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 you ask people to imagine a battery or series of batteries that can run the five burrows of New York City for two weeks, they just can't do it.
They get angry at you for asking them to try. Their first response is: "It wouldn't need to run New York for that long!" which is just stupid!
So you spell it out for them.
"So, there is no solar generation at night. So your battery bank will have to be big enough to run NYC overnight, every night. Cloud cover causes PV Solar generation to drop by 80%. How often are overcast days in New York State?
Rain causes generation to drop by 100%, and the days get very short in winter. How many days in a row is it overcast, raining or snowing in New York State? Ten? Are you willing to bet thousands of lives it isn't one day more?
The failure state is that New York City grid turns off to stop tens of millions of dollars worth of damage form occurring. People will start to die right away. First in hospitals, then for people who can't get heat. Then shortly later as all the food spoils as refrigeration turns off."
At this point the Green twats either get incoherently angry or just leave. They hate having it pointed out that they haven't given even five minutes of thought to the issues.
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.
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 you ask people to imagine a battery or series of batteries that can run the five burrows of New York City for two weeks, they just can't do it.
They get angry at you for asking them to try. Their first response is: "It wouldn't need to run New York for that long!" which is just stupid!
So you spell it out for them.
"So, there is no solar generation at night. So your battery bank will have to be big enough to run NYC overnight, every night. Cloud cover causes PV Solar generation to drop by 80%. How often are overcast days in New York State?
Rain causes generation to drop by 100%, and the days get very short in winter. How many days in a row is it overcast, raining or snowing in New York State? Ten? Are you willing to bet thousands of lives it isn't one day more?
The failure state is that New York City grid turns off to stop tens of millions of dollars worth of damage form occurring. People will start to die right away. First in hospitals, then for people who can't get heat. Then shortly later as all the food spoils as refrigeration turns off."
At this point the Green twats either get incoherently angry or just leave. They hate having it pointed out that they haven't given even five minutes of thought to the issues.
I cannot +1 this enough. It's true, and Alarmists will not even look at it.
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.
The best part is that the battery banks are a consumable part. It isn't just a one-time cost of a Trillion.
It is a Trillion bucks every 10 or 15 years.