Introduces the BYOBattery metric, quantifying energy storage needs in renewable energy systems, suggesting effective planning strategies.
The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) workloads and data center infrastructure is driving a surge in electricity demand, underscoring the need for robust metrics to evaluate energy generation and storage strategies. This study introduces the Bring Your Own Battery (BYOBattery) metric, a region-specific, temporally resolved indicator designed to quantify the ideal energy storage capacity required to mitigate generation-demand mismatches. The BYOBattery metric is computed as the minimum ideal battery storage required to eliminate generation-demand imbalances over a given time window, and is extended to incorporate curtailment via a convex optimization formulation to better manage peak generation and storage requirements. We applied the BYOBattery metric to wind, solar, and nuclear generation technologies across three major U.S. grid regions: the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and the Pennsylvania–New Jersey–Maryland Interconnection (PJM), using operational data from 2021 to 2024. Key findings are: (1) nuclear consistently requires the least storage in order to meet demand (i.e., one equivalent load hour compared with 10–25 h for wind and solar); (2) wind storage requirements decrease with increased capacity, whereas solar necessitates consistent levels of storage; and (3) the 30-year non-discounted cost per kWh for nuclear ($0.10/kWh) is substantially lower than that of wind or solar by a factor of 1–4 across all studied region. The BYOBattery metric enables comparative benchmarking of generation technologies under dynamic demand conditions and supports cost-informed planning for energy systems. This work contributes a reproducible, interpretable, and computationally efficient tool for energy system analyses and broader performance evaluations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cheng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: