> The problem isn't that production is literally zero, it's that production is non-trivially below average for an extended period of time. That isn't a problem

> The problem isn't that production is literally zero, it's that production is non-trivially below average for an extended period of time. That isn't a problem though for precisely the same reason. > Continent-spanning grids mitigate that to a certain extent, but they're also a) expensive (purposely-idle high capacity very long distance transmission lines), and b) are essentially a scheme to trade frequent localized shortages for less frequent continent-spanning ones. We already have the grid. And again continent spanning shortages don't happen. > Prolonged periods of low production happen as a result of weather, e.g. Florida is suitable for solar because it's at a favorable latitude, but it also gets a lot of rain, and sometimes the rain continues for several weeks at a time. Suitable means satisfies all requirements, not favorable conditions for some of them. If you're building solar in Florida it is with the expectation that there will be some rainy days. > Moreover, suppose there are places that are expected to experience prolonged periods of non-production from solar and wind. What are they supposed to do for power? GRID > Having the same weather system affect most of a continent at the same time isn't really that uncommon. You also get nasty correlations like cloudy and still weather in the heart of the summer, causing simultaneous low generation and high electricity demand for air conditioning over wide areas. It is extremely uncommon. There's a difference between a low pressure front moving across a few states and "the wind has stopped everywhere." You might get cloudy conditions in summer, Phoenix doesn't.