I don't think that is reasonable as an interpretation because grid-scale energy storage doesn't yet exist.

An assertion that "renewables and electrification" solves our energy problems is just circular reasoning. It requires a non-existent technology (grid-scale long-term energy storage) and so doesn't fall into the category of "solution" and more into the category of "speculation".

What exactly are these 2.2GW of battery installations in California then?

https://www.energystoragejournal.com/southern-california-edi...

Or the 1GW they already have?

The power (in W) isn't the relevant value when talking about batteries, it's the stored energy (in Wh) that matters (it's the opposite for dam storage, where energy is plentiful but power is limited). Just do the math and check how many minutes the installation would stay up under significant load from the grid.

BTW I'm baffled to see a website called “energy storage journal” mixing up energy and power like this …

> grid-scale energy storage doesn't yet exist

The New Zealand south island electric grid is almost entirely grid-scale energy storage, in the form of hydro. Easy to recharge (pump water uphill, although NZ doesn't need that), easy to tap (open gates).

What do you mean when you say grid-scale energy storage doesn't exist? Is this different from utility-scale which has existed for many years?

We certainly do have grid-scale technology.

Whether it can be, or is, or will be deployed is another question.