I don't think this is a fair criticism. It's not a "but sometimes" so much as "but X hours a day" and "but during X season". There are genuine problems unique to solar (e.g. the Duck Curve) and genuine problems unique to wind
There are also genuine problems unique to LED lamps in signals that we solved with little heaters.
I don't think the amount of time involved in the "sometimes" matters so much as the fact that the new problems are readily surmountable (with many solutions both in progress and already deployed) and the fact that people use the new problems as justification for a reactionary desire to jetison the technology entirely without even trying to surmount them.
Why do people still continue to declare "you know solar only works during the day" like they've discovered some fatal flaw that no one has ever thought of? The "genuine problem" is not a problem. It's an aspect of this technology that is thoroughly incorporated into the science and engineering.
"There are many potential solutions to the duck curve. The lessons learned from SETO’s projects will be critical to improving the flexibility of the grid and addressing over-generation risks as solar grows throughout the country. According to the Energy Information Administration, the installed amount of PV is expected to triple by 2030—potentially migrating the duck curve outside of California."
It is a fair criticism and there are genuine problems unique to solar, in the same way that there are genuine problems to coal power.
If you read the original comment that the person was replying to, they made a very general problem statement like it was a nail in the coffin for any renewal energy source. As if nobody has considered those drawbacks already.
> As if nobody has considered these drawbacks already
There is a real and consequential lack of attention to detail in this regard, though. Energy is a tricky and subtle topic which is very commonly oversimplified in the press, in politics, even among the technically literate, likely because we have a clearly identified problem (the consequences of hydrocarbons) and what seems to be an obvious solution (renewables).
It is a dangerous fallacy to think we can simply swap wind and solar into global industrial civilization and carry on happily into the sunset, but that is how many well-intentioned people seem to understand the situation.
I don't think anyone in this comment thread is saying we can simply swap wind and solar, as a very reductionist take.
But just throwing up the drawbacks of a particular solution, doesn't mean that solution should be entirely thrown out. No solution is perfect in the beginning, but through iterative innovation and a need to switch to renewable energy sources, those drawbacks will become less of a drawback.
Certainly tradeoffs do not discredit a proposal wholesale. That's true, and it's beside the point.
This thread is also beside the point. The relevant sphere is the general public discourse, which is largely naive and unexamined. This is not at all to insult the public, but to critique the narrative that dominates the public mindshare.
The premise that we "need to switch to renewable energy sources" is what is in question. What is it that we want do with that energy? Are "renewables" really renewable if they require a massive expansion in mining of non-renewable materials? Have we really something we ought to call a "solution" if it prolongs our war on earth-borne life?
We don't simply have a hydrocarbon problem. We have a deep and profound dilemma and a mass psychosis of global proportion. The application of tidy concepts like "problem" and "solution" to the former are symptomatic of the latter.
