[t0mas88]

The risk is not turning all solar installations "on maximum". That happens nearly every summer day between 1 and 2pm. Automatic shutoff when the grid voltage is rising can be disabled, but more than 9 out of 10 consumer solar installations in the Netherlands deliver their maximum output on such a day for most of the summer, not running into the maximum voltage protections.

The big risk is turning them all off at the same time, while under maximum load. That will cause a brown-out that no other power generator can pick up that quickly. If the grid frequency drops far enough big parts of the grid will disconnect and cause blackouts to industry or whole areas.

It will take a lot of time to recover from that situation. Especially if it's done to the neighbouring grids as well so they can't step in to pick up some of the load.

[more_corn]

Not if we have grid scale batteries. Solar shuts off, oh no. Sometime in the next four hours we need to get that fixed or something else up. Also flattens out the demand curve and allows arbitrage between the peak and valley.

[ale42]

Problem is, those batteries are not there (yet)...

[huijzer]

Don’t underestimate exponentials. Tesla produced 6.5 GWh of battery storage in 2022, 14.7 GWh in 2023, and will probably double again in 2024.

And other battery manufacturers such as BYD grow fast too.

[automatic6131]

Always underestimate exponentials: none exist in nature, they're just an early phase of an S curve (sigmoid, if you want the $10 word)

[huijzer]

What makes you think we're in the later stages of the battery S-curve currently? More generally technology-wise, what makes you think energy technology in general is an S-curve? Many situations are stacked S-curves. Global energy consumption, for example, looks like an exponential (no flattening yet) [1] if you plot it starting 1800.

Also, the start of an S-curve can be described by an exponential function, right? So it is an exponential.

My point more generally was to not underestimate processes which increase exponentially. Even if they flatten at some point, they can drastically change the world and fast. For example, iPhones and computer chips took off slowly, but once they started moving they took over the world. (Or do you not have multiple smartphones and computer chips in your house right now?)

And yes your point that it's all an s-curve is theoretically correct. But I think it's a semantic discussion. Next time I'll say "never underestimate the first half of an S-curve."

[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

[automatic6131]

You're taking exponential improvements for granted. Only one human endeavour (ever) has made exponential gains for a long period, that of silicon lithography. And even that ended in the last decade.

The reason I say "always underestimate" is the obvious one. The easy problems are solved first, then the harder ones take longer because they're harder.

So that's fantastic that battery production scaled up. Only a fool would expect - would plan on - it continuing like that.

[ale42]

Which is kind of normal, we don't need infinite batteries ;-)