Finally the events are quite cherry-picked. It is a conclusion looking for a result, when the statistical reason for choosing those 4 events simply isn't evident when you look at the data itself. There is no mathematical rule you could apply to your dataset that would distinctly highlight those 4 periods.

A lot of good ideas only look bad in hindsight. It costs time and money to determine goodness, and that deserves funding.

Only step beyond this is neural implants putting purchasing decisions directly into your grey matter.

Batteries are an expensive solution that doesn't scale well at the grid level. It is useful for grid stability (fast frequency response) but simply a non-starter when you're dealing with national grids.

Batteries are an added cost to the system, without producing more electricity, and as a result prices will go up.

A far cheaper source of flexibility is Demand Side Response. Particularly data centres that are willing to be market actors. Compute can happen anywhere, so it should happen where the wind blows and the sun shines. It is cheaper to transmit bits than Megawatts.

China is heavily reliant on coal.

The US Grid is presently less carbon intensive than the Chinese grid.

It also does nothing to help transmission grid frequency stability and control.

An exercise to the reader, calculate the space and materials required to replace the average norwegian hydro reservoir with batteries.

Nuclear tech doesn't provide required ramp rates at a useful price. I do agree however that more nuclear helps.

The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.

Gas power generation is a necessary evil to balance out the variability of intermittent energy generation (i.e. wind and solar).

Hydropower isn't a feasible alternative because the easy resources have been developed.

The only alternative source of flexibility available today is demand side response.

Edit: I appreciate the down votes, as I've not explained in detail. It is a complex issue. My opinions are based on having a phd in the topic, 10+ years in control rooms, years of market operations and design, and years contributing to europe-wide risk assessment methodologies.

I emplore anyone who is actually interested in how energy mix actually impacts grid stability/reliability to look into the Eirgrid DS3 programme (https://www.eirgrid.ie/ds3-programme-delivering-secure-susta...).

Is 4 a number?

Is 4/2 a number?

Is 3 a number?

Is 3/2 a number?

etc...

All of these symbols represent precise points on the numberline. Pi also represents a precise point on the numberline, so is it not a number?

The existence of the tech isn't the issue, it is the logistics, cost and practicality of building it at grid scale. If you try to calculate how many batteries you'd need to store the equivalent energy of a hydro reservoir, or one hour of a nuclear plant, then try to estimate the land required, you'd quickly discover how intractable the issue is.