I think that as I spent most of my adult life promoting energy efficiency as the only resource that was cheaper than fossil and nuclear power, it is now a great relief to have utility scale wind and utility scale solar also cheaper than fossil or nuclear power.
Whether you think that climate is a problem, or fossil fuel addiction, or nuclear waste, or soot and smog, it doesn't matter. None of the progress has much to do with environmental concerns. And now that clean energy is cheaper than dirty energy, nothing is going to slow it down until we run out of opportunities to displace dirty energy with cheaper more abundant clean energy.
There are only ten countries out of 195 countries in the world that have enough fossil fuels to export more than a small fraction of what they consume. Nuclear power also comes from most of those ten countries, and has become insanely expensive. So much that the only recourse nuclear advocates have is to lie about the costs of the plants and pretend that the fuel costs and not the combined fuel and operating costs are all that matters.
What that means to the world of entities that fund new generation is la la la nothing nada zip zero. China and South Korea can build nuclear plants for less than half as much as Western countries, but they can also build wind and solar for less than half of what Western countries can. The Gobi Desert is host to the world's largest wind farm, 10,000 MW's, at a cost of $875 per KW it is so cheap that Chinese wholesale rates could pay for this plant in a single year. They plan to double it in two or three years. Their "cheaper" nuclear plants are the same price the SMR crowd pretends it can achieve, $6000 per KW, which is why China and South Korea are slowing things down.
I spent a LOT of time following climate science back in the day. By 1990 scientists knew that the reason the world's deserts had increased 10% from 1940 to 1970 was soot and smog, which causes moist air to rain over the oceans instead of carrying moisture over land to have it cause rain when the air moves over landmasses and experiences pressure changes. Why we don't remember that today is a measure of the success of the climate disinformation efforts. But it still doesn't matter because wind and solar farms are cheaper than fossil or nuclear plants and electric cars are cheaper than gasoline cars (Tesla's are a low cost luxury car, but there were ten fully electric cars on U.S. showroom floors in 2018 for less than the average new gasoline car price).
Today's rate of wind and solar growth will still take about thirty years to eliminate fossil and nuclear power, but it won't stop until people stop making money, and that won't happen until we have built a much larger electric supply than today's.
ALL chemicals and fuels we get from fossil fuels can be replaced with identical green chemicals made from air and water. Whether it is hydrogen, methanol, ammonia, chemical feedstocks for plastics manufacturing, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, methane, or something else, it doesn't matter to me. All of them will be cheaper than today's fossil versions when we have a mature wind and solar resource. They will simultaneously serve storage and replacing the challenging bits of the modern energy world.
There are very distinct economic priorities which dictate things that many hours are spent debating. We DON'T need storage until there is something to store. As long as the grid can take wind and solar generation directly, it is more profitable to the wind and solar producers than making something to be stored, or using batteries. Storage is already cheap enough that solar plus storage is beating natural gas peakers in auctions for capacity, but we won't see really cheap storage until some parts of the world have really large wind and solar resources, and power is available for at least a couple of days a month in excess of what the grid needs.
The only thing I can see from current trends for sure is that the U.S. won't be where storage develops unless a lot of people get a lot smarter a lot faster here. The UK makes a good case for being the world power of storage development. But several other places are in the running.
One really important, really understated observation before I go: in 2019 58% of the world's solar panels were installed in developing nations. This means that a lot of solar development isn't turning off fossil and nuclear plants, but rather providing power to people who couldn't have afforded fossil or nuclear power. Wind may be doing the same, but I haven't seen the data. This should be powerfully instructive to people who are estimating the future market for wind and solar generation.
It's all in the economics. I call myself an environmentalist, but I knew in 1985 that I had to push for clean energy solutions that saved money. The U.S. spends $7 billion per year on utility efficiency programs, saves $30 billion per year, and could double that in a few months by raising the efficiency programs in 44 states to the current level in the best six states.
But it is a hell of a lot easier to push wind and solar than it is to push efficiency. No one is interested in how to optimize any of this. If I ever found a discussion of optimizing our energy choices with other qualified people I'd be close enough to nirvana that I wouldn't care about the difference.