The article bites off more than it can chew and then tries to shoehorn the whole thing into a negative narrative. (How’s that for a mixed metaphor? Shoehorning bites!)

Wind is a failure because it’s not cheap enough and solar is a failure because it’s too cheap? Each energy source needs to treated to a separate article.

Also, the argument that solar energy shouldn’t be government supported because it failed thanks in part to Chinese competition that was cheap because it was government supported seems paradoxical to me.