This can work when the average power consumption is 600kwh/yr, there is sunlight pretty much every day all day, which is the case in Africa but sooner or later even African's are gonna get tired of poverty and want A/C, washers, dryers, etc, and while it's true China built more solar than all of Europe, it's also built 50 gigawatts of coal fired power generation and China has nearly the same land mass as Europe, and twice the population, but much of the Eastern portion of China is desert, ideal for solar and not good for much else. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

The reality is solar and wind are both intermittent and diffuse sources of power and thus of very limited use to power a modern society. Further, they require a great deal of exotic materials, especially rare Earth's and these are of limited supply and of that supply 90% of the worlds supply is in China so naturally THEY would be the ones to exploit it.

Realistically we need less resource intensive, less land intensive, reliable sources. Solar and wind have none of these attributes. We also need sustainable sources, which ultimately fossil fuels are not, not because of climate which is a bullshit scam to move wealth from the poor and middle class to the ultra-wealthy, and to increase their power over us, but because the easy ones to get at are exhausting and what remains is increasingly expensive.

The only real viable alternatives to that are some form of nuclear, fission or fusion. And where nuclear is concerned, we need a form that is both safe AND sustainable, existing boiling water reactors are not safe because they have to be pressurized at 200-300 times atmospheric pressure, if anything goes wrong that guarantees and explosion and dispersal of radioactive components, and two they aren't burning up the long term actinide waste they produce (elements heavier than Uranium) and this is what makes the waste such a long term problem.

There are VIABLE solutions in the form of molten salt nuclear breeder reactors, these can use existing actinide waste as fuel leaving only leaving short term fission products which decay to safe levels in 300 years or less, a much more tenable storage problem, and which have 1/100th the volume of existing waste streams and that is before you look at the commercial value in some of those isotopes. These reactors have the additional benefit of being almost at atmospheric pressure, only pressure that exists is pump pressure to move the coolant through the cooling loop. In a molten salt reactor the fission products are removed in real time so a shut down is a true shutdown not creating further heat from the decay of fission products (which is what leads to meltdown in existing reactors). Further this type of reactor is safe by physics, not safe by safety mechanisms. The salt in question has a large range between operating temperature and vaporization point thus there is a huge margin for overheating, but what is more it has a high coefficient of expansion. Since the fuel is dissolved in, when it gets too hot, it expands, automatically reducing the fission rate. If for some reason this mechanism fails, which really is impossible because of physics, there is a melt plug at the bottom of the tank, normally kept cool by electric fans, but if all electricity is lost, these fans stop and the reactor tank drains into a larger safety tank that spread the fuel and radioactive material over an area too large to sustain the reaction.

If you get a plumbing leak at a conventional boiling water reactor, all the water in the core flashes to steam, and even if you scram the reactor, the fission products in the fuel rods create heat leading to a meltdown. In a molten salt reactor, there is no pressure being used to prevent vaporization of the coolant, so if you get a plumbing leak some of it leaks out onto the floor where it solidifies, the reactor is shut down, the leak repaired, and that on the floor scooped up and put back in the reactor. Because the fission products are continuously removed in this type of reactor not only do you have the safety factor of not continuing to generate heat after the reactor is shut down, but you also have access to some very medically useful short lived isotopes that you do not have access to in a boiling water reactor. Lastly in the event of a spill in a plumbing leak, what does spill out is much more manageable than in a conventional reactor because it is the fission products that are the highest sources of redioactivity. These reactors can also burn the 99.3% of uranium that is U-238 which a boiling water reactor can not, extending the usefulness of Uranium by more than 100x, and they can burn Thorium-232 which is 3x as abundant than even U238.

This is just what could be done on the fission side of nuclear and SHOULD be done, because we owe it to future generations NOT to leave them with a 1,000,000 year actinide waste legacy.

And there is the fusion side of the story. Until recently, the ongoing joke was fusion is 25-50 years in the future and always will be. This until Wendlestein-7x not only reached break-even but a gain of 995, generally it is considered that a gain of 10x is sufficient to overcome all the energy needs of the reactor itself and become commercially viable. A gain of 995 is FAR beyond what is required for commercial viability. Now all that remains is the engineering work necessary to remove and process the heat into electricity, and to create a lithium blanket to breed tritium fuel. Now that it is no longer a question of IF it is doable, humanity should be putting in the necessary resources to make it happen because the rewards are just too huge to leave on the table.