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.
And massively increased again in the last five years…