The problem (or opportunity) then is what you do with all the excess energy during the peaks. Ideally, you also have a large fleet of responsive consumers that can quickly spin up/down consumption and pay for the electricity and keep the oversupply of energy producers economically viable.
For example, currently your neighbour having solar might, in worst case, cause you to have to pay for energy in peak, if they bump voltage high enough your inverter turns off.
You're also selling (if you don't have net metering) your produced power for pennies on dollar.
If, for example, instead of pushing that energy all the way could store it closer, now grid doesn't need to "do something with it", there are less losses overall, and less waste.
So if say a local muncipality or power company just built local battery storage facility and just "leased" capacity to its occupants:
* people with solar could "bank" the peaks to use it during night
* people without could enjoy lower energy prices overall
* people could "just" buy battery and consume more of that peak (buying electricity for cheap from their neighbours), and maybe even contribute pack.
* power company wouldn't need to push as much power and maybe even potentially do something clever like "preloading" batteries before peak usage so less of that is pushed from the big plants, or "borrow" some energy from the bank to push elsewhere where needed.
But that's complex and requires capital investments, and there is no motivation from power company to make stuff more optimal for customers, just for the investors.
The reality is that the only way for renewables to provide base load is through huge amounts of storage. There are a variety of proposals for this but so far with current technology none seem to be economically viable at the scale needed.
Not always feasible. We had multiple months where winds were at historic lows for Europe, with lots of clouds, which meant much lower than usual wind and solar energy generation[1]. You can't overbuild enough for such a scenario.
1 - https://theconversation.com/what-europes-exceptionally-low-w...
It's a great problem to have, and we should strive to get there. In the meanwhile keeping baseload technologies that aren't massive carbon emitters is a good thing.
But let’s pretend it did, is that not a perspective we should analyze? If we are going to actively restrict sources of energy, we should quantify the externalities. Not to convince anyone that we shouldn’t take those steps, but because these are real trade-offs with real costs. I’m sure that someone who earnestly feels that climate change is an immediate existential threat would welcome the analysis.
The point of this article was to reinforce the idea that cheap energy is important to a safe and stable society, which is true, but it ties into their overall narrative that green energy in its current form is inconsistent and poses a danger to our grid. Which is why the parent comment immediately had this reaction.
> is that not a perspective we should analyze?
Yes, it is, and it would be foolish to think that the green energy sector is not tackling this already. We are all familiar with the famous "duck curve" and when energy is in demand at certain parts of the day there is a market opportunity. There are tons of companies in the storage and arbitrage space using batteries, flywheels, whatever.
The Economist does not engage with this argument in good faith, it usually just does basic concern trolling. They will point out the issue with renewables, and they oftentimes wont outright give any possible solutions, but their implication is clear. They are a newspaper for the enforcement of the status quo after all.