A small number of large plants are much easier to target during war than distributed wind, solar, or batteries. It’s not that batteries are immune to grenades. It’s that you’d need to put grenades in orders of magnitude more places to get to all the batteries as compared to large nuclear plants.
Batteries do pose a fire risk, but so do petrol cars. We pump flammable gas into our homes in large parts of the west and have designed ways of keeping ourselves safe. I see no reason why batteries won’t follow the same path.
Ren infra has own risks too. For example concentration in best weather areas. Most ren infra in Ukraine was in the south and was either captured or destroyed by Russia. There are similar risks in for north sea/offshore projects
> Why? And why won't those same factors increase all energy generation and delivery costs?
Wikipedia has a good article on it that explains it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
and I don't think that includes the cost of trash storage. Someone has to pay for that.
Which it can only do if it consumes more power than the plant was going to deliver. They don't supply power, they can only displace time of use against generation.
> Atomic power keeps rising in cost.
Why? And why won't those same factors increase all energy generation and delivery costs?
> You don't even have to send a rocket, a few drones with grenades will make sure the plant has to shut down.
Batteries are immune to grenades?
> A battery park can be set up almost anywhere
You know, the thing you want next to a battery, or any energy generation and storage system, is going to be a Fire Department.