I design utility-scale solar and wind facilities for a living, ~5 GWs worth across ~60 projects over the course of my relatively short career of 6 years in the industry.

We do take weather extremes into account, but are often told by financing parties to “reduce conservatism.” What this means is that the facility will not be able to reach its full power output rating during extreme temperatures (generally 40C), but in most cases we’re just talking about reduced efficiency or reduced power output, the whole system (usually) won’t just shutdown.

Extreme low temps are a bigger limitation for solar design, because voltage across modules in series goes up as temperatures decrease. Inverters have to shutdown when their voltage limit is hit for an extended period of time, however this is pretty rare because the coldest temperatures that we design the facility for are seen during winter storms, when sunlight (irradiation) is at its lowest.

As always, the answer to these problems when it comes to climate change is simply: more renewable availability = reduced reliance on fossil fuels. Even if a site is rated for 250MW, and at 50C it can only output 230MW, you can still meet the power demands of the grid if you have another 250MW facility down the road.

I have to say “generally” and “usually” above because different manufacturers have different limitations, the worst I’ve seen is a 4.2MW inverter that shuts down entirely when ambient air reaches 45C. These inverters are much more common in Europe, the US market doesn’t like them because of this limitation.

Wind is a bit more complicated, but it’s far less limited by temperature fluctuations. I think most turbines and the electrical equipment are rated for like 60C or more, and can go down to like -30C, maybe more. When wind picks up, the rotors can’t always manage the extreme torque. Power can’t be generated by the rotor if it’s moving too quickly, so it has to hit the brakes, which shuts it down altogether to avoid failure or excessive maintenance costs.

All in all, I wanted to write this comment cause I think the article is a bit dramatic and focusing on current grid limitations rather than the possibilities, as well as spreading misinformation about the reliability of renewables. I’m pretty sure that the curtailment costs shown in this article are related to either opportunity cost (not real money spent) or the cost of using other forms of electricity generation due to specific grid limitations (which could be solved by building more transmission capacity).