Wow, you have a consistent need to diminish and insult others. Remarkable.

You continue to resort to insulting me over many threads across many months. Any time there's a thread on a related subject you seem intent in demonstrating your ability to insult me.

I read the article. Of course I did. I read it a couple of years ago, or whenever it was published.

It actually supports my point!

Solar requires the availability reliable power
for up to 100% backup.

That can be batteries, another solar installation a thousand kilometers away, wind, fossil, nuclear, a bunch of people pedaling power-generating bikes. Anything, really.

I am not saying solar or solar + wind are a bad idea, pointless or that we should not use them. Heck, I have made a non-trivial investment in solar myself. And one of the companies I own actually develops related technologies.

Once again, the very article you posted clearly states that the COMBINATION of solar and power in the US is, at best, ~ 88% reliable. Solar alone? Less so.

I can support my claims with actual data from my own solar array. I just visited a six million dollar installation in Singapore. The results are even worse.

Here in So. Cal, we are about to get hit with yet another large storm. All solar power will be reduced to nothing during this time.

I have no clue what your problem is. You are consistent in the use of insults in place of conversation, math and science. Lots of hand-waving. No substance at all. It's exhausting, really, but I am not going to allow you to bully me into discussing this perspective in the context of facts-based discussions.

If I am wrong, I am more than willing to be shown where, why and how. Always. My life and career has been about learning, constantly. That happens with respect and facts, not insults.

EDIT:

Further to the article you seem to be leaning on. From figure 2, and using Photoshop to identify and match the color scale:

"Shading in each panel represents the 39-year average estimated reliability (% of total annual electricity demand met)"

https://i.imgur.com/9OMK9eZ.png

This shows that 100% solar (without mixing-in wind) in the US only has a reliability (% of demand met) of about 53%.

Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

If we add 12 hours of storage (also in figure 2 of the article YOU provided):

https://i.imgur.com/ut52ZbI.png

Solar + 12 hours of storage gets up to only 82% reliability (% of demand met). In other words, cities go dark 18% of the time.

Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

Even with the most optimal configuration (close to 50/50 wind and solar with 12 hours of storage), reliability comes up to about 86%.

Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

If we overbuild both solar and wind, add 12 hours of storage and shift the mix to about 40% solar and 60% wind, we can get to about 95% of demand met. Solar alone, in this overbuilt scenario, would only be about 88%. So, we overbuild by 50% and only get about 6% better performance.

Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

And, once again, these are numbers that are presented in terms of averages, which have almost nothing whatsoever to do with local realities. You cannot apply an average figure calculated from multiple averages to an entire country and conclude that those numbers represent local realities.

The fact that you have to use wind and storage to achieve performance above the 53% of demand achievable by solar alone fully supports the point I have been making:

Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

I am eager to see what new insults you are going to use to divert from the inconvenience of having the article you provided actually support my point at every level. The suspense is truly riveting.