Never, because we don't need 14 days of full load capable storage. Most models say we need about 3 days to get 99.99% coverage with a reasonable amount of overbuild & interconnect.

why not make it a lifetime of storage if we are here just spouting nonsense numbers.

storage for 12 hours and we are 80% there. If you don't like 80% solutions then please don't participate in society as it's only working on those.

We are at the point in the S-curve where storage goes from nowhere to everywhere in the blink of an eye.

Here BESS for $63/kWh installed and serviced for 20 years.

https://www.ess-news.com/2025/01/15/chinas-cgn-new-energy-an...

https://www.ess-news.com/2024/12/09/powerchina-receives-bids...

China installed 74 GW comprising 168 GWh in 2024. In increase of 250% compared to 2023.

https://www.ess-news.com/2025/01/23/chinas-new-energy-storag...

After hitting a plateau storage is now unlocking massive reductions in fossil gas usage in California:

- Gas is down 45% v '23 and 25% v '24

- Batteries up 198% v '23 and 73.4% v '24

https://bsky.app/profile/mzjacobson.bsky.social/post/3lnw3hs...

In the US in 2025 storage was expected to make up 30% of all grid additions. Before Trump came with his sledgehammer of insanity.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586

No one generally expects more than a couple of hours of storage to be needed. But for the fun exercise let’s calculate what spending Vogtles $36.8B on equivalent renewables, as in TWh delivered, and the storage gives.

That makes the renewables come out to about $9B.

With storage costing $0.063B GWh and having $28B to spend we can build 444 GWh storage.

That is the equivalent to running Vogtles two new reactors for 10 days straight.

In this calculation we don’t even bother with Vogtles O&M costs compared to near zero for renewables and storage.

Do you now understand how incredibly expensive new built western nuclear power is?