Not clear. If costs really continue to decline, batteries will make up a bigger and bigger part of the solution, but costs and uncertainty of the massive scale battery projects still seem high to me. Decreasing demand, nuclear, carbon capture, batteries, etc will all play a role IMO.
Carbon capture seems like a bigger wildcard to me than battery technology. Battery technology has been improving pretty steadily and will likely continue to do so.
Capturing carbon from coal power plants adds cost to something that is already not cost effective. Capturing carbon in the atmosphere likely will require huge amounts of power - and if its not 100% renewable power its kind of pointless.
Nuclear is better than coal or natural gas, but there have been some high profile failures lately and the lead time on new nuclear is so high, as well as the sticker price.
>Nuclear is not available now in the sense that you can order a plant and have it running in a year or two like you can with solar. More like a decade
The interesting aspect is that by the time a nuclear power plant is online renewable energy and battery storage might have advanced enough to make it uneconomical.
OK, so how long do you wait? How sure of a thing do we need? By that logic we wouldn't do anything. Do you think coal got started with a sure thing?
How is it we're more concerned with wasting some money than the possibility of catastrophic climate change? This is why the federal government should be more involved with combating climate change - nobody is willing to risk their money, or their power bill going up, even if it means essentially saving the world and/or our way of life.
