I live off solar. It's fine. LED lighting is cheap enough and doesn't take a huge power draw. My huge power draw is the heater and the hot water heater. No problem. We have these things called Batteries... So I charge for a few hours to heat water for 15 mins. So what? It works fine. Solar panels are down around $1/watt, even for decent panels made somewhere without slave labor.
I also live primarily on solar, with a bit of wind thrown in, diesel generator for backup. Grid power isn't available to a yacht on a swing mooring. My home is small not tiny. LED lighting, refrigeration, laptop, no hot water (microwave much coffee though). Sail North in winter for heating (southern hemisphere). Using 10 very expensive (Japanese) panels and 1800 Ah batteries. This is an exercise in political, not electrical power. Although not independent of the land, I can't be held to ransom on a daily basis as can most city dwellers. Amortised capital costs and maintenance exceed the cost of grid electricity: well over $25,000 worth of equipment, probably around $2000 pa to maintain. One thing most people forget when quoting solar is that the panels are only part of the cost: the mounting equipment is a non-trivial part of the cost.
People *want* solar, they just can't *afford* it.
The biggest cost saving of solar and wind power is not generation but transmission. It's not the cost of coal but installation of wire that matters. Wire is expensive in itself and even more expensive to install. Wind and solar will therefore be most popular where transmission expenses are highest.
The biggest expense of solar and wind is not generation but storage. It's not the cost of the generating device but storing the generated power that matters.
Expect solar to flourish first in niches: outdoor lighting, on boats and farms, battery maintenance on cars. In these places the costs are justified by the reduced transmission costs, and storage is either already present, easily augmented, or only required at a low level. Don't forget, that whilst batteries are cheap they also use up a lot of space and space is worth money.
Oh, and of course I missed one crucial fact: the biggest solar plants have existed for quite some time: hydro-electric power is clearly driven by the sun, and dams provide exceptionally good energy storage whilst having fairly neutral environmental impact (remove some trees, add some fish). As above, hydro is a niche that only works in select places.
Get your facts straight. Solar and wind power however are only possible with enormous subsidies yet still can't produce energy on their own and require 100% backup capacity by conventional plants.
Can't produce enough energy for what and whom? I live on a sailboat with solar panels, wind gen, and of course sails. 95% of all my power needs are produced naturally, including long range travel. Yes I have diesel backup generator and always use diesel for close quarters movement., and I have both micro-wave and alcohol cooking. Most of my lighting is LED. It gets a bit hot in summer and a bit cold in winter despite the insulation, but it's worth it for the billionaire views and low rents
Now please explain "needs" of land persons, who, in my view, are guilty of gross over-consumption and extreme wastage. In my opinion, the biggest "need" arises from lousy design of dwellings, with blatant disregard for thermal efficiency and utilisation of abundant locally available natural energy sources (including natural temperature differentials generated by day/night cycle).
You clearly don't have a CS background, but rather are a programmer. If you understand the fundamentals you're not going to be "stupid" in any language.
You clearly don't have a programming background, but rather are an academic. If you understood the fundamentals you'd know that learning a programming language library is the primary impediment.
Term, holidays, term, holidays, till we leave school, and then work, work, work till we die. -- C.S. Lewis