> The only person stupid enough

Hmmm. OK.

It's nighttime, my solar array is making zero power right now. Thankfully I have 100% backup from the grid.

Regarding: "Without going too deep: If you need 100% backup for solar, why use solar"

Science and engineering are about always asking questions and challenging assumptions.

Is solar --which requires 100% backup-- better, the best, ideal?

Is it, really?

How about this. Let's use the article you posted to challenge what I've been saying [0]. You know, the one that backfired and actually supported my all my claims so far. Let's use it one more time. Maybe you are right and I am stupid.

Again, table #2.

My question was: Why use solar?

The table shows the "39-year average estimated reliability (% of total annual electricity demand met)".

In other words, what percentage of the time the lights in your town will stay on given a power generation and storage technology mix.

Here's what it says (comments mine):

Without storage ($):
Solar alone: 54% (half the time you go dark)
Wind alone: 82% (wow)

With 3 hours of storage ($$):
Solar alone: 66% (meh)
Wind alone: 85% (nice)

With 12 hours of storage ($$$$$):
Solar alone: 81% (finally)
Wind alone: 88% (better)

Overbuilt by 1.5x with just 3 hours of storage ($$$$):
Solar alone: 70% (meh)
Wind alone: 95% (double-wow)

Wind alone, without storage, is massively better at delivering reliable power than solar. The city goes dark 18% of the time, rather than 46% for solar.

If we just add 3 hours of storage, wind goes up a few percent, same for solar. Not too exciting.

The real find is what happens if we overbuild generation capacity by 1.5x and add just 3 hours of storage:

Wind goes up to 95% reliability, while solar only 70%.

95% RELIABILITY FOR WIND!

70% RELIABILITY FOR SOLAR!

That is a massive find, one deserving saying it out loud.

The city is dark only 5% of the time with wind, vs. 30% with solar.

Both require backup for the percentage they cannot deliver reliably. Wind requires massively less backup.

Is wind cheaper, simpler, easier to maintain over the long term? Not sure, I would have to do the math on that. The questions are compelling enough for me to explore further.

There's another element that is often not explored: Solar requires almost 100% reliance on China for the entire supply chain. Does wind technology inshore most of the supply chain? The world today is a nasty place. If the US, Europe and other regions can inshore manufacturing and technology, rather than send trillions of dollars to China, this would be a good thing, something worth pursuing.

So, again, I ask:

Given the above. Why use solar?

Your article, once again, supports my perspective.

> you are consistently disrespectful, arrogant and condescending.

You are confusing those things with stating what I know because I am sure of it. There is a difference. A professor isn't disrespectful, arrogant and condescending because she asserts what she knows to be true. Neither is a doctor, lawyer or, for that matter, an engineer.

I urge you to, once again, stop the insults, fire-up Excel and do some math before posting. I just used the numbers you provided to show that questioning solar as the best option likely has merit.

Open for discussion? Of course. Get to the point where you have done enough work to have a reasonable understanding of the subject matter. Then, use numbers. Not insults. Anyone would gladly have a conversation with you under those condition.

None of this means solar is useless and should not continue to scale. It does mean we really need to be objective and check our assumptions at the door. My guess is that, yes, of course solar is worthwhile and valuable. Yet, no, it is unlikely to be the best solution for everything. It needs backup, lots of it. It needs wind. Lots of it. And it probably needs fossil and nuclear generation to be able to deliver constant, consistent and reliable power.

Nobody is likely to install wind turbines atop their homes, so, yes, definitely, solar has a place, likely on our roofs. I would question solar at scale because wind looks to be massively better on first inspection. This needs a further look at the numbers and reality of wind.

I am being very patient here and trying to teach you a few things anyone would find valuable.

First, there's the matter of treating others with respect and learning to have a conversation. We all benefit from this.

Second, we have to be careful about our assumptions. We should not dismiss others because we don't like what they are saying. Above all, before aggressively challenging anyone, we have to do the work --which can be difficult and time consuming.

You have to keep in mind that someone with the scientific training who is presenting arguments based on math and physics like has devoted a non-trivial amount of time to understanding the problem. One cannot challenge someone coming from that perspective without doing the work first.

Third, don't take this discussion personally. I am simply trying to guide you into understanding that your approach isn't constructive and does not lead discovering the truth through dialogue.

Anyone can be wrong and anyone can be right. I've been in both those corners. Yet, we are never going to discover where we are if we decide to just slap each other silly. That's the opposite of constructive.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z