[avianlyric]

It might be worth reading the rest of the article. Which points at that the big reason why you can run off grid is because solar panels without a battery store are effectively incapable of usefully powering variable loads without:

Only running at a fraction of their max available output allow enough headroom for high peak startup draw from loads, and headroom for clouds and planes passing overhead.

Frequently cutting in and out as the load regularly exceeds available supply.

Keeping the frequency sync is the easiest problem to solve, the article even covers what would happen if you tried to use a little generator to produce a sync signal.

[DoubleGlazing]

I think that points to a bigger problem with solar and that is that it is a horribly mis-sold concept.

Most solar dealers have a one-size-fits-all product that they fit to nearly all homes without much modification. The homeowner thinks they are buying something that will save them a fortune and eliminate their need for grid power. In reality they discoverer that solar is persnickety and they will get nowhere near eliminating their grid reliance. And when you do the math you realise that it might take 10+ years to recoup the high cost of installation and by that point your batteries will need to be replaced and your solar panels will have lost some of their efficiency.

I know people who have gone fully off-grid in Ireland, but they don't just rely on solar. They supplement with wind turbines and in some case hydro power from streams.

[siddboots]

I think you have it wrong. You make it sound like homeowners are tricked into thinking they will be grid-independent, which I don't think is a fair depiction of how the product is sold (at least in Australia, that is.) The value proposition isn't getting entirely off the grid, it's just saving a bit of cash and doing some good for the planet.

Rooftop solar is popular because the payback period is short enough for homeowners - well under 10 years here for a system that is built to last at least 20. Modules built now degrade about 0.25% per year. Solar farms built now are typically financed as 25-30 year projects.

Source: I am a data analyst at a solar engineering firm.

[dublin]

"Doing some good for the planet" really must take into account the toxic metals leaching from the cheap Chinese panels that took over the market in the past decade. (There are no significant US/EU PV panel mfrs left.) I've seen mid-scale arrays (30-50 KW) with 1/4 of the panels delaminating and thus leaking heavy metals (lead, cadmium, etc.) directly into the environment - or worse, into rainwater recovery systems!

[fosco]

I am considering solar and a big plus would be a battery as well.

Do you have any suggestions or recommendations on things to read or companies to look at? i.e. Tesla power?

[pzone]

And do your calculations include subsidies? In that case it's not necessarily "saving cash" but "taking a transfer payment from taxpayers."

[rb666]

Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized, so your point is moot.

[parsnips]

They're not only not heavily subsidized by consumers, but one of the most taxed consumer goods you can buy (besides cigarettes).

[Retric]

Coal power power for example does not need to cover the deaths directly caused by it's pollution. That's a vast subsidy. Roads revive rather large subsidies from the general funds outside of gas taxes which is another large subsidy, though electric cars revive even larger subsides by not needing to pay for their use.

PS: Look at taxes for Farm use vehicles fuel to get a better picture of the actual 'subsidy' vs 'tax'. The tipping point is very much a subsidy. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

[raverbashing]

I agree with what you wrote there, so they should justify by it not by just saying "it's a frequency issue"

As you said:

> Keeping the frequency sync is the easiest problem to solve