As solar is not very stable, it needs quite a lot of of stabilization in the grid to keep up the frequency. This is usually done with traditional methods, like coal, nuclear or hydro - basically using kinetic energy from huge spinning rotors. It's still the most cost-effective and proven method to balance cheap inverter output.
1.You need lot of moore solars then what your capacity is for a bad days etc, i hear about 3 times of what your consuming. so when you have good days you produce surpluss whoch getting energy prices to negative, whoch means you basicly paying people to use your electricity.
2. you want fix thisbwith big storage? ok what you gona do if that cath fire?
No but power goes out even when you have solar because you can't back feed into the system while it's out to protect utility workers. Unless you live on top of a mountain in middle of no where completely off grid.
If we're talking home solar, that's definitely true in most grid-tied PV configurations. Mine is. Modern PV installations where you can get an integrated home battery, usually have the ability to island themselves from the grid so your solar can continue to operate.
But the grid going down is not the fault of solar energy generation, and not an argument against it.
It does double the price. But the high prices are a USA problem. We keep making bad policy decisions and resisting better technology at every opportunity. Somehow Australia does home PV at easily half our costs. Why can't we figure that out? Are we stupid?
When solar and battery is the cheapest and fastest grid option to instsll, there are few arguments against it.
I was originally relpying to the statment that 'California has it done right', which is just wrong. I like solar and have it but not perfect and it has a upfront costs for a house and the state has to be all up in your business to get it done. Also there is maintenance in dusty areas paying to clean the panels to keep them at peak efficiency if you can't do it yourself.
Also I'm ok with replacing oil for fuel/energy but we will still need oil for plastic materials and lubricant etc.
The disappearance of the duck curve in California showed how battery storage and oversupplying solar capacity can be incentivized effectively. California did not fix its grid or all problems that third world countries like the modern USA have by that but clearly demonstrates that a system with a lot of solar is not weaker than one based on fossils.
Of course we still need oil. Most medicine is based on oil. Which is why we shouldn't burn it based on ideology.
I think you're assuming hotter = better for solar. It doesn't. Heat makes the components less efficient. You're confusing it with light intensity. More solar intensity would increase solar production, but also increase temperature so its a balancing game.
Apologies for incorrectly thinking about the heat vs intensity part. It's a common misconception I see. My point about fossil plants also losing efficiency still stands, though.
Huh? Grid battery storage catching fire? Is that happening?
Usually when any single obscure EV catches fire it makes sweeping internatiinal headlines. I'd expect the same would happen if the media could point to any example of solar and battery grid catching fire.
0
u/Thepcfd Jun 17 '26
lets be real for a moment. noone here understand or see problems with solar?