> When there's a new innovation which changes how we do things for the better, its benefits are obvious. ... However when the "But Sometimes" rears its ugly head, people tend to freak out. Suddenly all those benefits go away, because in this one particular facet of stoplight functionality, the wasteful and maintenance-heavy incandescent lamp is accidentally superior. Suddenly, when a new solution presents a new problem, all we think about is the problem.
Yes, there are problems that exist with solar that don't exist with other electrical generation systems. That is not, by itself, evidence that solar will not be sufficient by itself as we solve those problems, and it's not a good reason to slow adoption of a piece of technology that is better in almost every way.
Everything suggests we're going to fix the "but sometimes"—as others have noted there are many different paths being successfully explored at this point—and everything suggests that solar will still be both cheaper and better for the environment even when you factor in the fix.
I don't think the amount of time involved in the "sometimes" matters so much as the fact that the new problems are readily surmountable (with many solutions both in progress and already deployed) and the fact that people use the new problems as justification for a reactionary desire to jetison the technology entirely without even trying to surmount them.
"There are many potential solutions to the duck curve. The lessons learned from SETO’s projects will be critical to improving the flexibility of the grid and addressing over-generation risks as solar grows throughout the country. According to the Energy Information Administration, the installed amount of PV is expected to triple by 2030—potentially migrating the duck curve outside of California."
If you read the original comment that the person was replying to, they made a very general problem statement like it was a nail in the coffin for any renewal energy source. As if nobody has considered those drawbacks already.
There is a real and consequential lack of attention to detail in this regard, though. Energy is a tricky and subtle topic which is very commonly oversimplified in the press, in politics, even among the technically literate, likely because we have a clearly identified problem (the consequences of hydrocarbons) and what seems to be an obvious solution (renewables).
It is a dangerous fallacy to think we can simply swap wind and solar into global industrial civilization and carry on happily into the sunset, but that is how many well-intentioned people seem to understand the situation.
But just throwing up the drawbacks of a particular solution, doesn't mean that solution should be entirely thrown out. No solution is perfect in the beginning, but through iterative innovation and a need to switch to renewable energy sources, those drawbacks will become less of a drawback.
This thread is also beside the point. The relevant sphere is the general public discourse, which is largely naive and unexamined. This is not at all to insult the public, but to critique the narrative that dominates the public mindshare.
The premise that we "need to switch to renewable energy sources" is what is in question. What is it that we want do with that energy? Are "renewables" really renewable if they require a massive expansion in mining of non-renewable materials? Have we really something we ought to call a "solution" if it prolongs our war on earth-borne life?
We don't simply have a hydrocarbon problem. We have a deep and profound dilemma and a mass psychosis of global proportion. The application of tidy concepts like "problem" and "solution" to the former are symptomatic of the latter.
Even coal plants stopped being built in the middle of cities half a century ago.
That was a problem solved 91 years ago— in 1933.
Lots of similar industrial use cases