First of course is the tendency, up to now, of having power done by big, centralized generating plants; certainly to take advantage of economies of scale, as well as to also force site placement to more remote areas, precisely because big in the past has also been synonymous with dirty, and/or noisy.

This subsequently requires a separate type of delivery network; one that is not only dedicated to electrons, but also one that demands a great deal of its own, unique, transmission infrastructure; which also happens to be quite inordinately vulnerable to geophysical turbulence, both from the ground and the atmosphere. This combination of vulnerable, large central generation plants, coupled to an equally vulnerable transmission system, has always seemed to me to be exactly how you do not want have your systems be fault tolerant; and especially now that we are heading into a new era of extreme turbulence; in the atmosphere, in the oceans, and in our social institutions.

That being the case you can just bet that the real bottom line, in the future, will be what is the most efficient way of delivering power; doing it to both lower general maintenance costs, but also to prepare for extreme weather, and geophysical surface events to come, that might disrupt delivery. The point being, certainly, to minimize harm in the first place so that one event doesn't cascade into dozens of other, power outage catastrophes.

For me, to do that, the better plan was always to go to some form of hydrogen production (hence my sea based, Yen Tornado Turbines, to create the big power to do electrolysis on seawater) , and then try to deliver it either via existing pipe rights of way, or by existing roads and highways (fed regionally by large, Dirigible Blimp air trains) to as granular a system of localized fuel cells as you can manage (going into each home and business if at all possible); with that then also backed up by a combination of community battery stations, and cryogenic fuel storage.

The problem, naturally, gets more complicated by the fact that everybody is looking for the next "disruptive" technology; so as to disrupt the established monopolies (in the ideal sense) with new thinking, and new incentives for the old guard to get back on their toes; or so the ideal would have you hoping for. And solar panels were that tech not so long ago, and still aspire towards same. And so the entrepreneurs disrupt away and suddenly there is a supply spike in the middle of the day when consumption is at its lowest, and a supply falloff just as peak evening demand comes on line.

I firmly believe that all forms of solar will have their place, including solar panels, especially as an additional backup to individual buildings. Using such panels as the mainstay, however for such buildings is a mistake in my opinion. Better to use them en mass in high solar available locations; as in the more arid desert Southwest, and then use that power for localized, large scale construction (as in places that might be fit to build very large area, high altitude, lighter than air constructs, which may well play a key role in saving the ice at our poles).

If nothing else, however, confronting this conundrum will certainly indicate to you just how difficult it is now to do anything new without first accounting for all of the ancillary effects it will have on the many interdependent systems that surround the nominal point of this change. Everything affects everything else in other words, as I have said before. And so we no longer have the luxury of doing change in isolation. And most especially when that isolation revolves around the narrow focus of purely personal gain.

So I will say it again. We can't solve this problem until we understand that we first have to get rid of the old commercial dynamic that makes everybody doing their own thing the norm. And that has them doing that for the corrupting gain that is electrified money in the twenty first century. Until we do that a "Duck Curve" in power management will be the least of our worries.