Some key insights from the article:
Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.
i’m sure you can squeeze out a measly 3% from wind and hydro, no?
using old/existing FFs 3% of the time instead of 100% is a 97% emission reduction.