Don’t get me wrong—I’d be all for batteries ruling the world if they were both affordable and technically advanced enough to meet various demands. That means they shouldn’t degrade too quickly, for example, when capturing and releasing wind energy in milliseconds. Or they shouldn’t lose too much energy over time due to self-discharge. Or they should be able to supply large amounts of energy instantly. Overbuilding is also a valid approach, especially in connection with a smart grid spanning multiple countries. All of that is fine.

However, the point of the study is different, and that makes it still relevant today: The barrier to expanding energy storage isn’t a technical one—it’s a political one. The study also shows that there is a great deal of variability, and the often-used argument that there’s not enough lithium or rare earth elements doesn’t hold up. More recent studies validate different storage technologies depending on their specific use case, showing that they can complement batteries in a meaningful way—also from a financial perspective.

Another perspective is that we still have a long way to go before full electrification. Right now, batteries are used in suitable scenarios, but many other areas haven’t been electrified or optimized at all. Other storage technologies might still become relevant. Building a house around a 20,000-liter tank to store energy for heating in Alaska over six months might already be financially and technically viable. But whether the logistical challenges of such solutions will ever make them truly feasible—that’s something I neither want nor can predict.