture battery systems (which isn't very relevant to the argument as other forms of power also take time to build) having worked with people developing novel battery technologies and discussed it with them, attended their seminars and so on. I've also worked with several energy companies on systems to assist multiple types of power generation, both fossil and renewable, including patented technogies. What are your credentials?

This isn't my first Slashdot ID. And you can read Slashdot without an ID.

I'm not suggesting any magical anything, be it batteries or spinning reserve (in fact I expect that spinning reserve will be required for decades), just requesting evidence. Your characterisation of research is rather odd

I have not inverted the burden of proof, which is often simplified as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" as the claims are not extraordinary. Multiple studies have concluded that with a well-connected grid, batteries can now be scalable. Equally, there have been studies suggesting the opposite. Since the debate seems reasonably balanced then claiming one side is guilty of 'magical thinking' and failing to provide proof doesn't strengthen your case. I'm actually on the fence about whether batteries will be scalable or not but all my reading suggests it is not the open and shut case you seem to think it is. Given that it appears not to be a simple case of preponderance of evidence one way or another, then citing sources is appropriate.

That batteries are not scalable and are magical thinking. You claim that we can Google and find the truth of this easily but seemingly to do this I have to ignore lots of research suggesting it is scalable. Perhaps Google works differently for you. But if you keep asserting things without showing the research that you consider to be definitive, it's just assertion.

It's not a deflection but noting that the true cost of something includes the cost of externalities. That the cost of those is not calculated typically within the headline cost doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So the cost of using fossil fuels potentially includes the cost of future crop failures, and so on, which is the point of carbon pricing. It's not deflection, it's fundamental.

How cheap is crop failure due to climate change?

It's not for nothing if it's windy next year as it could offset coal and gas usage more than expected. And the installed capacity will be there for decades. The wind varies - that's not news so don't obsess about a single year trends over several years.

Repeating an assertion doesn't make it become true. To think that it does is magical thinking.

"five times larger than some of Paris" doesn't sound so impressive...

Yeah, you'd need a computer the size of a planet. By the way, has anyone seen any dolphins recently?

Bite TSMC's shiny metal ass?

There's a story involving a chess board and doubling...