Since there is a limit with what the solar system can provide the user/community will work with that. No need to say it can't accommodate a wasteful western way to use the energy.
Wasteful is relative. Our house produces 250-300% of our usage most days, but 5-50% of our usage some weeks.
Heating and cooling (and the computers that manage the batteries, which draw about 200W, including internet!) is hard to timeshift, but everything else is easy to move to sunny days.
Anyway, on those sunny days, electricity is literally free. I wish I could just dump it into a magic box that pulled charcoal out of the atmosphere.
At some point I got an itch and looked into what it would take to run such a magic box myself.
The lightbulb moment was realizing that of I did manage to pull a ton (or 15) of carbon out of the air by whatever method, I would then have to move that carbon... Somewhere. I had been looking especially at algae bio reactors, which leave you with a particularly soupy waste situation. :)
One can shift them by at least few hours using theorem-insulated water tank. It costs money but likely will be cheaper (and safer) than Lithium batteries.
If you mean to say "as long as they can't afford luxuries they'll do without them" that is no doubt true.
However to suggest that once they can afford luxuries that are most cheaply acquired by going beyond a single-household electricity setup, that they will continue to do without them over some attachment to not having a grid, that claim seems almost certainly completely incorrect.
It also needs to be said that electricity isn't just used for "wasteful things", it's used for making things more efficient, so that people can do more. The article talks about this in the context of lighting, but it's no less true in the context of washing machines, and dishwashers, and microwaves, and air-conditioning [1], and mechanized transportation (electric bikes/cars/...), and ...
