Many of these analyses are missing a basic, fundamental point and variations on that point: You don't have to do the full monty to get improvements.
1. Even if you only have solar farms and no batteries, that reduces the dependency on fossil fuel. For certain parts of the country, the times of maximum insolation correspond really quite well with maximum usage due to cooling and business / manufacturing needs, so no batteries needed, and the existing generating capacity can be scaled back to cover nights and days with less sun.
2. Battery capacity can be phased in (a corollary to point 1) and the system will still be useful.
3. Just because you can't do it all immediately and POOF have a sudden switchover to full solar doesn't mean it isn't a laudable goal to work in that direction. Moreover, because it will disrupt a fair chunk of the economy to switch over to solar, doing it gradually (on the scale of decades) makes sense.
4. Even if the goal is only to achieve 10% replacement of existing fuel-based generating capacity with solar, it's a good thing to do.
5. Our existing nuclear power plants have a finite lifetime and replacement capacity will need to come from somewhere.
6. Just because solar power doesn't make as much sense in certain parts of the country (primarily the more northern lattitudes) doesn't mean there is no value to deploying it where it does make sense.
7. Tesla is a battery manufacturer (among other things); chemical batteries aren't the only way to go for storage. Lithium batteries in particular might not even be a good way to go, given their limited lifetime and potential to catch fire as a failure mechanism.
8. Batteries alone (or some storage technology) without any solar power might be a good idea to allow scaling-back of peak generating capacity.
So, a national effort to improve the power infrastructure just might be a good idea, even if it isn't quite the pipe dream from the summary.