I'm surprised that a photographer would have such a troglodyte attitude, considering how remarkably fast the technological improvement of digital cameras has been since the 1980's and 1990's, and how much the cost of each new generation of digital cameras has fallen in tandem with increased efficiency and sophistication.
When I first came across this site, Michael Reichmann was praising the 3mp Canon D30 which he claimed could produce an image equal to the quality of 35mm film on an A4 size print. For prints larger than A4, 35mm film still had the edge.
I was interested, but the price was too high. I waited until the 6mp Canon D60 came out, and ever since then I've been gradually upgrading as sensor quality improved and prices fell. My latest purchase, the Nikon Z50 with the two kit lenses, is an absolute bargain, about 10x the quality and sophistication of the original Canon D30 and a fifth of the price. 
If there's a will to continue developing solar technology, the degree of improvement, from this point on, could be similar to the degree of improvement in digital camera technology over the past two decades.
We all know that the sun shines intermittently in any given location, and even if it usually shines all day in the desert, it doesn't shine at night. However, there are obvious solutions which you seem to ignore. Battery storage is currently too expensive for a household to become totally self-sufficient at a reasonable price, but as battery technology develops, as digital cameras have developed, there will be a point in the future (most probably) when solar panels and solar paint, on roofs, walls and windows, in conjunction with advanced battery storage, provide very cheap and affordable energy, especially when one includes the benefit of recharging one's Electric Vehicle at no extra cost. How much does the average person spend on gasoline for their car each year?
There is also the option of including a 'Virtual Power Plant' within a suburban community of households with battery storage, where the excess power in one household is distributed to another household with a shortage of supply.
"A VPP is a collection of home solar batteries that provide on-demand battery power in order to support the electricity grid in times of need. This type of power plant helps stabilize the grid and prevent blackouts while also lowering overall electricity costs but it is typically overlooked when solutions are more broadly considered."
Another much broader solution is to connect numerous areas around the world with 'High Voltage Direct Current' transmission lines, preferably underground or accompanying long distance water pipes, or placed under the sea bed. HVDC transmission lines can transmit electricity over thousands of kilometres, with relatively little loss of energy. There are already a many such lines installed across Europe. Refer attached image from Wikipedia.
Regarding Nuclear Power, I agree that it is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, but there is a huge problem with the nuclear waste and the decommissioning of Nuclear Plants that have served their purpose. We've already discussed the future problems of recycling millions of solar panels, and that this future cost should be included in the cost of electricity generated from those solar panels.
Imagine if there were tens of thousands of nuclear power plants around the world. What would be the cost of successfully disposing of the waste without environment harm? How often would we experience a terrible disaster like Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Here's an article which addresses the problems that France faces.
"Most fuel unloaded from nuclear reactors in France is reprocessed; however, due to its excessive heat it first has to be cooled in 4m-deep ‘pools’ of water for several years.
This process generates intermediate and high-level waste.
The latter, also known as long-lived waste, is vitrified. This generates immense heat and requires the spent fuel to be cooled for several decades before it can be permanently stored and disposed of. Intermediate-level waste follows a similar treatment process.
After decades of cooling, France, like most other nuclear power generating countries, has no long-term solution in place for high and intermediate spent fuel waste disposal.
For now there is no rush at least, as Hoorelbecke says the disposal of high-level waste being produced at present will only happen around 2080, more than five to eight decades after reprocessing."
https://www.power-technology.com/features/managing-nuclear-waste-france-long-short-game/
Here's another article which addresses the problems of decommissioning.
"How much have France, Germany and UK set aside for decommissioning?
Whereas Germany has set aside €38 billion to decommission 17 nuclear reactors, and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that clean-up of UK’s 17 nuclear sites will cost between €109‒250 billion over the next 120 years, France has set aside only €23 billion to decommissioning its 58 reactors. To put this in context, according to the European Commission,
Soon EDF will have to start the biggest, most complex and costliest nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management programme on earth."
https://energypost.eu/how-much-will-it-really-cost-to-decommission-the-aging-french-nuclear-fleet/
I hope you can see, Joe, that I have completely demolished your argument, and I hope you are honest enough to admit it. 
Sorry Ray, but you are pushing an impossible dream. Probably the most damning evidence against solar and wind is from a german study publish in the last year that looks at energy return from various sources of power vs energy put into producing those sources.
What I mean by this if you add up all of the energy to build a plant (from mining to production to construction to usage), how many more times of energy do you get out?
For coal, it is about 30 times more. For hydroelectric, it is about 36 times more. Oil and natural gas is roughly 65 and 80 times more, respectively. Nuclear is over 200 times more.
Wind and solar is 1.9 to 3.6 times more. Burning coal to make electricity is, on average, 15 times more efficient.
Now you (and others may be thinking), whats the big deal, we are still getting a positive return, so it is a good thing right? Well, not really.
A modern economy consumes at least 10 times more energy then the energy the economy puts into producing it. All forms of energy but wind and solar are over that threshold. Wind and solar are far below it, which means wind and solar acts as a leech on the system. That is why prices skyrocket when wind and solar start becoming a sizable part of the grid.
Now, insofar as conservation, what is your response to the fact that wind and solar farms kill large predator birds? And don't give me the cats kill many more birds bull shit. Cats kill small birds that reproduce in the dozens. Large birds, being killed by these farms, reproduce much slower and will have less offspring over their course of lives.
It is even theorized that the great decrease in insects in Germany could be caused by the drastic increase in wind turbines. They are constantly cleaning insect bio-mass off of the blades.
Now, in response to your point about the increases in digital camera technology and juxtaposing that with solar, we are now far past the point of deminishing returns on digital cameras, just like with solar. Really, can you name a ground breaking advancement in image quality in the last 5 or 6 years? Not user features, but actual IQ? To be honest, I cant, except for acute angle response, but that is only for the benefit of an extremely small number of photographers. Sure, there are incremental steps, but that's it, and more then likely the way it will be from now on. Every scientist who takes a cold hard look at solar, pretty much says the same thing for it.
Total solar efficiency increases in the last 10 years was just 2%. That's it, even with all of the money Obama and others poored into it, only a 2% increase. Battery tech, which you point to will only make things more expensive. You have to convert the energy into the battery and than convert it back out, which wastes energy every time. This is why battery tech will never be adopted, it is just too expensive even if the batteries were free, which they are not. And not mention you have to the worse kind of mining to get the raw supplies. What happened to conserving the environment?
If France reduces it nuclear supply, they will see their prices rise just like Germany and CA. CA energy prices are 6 times the national average and their emissions are not any less.
It's a romance from high school that you still have not gotten over yet.
The only way to make energy cheap is by having base load power sources that can produce energy on demand, and electrify the grid, on a changing basis, to the exact needs at any one time with as little energy conversions as possible. Wind and solar cant do this.
