This who boondoggle is precisely why I said years ago that solar can be complementary to existing non-emitting sources IN MODERATION as long as the installed capacity doesn't start trying to bite into the share held by lower emitting reliable sources, like nuclear and hydro.
It is beyond idiocy, and bothers me to no end, to see wind and solar advocates take shots at nuclear for not being able or allowed to maneuver out of the way to let wind on the grid when it's particularly windy, as if this is somehow the fault of the reliable generator and not a glaring problem with the intermittent one, producing out of phase with demand.
The problem is that their advocacy isn't predicated on the usefulness of the source, but rather their desire for there to be as much of it as possible. So the lack of logic and reason doesn't matter, because it isn't premised on that. This makes rational conversation nary impossible, because they aren't really looking to solve the problem of having reliable non-emitting generation.