Enrique, whilst I love your positive message towards solar;
as long as the terminology of renewables remains, the entire renewable energy scenario remains arguable, because there are certain harsh systemic truths about profit that remain hidden.
But the physical weakness necessary to maintain the vagueness around profit can be exploited by crafty proponents profiting from extracted energy.
Seems to me the terminology was invented with this in mind, they knew they would need to retain "backkdoors", for when the shit starts to hit the fan, and that time is about now.
Look at the scenario of solar supplied for profit; For the supplier to make profit, it's necessary for the supplier to supply less KWhrs than the consumer pays for, when the money paid as bills is considered as energy at market rates.
This means the net flow of energy is from consumer to supplier, not the other way round!
Because this is not made explicitly clear, it's actually a kind of theft. Energy is quietly, steadily, stolen from the consumer by the utilities energy supplier.
The effect of that, is to impoverish the consumer over time, if not immediately, if the consumer struggles at all to make up what they lost to the utilities energy supplier without even realising it, by exercising similar energy-con of profit on somebody else, who then has to do the same to another, and this chain of energy theft, has to propagate through all supply chains to end at the planet, usually somewhere already impoverished. The planet is the only thing that can supply more energy out, for less put in, but because this is non renewable, it depletes, so the chains get ever tighter, until bankruptcies start to happen, the chains break, people lose vital supplies, and the worker ants are genocided when they are no longer useful.
We are nothing more than ants, energy slaves in this mode, and a destructive scourge on the planet.
And look, put numbers on this and we get answers that explain several degrees of temperature rise in the thermal mass of the planet, whereas it's very difficult to try to argue it has anything to do with the blanket effect in an adiabatic atmosphere, an awful lot of "Dark Energy" has to be conjured up, to make up the disparity we see between the measured temperature rise of the planet, and the mainstream adopted (profitable!), theory of greenhouse gases.
The truth is that the business of carbon capture is bullshit business which locks us into generation of carbon, which in turn locks us into extraction.
And another truth yet to become known by mainstream, is that the supply of solar energy at profit, also ties us into extraction, because the imbalance between KWhrs received, and KWhrs charged for, has to come from the planet.
And this all at some point will beg questions to be asked of some religions, because the time period we've desertified the planet by this happens to coincide with the number of years since somebody previously critical of profit was crucified, traumatising us into accepting what was always a kind of robbery - profit.
Well now the shit is hitting the fan (Sorry excuse my French), more and more elaborate and crazy lies / sales pitch / virtue signaling / are having to be conjured up to try to cover up the basic dishonesty of the for-profit system, which nature is In process of bursting wide open for us to see, and continue trying to deny.
We can't fail to notice energy prices started to go negative in France just recently.
I suggest we need to ditch the stupid terminology of renewables, before it blows up in our faces.
There is mathematically positive energy, and mathematically negative.
Use of one destroys, heats, so is unsustainable, whilst use of the other creates, cools.
I'll let you guess which is which, and where they each come from.