Far out - do you struggle with the english language or...

Far out - do you struggle with the english language or something?
I'll reiterate my point for you once again.
I was responding to your statement that the grid cannot run on renewables because it required large contributions from gas and coal in order to have spinning generation for grid stability.
I replied stating that was bs and that Synchronous converters (spinning machines without any gas or coal) and/or grid forming inverters (batteries) can provide the same stability without the need to burn dinosaurs like yourself.
I quoted SA as an example since they used to have issues with grid stability due to increasing renewable penetration, and many like yourself used them as an example of why renewables can't work and we need to be forever beholden to fossil fuels. And no doubt you read those certain brand of newspapers portraying that message yourself and believe every word.
Then in less than 100 days Elon musk proved that all to be a load of crap by installing the world's largest grid stabilising battery.
You are now replying with screenshots of SA's grid which very clearly show it runs at 100% renewables and zero emissions for large periods of time - like below - entirely running on wind power at one point, and then wind and solar. (The big green and yellow bits, champ)
SA still require more generation capacity to reach 100% all day every day - and more batteries to store the excess at times to use when there is less available. But grid stability is not the issue restricting this - just more solar, more wind, and more importantly - more storage.
So once again - do you conceed - grid stability does not require coal or gas. It can easily be achieved through syn cons and preferably batteries?
And no I don't read guardian articles, I'm an engineer.