'Unstoppable force' of solar power propels world to 40% clean electricity

And yet sometimes I wonder. In the Uk you need most of your energy in the cold dark winter. So if you require enough non solar renewables to get you through the winter with net zero and those renewables are still available in the summer time are large scale solar not a bit redundant? Sunnier countries that have high electricity demand for air conditioning during the sunny periods would seem to have a better match mind.

It's usually windy when it's dark and cold and vice versa.

You should be wondering about the combination of solar + wind energy + short term storage + long term storage.

> It's usually windy when it's dark and cold and vice versa.

Usually, but not always. You can have many days or weeks, e.g. in mid-winter of overcast weather and very little wind. This is a real problem for renewable energy sources, they're not comprehensively viable unless supplemented by alternatives like gas peakers or perhaps nuclear.

Maybe look at some data before FUDding.

This model posits 97% carbon free generation in Australia with 5 hours of storage using actual real world weather data:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...

>You can have many days or weeks

Maybe cite actual data.

>alternatives like gas peakers or perhaps nuclear.

Nuclear isnt a peaker. Or rather, it can theoretically be used as a peaker but burning literal $100 notes may be more cost effective in the long run than using it as a peaker.

Batteries and pumped storage are cost effective peakers. I find it's better when modeling renewable energy generation scenarios to try not to pretend they dont exist.

Pumped storage is cost effective but it's also built out, there's little if any scope for growth. Battery storage is entirely speculative so far. Whilst nuclear is a proven baseload source that can provide enough power for the most critical needs even when renewables aren't producing.