I agree with all that you have said, but again, I add my original point - in most countries and particularly where I live, the old dirty coal power stations continue to be profitable mainly because the increases in cost of power (here people pay about $300 /MWh, which is more than twice the amount paid before renewables were subsidised). This hurts the poor, and yet the emissions from the old stations have continued at the same rate. When we add the very high cost of bringing peak generation (with even lower efficiency and higher emissions), we have the worst outcome. States that seek a 40% renewable target are in trouble and their people pay the highest prices .. period.
A sensible approach would include conservation, renewables where they can be shown to be competitive, and new high efficiency coal plant to supply baseload (secure supply 24 hrs per day). This would eventually remove the worst polluting plant, provide secure supply, and gradually change the grid towards a continuous reduction of CO2 emissions.
This is a sensible approach and renewables can be positioned where they can do the most good.
I am somewhat bemused by the opposition to this approach. Can you tell me why there is so much negative response?