Sure. But, globally, you're the exception, not the rule.
Also, the various times I noticed talk about solar panels in the US it seems it is way overpriced, coupled with more expensive options being chosen. E.g. loads of micro inverters where a string inverter would make way more sense (economical).
Not affiliated, but e.g. https://www.solar-bouwmarkt.nl/ (use Google Translate), how do those prices compare to what you're seeing locally for panels and string inverters?
The other half needs energy too though! And high-latitude areas are known to have dense enough populations and exceedingly high economic productivity, from Sweden to Ireland to New England.
>It’s economically viable to place them further north and in cloudier climates now
Which it really isn't unless we're neglecting to count in the need for long-term backup power. There still exists some amount of solar even now, though government subsidies and government provided peaker plants may have something to do with it
But that's not what the topic, no? It was about economically viable. It wasn't about fully relying on them. If someone can buy or place a solar panels/plant and it is economically feasible, then it is.
E.g. EU is finally connecting the various electrical grids together. So that electricity can more easily be exported/imported. Yet another way to deal with the fluctuations.
"then it is" what? economically viable? He still needs 100% backup from other sources, so you have to factor that cost in. Possible? Yeah, it's possible, but that wasn't the question.
Nope, you do not need to factor that in. If I put solar panels on my house, I check if it's worth the cost/investment. I am not intending to go fully off-grid, that is not the aim. Similarly for a solar plant. If it's economically viable it means if there's a good return on investment.
> He still needs 100% backup from other sources, so you have to factor that cost in.
Again, if you put solar panels up or if you have a solar plant it does not make any sense to factor in such costs to make a business case/economical sense. You're adding complications that aren't there.
I'm just not ignoring externalities. You can't do your thing _unless_ the other thing is being taken care of, you have a hard dependency on it, so factoring in the cost of that is the right thing to do. You'll pay that cost, too, be it via your net-hookup fees, or taxes that subsidize it. If you're lucky, others will pay more than you do and you can make more money. That's economically viable at a small scale but does not scale far, because you quickly run out of other people who foot the bill.
Much like tax havens do not scale, because they don't produce anything of value, their concept does not work without other countries where the value is being created.
European grids have been connected for decades, way before new renewables were a thing.
Agreed, but not in the amount of capacity that they're aiming for now due to increased (expected) volatility. See e.g. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/infrastructure/electricit... which sets a 2030 target of 15%.
It is not a perfect way to deal with fluctuations, and it was proven beyond doubt that voters will not accept power prices to run unchecked in a EU connected grid.
Only in the US, Australia, and few other places it makes sense to just put up some panels for free energy. Incidentally also sometimes apply to EV arguments.