• EnderWiggin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    That’s not at all what MIT is talking about here. This goes into detail around the challenges tied in rolling out grid scale solar in a way that aligns with supply and demand curves, and how to make sure we’re able to capture overproduction so that we can use it when not enough is being produced. It’s a complex shift to work out in our over 100+ year grid production structure, and has been an ongoing discussion across the energy sector. But you know…memes and shit.

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      You’re not saying anything contradictory to the criticism, You’re saying the exact same shit with a more expensive vocabulary. I’m also very educated. I also agree the sun is Monty Burns greatest enemy for giving out free light.

      • EnderWiggin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Clearly not. The point is that grid scale deployment is not easy. It’s an important discussion to do it right. The criticism is genuinely stupid and just spotlights people who clearly don’t understand how any of this stuff works or what the article is even talking about. You can’t just slap solar panels everywhere and call it a day.

        Grid scale redundancies are important. Managing load is important. Energy storage is important. Scaling up renewables and scaling down conventional generation is important. Ensuring those who cannot afford their own BTM generation can access affordable electricity is important. That’s entirely what this conversation is about.