You definitely said that 1TW of production capacity was expected within the decade (and that was somewhere around the start of this decade). You also claimed that China was moving away from Nuclear and that their renewables policies were evidence of this (in your continued confusion that the two are not compatible systems).
Re: Nevada - It's an interesting conversation, but beside the point. It is evidence that new solar/wind rely heavily on proper governmental policies. I think Nevada is premature, but we both know that once renewables are a significant portion of generation, retail pricing plans have to depart from net-metering and free/cheap access to the grid as backup. If I need something to be available 24/7/365 (and no... home batteries don't change that), but I don't intend to use it... then a consumption pricing model doesn't make sense. I don't think that Nevada is there yet (though they probably are there for net-metering), but that's a timing conversation.
Rather that nitpick on that one, there are LOTS of other examples that make the point. What was the prediction for 2016/2017 renewables installations in the US before/after the recent policy change? What's the impact on renewables in the UK when the conservatives shut off the taps? What was the impact on new wind capacity in the US over the last three years compared to 2012? Plenty large enough to prove "governmental policy decisions" continue to be the primary driver for expanding renewables despite cheap fossil fuel prices.
Nevada solar is very cost effective based on the track where it is integrated into the grid to augment peak generation.
I'd say that it's better than that. Nevada is one of the places where a large portion of demand tracks almost perfectly with PV capacity utilization. It effectively ends the need for peak generation for A/C needs in the summer. Unfortunately, this is also what accelerates the demise of net-metering. They'll eventually get to the point where hot sunny days have too much excess capacity and they have to find someone to take generation off their hands (as with Germany). This means simultaneously that "peaker" plants at unviable and that residential solar excesses have no value (yes, until it can be stored cheaply). It doesn't make sense to pay them a flat rate for power that has little to no value.
= new reply since forum marked as read