Nonsense all around.
Wind and solar are easily destroyed, can’t run all the time, backup power is insanely expensive.
No one was claiming solar is the only solution, but it significantly reduce the need for fossil generated electricity. Nuclear also has serious downsides for future generations AND new reactors are powers more expensive than budgetted, while wind and especially solar can be produced relatively cheap if compared per MWh. In Dutch: https://decorrespondent.nl/15355/kernenergie-niet-nodig-niet-slim-en-niet-te-betalen/a95a368a-57e8-0a02-3771-a37846ed2fba
Discussion
I think there's a lot of fossil fuel energy required in the set up and maintenance of renewable energy projects as well. I could be wrong, but I think these projects typically require tax funds being appropriated to them to remain above board ,(i.e. they rarely if ever become profitable on their own). The exception may be nuclear. Small nuclear facilities may have a chance to augment fossil fuels. In the end, we are dependent on fossil fuels fir the time being and most renewable projects should be considered setbacks, as they waste funds and contribute little.
In the article from de correspondent i just posted this all addressed and debunked, only it's in Dutch
All right, suit yourself.