I understand that you favour nuclear, and there are advantages to it, but it isn't going to happen. Look at a chart of nuclear production vs renewables over the last 50 years. Nuclear stalled years ago and Fukushima hasn't helped it at all.

I acknowledged this in my first comment where I said that I am happy that solar is reducing carbon admissions. I would never cut off my nose to spite my face. But since this technology ACTUALLY exists it has advantages over technology that might exist. Desired technology depends on the laws of physics allowing it to be possible. existing technology depends on palpability to the public. The laws of physics can't be bent, public opinion can.

There is also no reason to assume that future solar tech will be polluting.

There's no reason to assume it won't be. I mean, let's go back to nuclear. I have my fingers crossed as much as the next guy that fusion will become a thing but I can't bank on a technology that doesn't exist yet. I happen to have good reason to suggest that we are actually very good at dealing with nuclear waste, and that breeder reactors consume so much of it's fuel that the waste that is left is so little that all of the nuclear waste that France has ever produced sits inside of a small square the size of your bedroom. But let's just say that there WAS a problem with the ability to store nuclear waste. The correct response to "Nuclear waste produces polluting waste" would not be: "There is no reason to assume that future nuclear tech will be polluting". And that would actually make more sense because fusion is possibly the future of nuclear power and the only waste product that comes from that is exactly the opposite of dangerous. But I'm not going to argue the benefits of a possible future as having any barring on the effects of technology that exists right now.

On-site solar (and other renewables) are the path of least resistance. It allows for decentralized energy production where it is used. The amount of energy falling on the roof of the typical home is enough to provide all of its power needs. By producing it on site you cut out the middle-men that drive up costs.

The "middle man" is the electrical grid, and no person who owns solar panels in their right mind is going to cut their connection to the larger electrical grid. And everyone has every right to do so. Solar power produces anywhere between zero energy and way more energy than you need depending on time of day. Which is why you need another power source for when the sun isn't going to cut it. Unless you believe we should just not watch T.V. when it's cloudy out.

But yeah, obviously many people who own panels are going to save money by using watts generated by their own panels over the electric companies, as well as selling excess watts back to the electric companies grids (another reason why disconnecting from the grid would be a dumb idea). But the reason the grid still exists is because it is the only time that can guarantee access to the same amount of electricity at any time. Solar can supplement the need for that. But it will never remove it.