These are arbitrary metrics, why does energy density matter for anywhere which has the space? Even in Northern latitudes and high density countries you can generate a lot of electricity with a nominal amount of land. All the more if they can be fitted on rooftops. For sunny places near deserts it can absolutely provide a big percentage, even a dominant percentage of power. The main issue is matching demand to supply, production density is a distant concern.

Energy density isn't arbitrary. It normally means something can be used in compact form (batteries, oil, gasoline, coal, uranium) and deliver energy at will.

Look at the capacity factor of wind and solar, add to that the huge areas they need and the fact that they are intermittent and you start to get a glimpse of the problem.

This is neither economically nor technically feasible. You can't generate as much as you think and you can't do it at a cost that makes it feasible generally for society not even with lowered cost.

Currently, we are talking 1% of world energy consumption not expected to be much more than 3-4% in 2040 and that's despite huge investments and all the political goodwill you can ask for [1] Keep in mind that the numbers you normally see displayed is for electricity not for energy. Electricity is only a subset of energy.

Furthermore, investments in solar and wind is decreasing especially when you take china out of the equation. [2]

And again. Lab results or theoretically possible advantages most of the times aren't feasible in reality and at scale.

[1] https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR3eH1AFcRSPSEit8JINLCMvE_...

[2] https://www.globalresearch.ca/growth-renewables-stalled-inve...

Those IEA renewable projections are comically wrong every year:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsX2rpPW0AIVORG?format=jpg&name=...

Ate they wrong about the current situation?

Why is it not feasible? I run 32 panels on my roof, in the pacific northwest which is known for its rain, it covers 100% of my residential and electric car usage when considered on an annual basis. If roofs required solar panels we would have a large part of power generation done at a much lower intallation cost and could focus on large scale energy storage projects instead. My payoff period is 11-12 years, system is warranted to 20. No breakthrough required.

>I run 32 panels on my roof, in the pacific northwest which is known for its rain

Aren't you still connected to the traditional grid anyway?

That's right. All my neighbors use the excess solar power during the summer, and during the winter I use more grid power than I create. I get credits in the summer and use them up during the winter.

A giant leap in solar efficiency doesn't solve the storage problem, and the storage problem doesn't need a magic physics solution, just large scale heads down engineering. My point is: solar is efficient enough now, and a sound economic choice. I make enough power in a year just with my roof for my house and car. I do need a storage solution to do power leveling, which is what I use the grid for now.

It does need a magical physics solution unless you are fine with keep using coal, oil, gas and nuclear as backup.

When you factor in the infrastructure to support you when you don't have power yourself then it suddenly looks less economically sound.

That's the point.

That's where we disagree. You think power storage will take a magic physics solution, and I think it is normal engineering (pumped storage, rail/gravity potential generators, utility scale battery banks for leveling).