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.
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)