Please don’t downvote this because this is a bad opinion.
Of course it’s a bad opinion. I’m sharing this here because I want to talk about it being a bad opinion.
Why is it a bad opinion?
I actually agree with the basic premise but reject the conclusion. I agree that 100% renewable energy cannot bring about energy security in the context of endless growth, but I reject the conclusion that therefore we need to keep burning fossil fuels. The solution, I think, is for degrowth, a coordinated scaling down of production of worthless things while at the same time scaling up provisions of human well being. Make more homes, less golf courses. Make more vegetables and grains for human consumption rather than animal feed. Fund hospitals, not wars. If we scale back production while at the same time meeting a high level of human needs, 100% renewable energy will certainly be enough for human needs. 100% renewable energy will never be enough for capitalist endless growth, but it will be enough for a solarpunk future.
The main thrust of the argument seems to be two fold - it‘s not 100% is (almost nothing is) and it costs a lot upfront (so do fossil-fuel plants). Smells like like some serious astroturfing to me
The rest of your argument? The only thing I see missing is transport. It needs to scale to global levels and be free with respect to both carbon and cash
I would recommend reading Kim Stanley Robinson for better ideas than I could ever give - The Ministry for the Future and New York 2140 spring to mind.
Haven’t read those but I greatly enjoyed his four books, the Mars Trilogy and the additional Martian short story collection. Quite a bit of Mars Trilogy was inspired by the political philosophy of Murray Bookchin, now appreciated for anticipating a lot of the political philosophy behind solarpunk and degrowth.