I understand that on social media it is hard to give complete arguments to positions. This is why people often just hyperlink to articles. As someone who has been deeply engaged with renewables, I can say that I see a few holes in your discussion. That does not necessarily make your position invalid, just incomplete. I'm on social media for fun and not to produce academic papers, as I might do for my university. Please feel free to make a few points, but please also point to resources rather than taking up space on someone else's discussion stream.

This meme is humorous because even the people working on fusion energy say that it will not be available in a timely manner to help with our push to keep global warming below two degrees. This article from Fortune about fusion power is not the best source for this information, but it does give you a solid idea about the issues.

In the meantime we do in fact have access to solar power. We should not be distracted by pie in the sky technologies, and so stop moving forward in developing current technologies and using sustainable resources.

Nuclear fusion has been a pipe dream for decades, but it might actually be on the cusp of commercial viability

Growing investment and collaboration are making nuclear fusion more viable than ever. How close it is to reality remains up for debate.

^{Alasdair Lane (Fortune)}

The math is pretty simple, the details easily googleable. lmgtfy.app is broken (at least for Chrome) at the moment though. 🙃

This book, though somewhat dated and somewhat specific to one country alone, does give some good foundations for using math to figure out some of these issues:

Sustainable Energy – without the hot air
withouthotair.com/

100 W/m2 at about 50º -- that's "square metre" -- and you can't stack it up to make a cube.

However that's raw solar energy as it falls on the ground, IFF the sky is clear.

If you use PV panels to turn it into electricity then you're down to only about 10-to-20 W/m2 (depending on conversion efficiency, cleanliness of panels, transmission losses, etc.).

For most of the populated areas of dry land in the world even with massive growth in solar farms the best we can probably manage to achieve with solar power from PV (without threatening food production) is about 10% of the total energy we need per person on the planet. Some areas may fare better, with close enough access to desert and/or deserted land for high-power transmission links, and no competition from the locals for the same power.

Just 10% of energy needs.

BTW, my point isn't to poo-poo solar.

What I'm trying to say is that yes, build/fund/use as much solar power as you can, but realize that we're going to need ten other sources of power (or any mix you choose) at similar levels in order to reach net-zero, and with solar and wind we're probably also going to need terawatt hours of storage as well, unless we quickly build nuclear power for base load supply.