I do not think the two should be lumped together. They do both need storage but solar is more predictable. Winds can be low for extended periods.

▲

macintux a few seconds ago | parent | next [-]

[delayed]

▲

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Winds can be low for extended periods.

So can sun, but that's why we build both where that's unusual. We've got plenty of stats and data gathering on where it's reliably sunny/windy enough.

▲

lstodd 3 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

fredophile 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Can you point to large scale solar or wind projects that were shoved into places that have extended periods of low sunlight or wind?

▲

lstodd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The entire Energiewende for example.

▲

fredophile 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Are you saying that they chose bad locations inside of Germany for wind and solar or that Germany doesn't have any viable locations and they shouldn't build wind and solar in Germany at all?

▲

8note 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

germany is producing tons of solar energy though?

can you be more specific and give 10 examples of german solar plants that produce ~0W electricity in a year?

they might be a lot more productive than you think

▲

lstodd an hour ago | parent [-]

Germany is producing some solar energy. This is of course indisputable.

They paid for that by selling most of their industry to China because energy costs became unbearable.

Was this the right tradeoff?

	▲	bryanlarsen 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Without that solar / wind, Europe would be paying 100 million euros per day more for LNG. Electricity in Europe is expensive enough already, making it even more expensive by shunning the cheapest available form would be even harder on industry.