There is this old joke comic where the scientist's blackboard has a space in the middle of all the equations that says "then a miracle happens"
That is 100% the full non-joke philosophy behind solar power. Just build whatever and hope somehow it all eventually becomes net-positive. It's all just wishful thinking.
I actually know the answer to the technical question, having helped design large scale solar generation in the multi-megawatt range.
The answer is that:
Solar panels must be geographically far apart; that way scattered cloud cover won't affect all your panels at the same time; and
Build much more solar generation than you need, then turn a bunch of it off almost all of the time. Then as load fluctuates turn on (deploy) solar generation to match the load. As the load reduces turn off (dispense with) generation.
Build large scale batteries (which is what GP was alluding to) to charge; then run the demands of the grid from the batteries. Batteries are consumable parts and staggeringly expensive at grid scale. Any large scale use of batteries will literally double the generation costs of PV solar per watt/hour
All of these things dramatically increase the cost per watt/hour of solar generation. Economies of scale are achieved by building large solar installations. If you build them in the desert then transmission lines (something like between $100k to $1m per km) must be constructed. If you build many smaller generation sites where people live, then they are expensive as you lose economies of scale for construction.
Building capacity specifically not to use is the single most expensive use of solar generation. Investors hate it. They want to get returns for every panel they nail onto a frame.
Grid control issues are difficult to solve and are very expensive. Designing a grid that doesn't use the Baseload / Spinning reserve control model is complex and requires rebuilding the biggest and most expensive system ever built.
Batteries are the magic fairy dust. Every solar wonk I meet says the same thing. "Just keep building panels and the batteries will follow." But they are turning off the coal and gas plants RIGHT NOW. It's the definition of counting your chickens before they're hatched. Or "Mark to market" accounting that was allowed at Enron.
If magical infinite zero-point energy batteries are every discovered, then by all means build the solar future. Until then it's nuclear or bust.
When New York State released its power plan for the future a few years back? Shutting Coal, Gas and even Nuclear & replacing them with Wind & Solar? They allotted (iirc) $1 Billion for battery backup of 1 GW/h. In fact they'd need 1000X that much for their plan = $1 Trillion. Going "full renewable" would need at least 1-2 more Trillion.
"Missed it by that much" eh?
The Manhattan Contrarian pointed this out to them, they utterly ignored it.
Additionally- many solar installations (eg farms/residential) are connected to the consumer side (low voltage) of the electricity grid.
All the operators can see (they sit in between the low voltage and the voltage) is that the consumer is now increasingly volatile with his power demands (his solar panels switch off at the worst time etc)
There are entire neighborhoods where the solar panels on the roof don't generate much electricity.
The solar panels turn on. The local power circuit is saturated and the voltage reaches the maximum limit.
The solar panels turn off.
It can be fixed with multi-tap transformers, but the transformers we that are installed have a 25 year lifespan. So do we throw them out and replace them? Replacing the transformers on the poles will only allow the solar electricity to be used in the same suburb. Bigger transformers cost more.
The icing on the cake is that not everywhere would benefit from multi-tap transformers. There would have to be considerable study as to where to put them for the best effect. That takes a long time to do right and it isn't free.
That still makes them the cause. They failed, then the overload caused by other sources rushing in to cover that made more things fail too.
This is not the first time! Spain regularly has blackouts due to over-reliance on Wind & Solar while not having enough backup. Nation-wide blackouts are a feature of "renewables" not a bug.
Well, let's not blame solar energy as a whole just yet. It seems that there were two main issues:
Solar panels that were improperly connected to the grid. That is, they had no buffer.
A software issue that decided to disconnect a lot of solar power at once, which exacerbated the cascade once the problem began.
How do you buffer a solar panel to the grid?
I point out that solar panels lose 80% of generation when a cloud covers the site. Unless it is solar/thermal where it loses 100% of generation.
How do you buffer the grid from entire solar generation sites dropping off the grid on cloudy days and then appearing an hour later?
Magical fairy dust.
There is this old joke comic where the scientist's blackboard has a space in the middle of all the equations that says "then a miracle happens"
That is 100% the full non-joke philosophy behind solar power. Just build whatever and hope somehow it all eventually becomes net-positive. It's all just wishful thinking.
I actually know the answer to the technical question, having helped design large scale solar generation in the multi-megawatt range.
The answer is that:
Solar panels must be geographically far apart; that way scattered cloud cover won't affect all your panels at the same time; and
Build much more solar generation than you need, then turn a bunch of it off almost all of the time. Then as load fluctuates turn on (deploy) solar generation to match the load. As the load reduces turn off (dispense with) generation.
All of these things dramatically increase the cost per watt/hour of solar generation. Economies of scale are achieved by building large solar installations. If you build them in the desert then transmission lines (something like between $100k to $1m per km) must be constructed. If you build many smaller generation sites where people live, then they are expensive as you lose economies of scale for construction.
Building capacity specifically not to use is the single most expensive use of solar generation. Investors hate it. They want to get returns for every panel they nail onto a frame.
Grid control issues are difficult to solve and are very expensive. Designing a grid that doesn't use the Baseload / Spinning reserve control model is complex and requires rebuilding the biggest and most expensive system ever built.
Facts are not equal to feelings.
Batteries are the magic fairy dust. Every solar wonk I meet says the same thing. "Just keep building panels and the batteries will follow." But they are turning off the coal and gas plants RIGHT NOW. It's the definition of counting your chickens before they're hatched. Or "Mark to market" accounting that was allowed at Enron.
If magical infinite zero-point energy batteries are every discovered, then by all means build the solar future. Until then it's nuclear or bust.
When New York State released its power plan for the future a few years back? Shutting Coal, Gas and even Nuclear & replacing them with Wind & Solar? They allotted (iirc) $1 Billion for battery backup of 1 GW/h. In fact they'd need 1000X that much for their plan = $1 Trillion. Going "full renewable" would need at least 1-2 more Trillion.
"Missed it by that much" eh?
The Manhattan Contrarian pointed this out to them, they utterly ignored it.
Nuclear, ideally.
Additionally- many solar installations (eg farms/residential) are connected to the consumer side (low voltage) of the electricity grid.
All the operators can see (they sit in between the low voltage and the voltage) is that the consumer is now increasingly volatile with his power demands (his solar panels switch off at the worst time etc)
There are entire neighborhoods where the solar panels on the roof don't generate much electricity.
The solar panels turn on. The local power circuit is saturated and the voltage reaches the maximum limit.
The solar panels turn off.
It can be fixed with multi-tap transformers, but the transformers we that are installed have a 25 year lifespan. So do we throw them out and replace them? Replacing the transformers on the poles will only allow the solar electricity to be used in the same suburb. Bigger transformers cost more.
The icing on the cake is that not everywhere would benefit from multi-tap transformers. There would have to be considerable study as to where to put them for the best effect. That takes a long time to do right and it isn't free.
That still makes them the cause. They failed, then the overload caused by other sources rushing in to cover that made more things fail too.
This is not the first time! Spain regularly has blackouts due to over-reliance on Wind & Solar while not having enough backup. Nation-wide blackouts are a feature of "renewables" not a bug.