And I bet local storage is more economical to build and maintain than an additional network of huge continent-wide transmission lines.
This is something you have to factor in when reading boldly optimistic claims about how somehow solar and wind can work everywhere without even storage.
Maybe if we never stop pumping natural gas into our homes to burn it, but that's not exactly in line with the goals.
In reality, for anything north enough to get snow on the regular you can't use today's electricity consumption numbers to judge future needs. When everyone switches to heat pumps base load at night is going to skyrocket.
Gas (methane) doesn't have to come from the ground. The price of electrolysed hydrogen is dropping. It's early days; there's a lot of learning curve ahead, so we can expect further falls in price. Once you have hydrogen you can use it as-is or combine it with air-captured carbon for synthetic methane and re-use existing infrastructure.
Electrolysis is quite complementary to solar. It uses DC voltage (direct from the panels); and PEM (polymer electrolyte membrane) electrolysers start in a second or so, so passing clouds and such are not a problem. Solid oxide and alkaline methods have slightly longer startup times so may require an hour or so of battery storage alongside the panels. Carbon capture is similar to these latter two as I understand it.
That shouldn't be how an argument works.
What this does require is significant investment in grid infrastructure which has been criminally neglected in years.