Yes, this is true - no argument whatsoever.
However, I'm still struggling to understand what your real point is with respect to wind and solar.
What is the long term result that you envision, or would like to see - that fits in with the real world realities of the entire power generation / consumption equation?
I am asking a simple, non-confrontational, honest question.
The key to all of this isn't so much power generation but energy storage.
Whenever I discuss solar power with anyone, I point out that for solar to become a truly stand-alone energy source you'd have to have the storage capacity to power a typical home for about five days without benefit of sunlight.
As for wind, the same problem exists -- what to do when the wind isn't blowing.
But all of those problems are solvable provided there is sufficient demand for that solution.
Take the battery powered hand drill for example.
I remember when the first Makita battery powered drill first appeared in the mid 80's. It was only seven volts with a single battery and single charger and the tool itself was a simple "on-off" affair (no variable speeds). If you were lucky, you might be able to drive perhaps two-dozen screws before needing to recharge the battery. But the interest in the concept was so strong, especially in the contracting world, that in less than ten years the voltage jumped to fourteen, the drills were variable speed and kits were offered with multiple batteries and two-slot chargers.
Today twenty-four volts is common and the battery life has extended to the point where entire projects can be finished with a single battery and the reserve battery serves as a ready backup for harder use situations.
The point is that the market responded to the demand and the versatility and efficiency improved exponentially and I see no reason why solar and wind can't do the same given the proper stimulus to do so which of course is the demand.
Right now, solar relies predominantly on visible sunlight, but the capacity for taking advantage of what some people refer to as "dark solar" (the ability to draw energy from non-visible light spectra such as infra-red and ultra-violet so that sunny days are not necessary) exists but needs a greater demand and consumer confidence to fully emerge.
This goes to the point that Mark raised about "voting with dollars" -- that a willingness by the public to invest in alternative energy will justify the costs of the R&D required to make those energy sources more efficient and less burdensome from a start-up point of view.
But the fossil fuel (and to a lesser extent nuclear) lobbies are fighting it tooth and nail.
Take Tesla for example.
In order to actually purchase a Tesla vehicle, one can not simply call them and order a car. It must be done through a third-party broker.
Why?
Because the auto-dealers lobby (with the support of the fossil fuel industries) has influenced politicians to pass laws prohibiting Tesla from selling cars in the same way as all other auto dealers. For instance, Tesla is banned by law from opening any brick-and-mortar dealership because the auto dealers association doesn't want the public to be able to compare a Tesla to whatever they are selling on a side-by-side basis for fear that the public may opt for the Tesla which would threaten the current automotive the fossil-fuel-driven paradigm.
I believe the technology exists or is close to becoming extant to switch over to alternative energy sources and products in a huge way but is being hamstrung by fossil fuel politics and money. The fossil fuel industry knows that given the demand, the technologies needed to make alternative energy a true reality will spur the investment in the R&D necessary to make alternative energy efficient and sustainable. And just like that Makita drill, it will rapidly move from being a novelty to a way of life.
And that scares the crap out of the 1%.
