Solar produces 20W/m^2 net in mid winter at ~55 degrees north. LCOE at these latitudes is lower than nuclear and dropping. 99% of people live closer to the equa

Solar produces 20W/m^2 net in mid winter at ~55 degrees north. LCOE at these latitudes is lower than nuclear and dropping. 99% of people live closer to the equator than this, and the majority of the remainder have enough hydro or wind/geothermal for a 100% renewable mix. In famously sunny washington state a current technology solar storage system with the same net capacity factor as US nuclear and the same number of days where >0 backup is needed as European nuclear for less than what Vogtle cost per watt. Add wind and this goes down dramatically. Allow the builder to sit on their thumbs for a decade before starting and they'd open before a new nuclear build while providing 100% capacity and a quarter of the cost using batteries made of abundant materials and solar panels made with the silver and copper that came out of existing uranium mines. The average american has 200-400m^2 dedicated to parking their car. Worldwide average per capita primary energy is 2kW. Even at 20W/m^2 this provides enough. Even wind at 5W/m^2 can produce enough final energy in that much area (with the side benefit of not really affecting other uses). Wind is much better than solar economically at high latitudes and is slightly anti-correlated with solar. There are terawatts of tidal sites available in high latitude coastal areas and the LCOE is already lower than nuclear with a much better learning rate and only a few hundred MW of preexisting capacity. What law of physics contradicts this?