What’s happening right now is that renewables are being paired with an increasing number of gas power plants. Since gas power can ramp up so quickly they’re a good match until storage can take over.

So I think we already have the solution to the problem you’re describing: just pay to maintain a decent amount of the existing gas power plant. If they’re only there for backup, the impact on CO2 emissions will be negligible. You could even make the gas from renewable sources, since in this scenario the cost of the gas itself is negligible compared to cost of keeping the power plant operational.

This is incidentally another reason (current) nuclear is a dead end going forward. They’re a bad match for renewables. What we need isn’t more base load, we need more peaker plants, load following plants, backup plants and energy storage. Nuclear isn’t a good solution in any of these categories.

Any increase in base load would reduce the amount of renewable+gas/storage capacity needed, so at worst it's a neutral match for renewables.

And if people complain about the peakers releasing CO2, they could be converted to use hydrogen. Hydrogen can be produced either from renewables + electrolysis, or from 24/7 plants reforming methane to hydrogen with the carbon sequestered and the hydrogen stored underground for later use.

Solar is getting so cheap that it's becoming economical in places that might surprise you.

The UK sits further north than almost all of the USA (excl. Alaska), and has a climate not exactly known for its abundant sunshine. But large-scale solar farms are now commercially viable here without subsidy. (eg: https://www.clevehillsolar.com)

Up here the yearly sunshine is pretty good, close to Germany or so. The problem is that almost all of it comes during the summer. In the winter months when demand peaks, solar produces practically nothing. So without seasonal storage becoming economical, it's not a solution to decarbonizing.

Closer to the equator where seasonal variation is less and demand is driven more by air conditioning than heating solar is an excellent choice.

> "The problem is that almost all of it comes during the summer. In the winter months when demand peaks, solar produces practically nothing."

In the UK, this turns out to be seasonally complementary with our wind turbines. In the winter months, wind speeds are stronger and more consistent (especially off shore). In the summer, there is less wind, but the gap is made up by solar. The net result is pretty consistent renewables production year-round.

> "it's not a solution to decarbonizing."

Every kWh of energy produced by a solar panel in the UK (or wind turbine, for that matter) offsets a kWh that would otherwise be produced from fossil fuels, typically from imported natural gas.

Closer than 51 North? you mean like all of the continental US?

95% of the global population lives at latitude less than 50 degrees.

A large chunk of Europe sits north of that though.

I have a strong suspicion that a good chunk of the opposition to solar is good old fashioned white racism. Can't have an energy source win that benefits the brown skinned parts of the world, this thinking goes.