I agree. I'm optimistic that the economic forces of such inexpensive power (and still declining rapidly in cost) will soon completely undermine any efforts by the fossil fuel lobby and climate change deniers funded by them to prevent the retirement of the most polluting and least efficient fossil fuel generation at first, and almost all of it eventually. I think there need to be a few incentives to encourage such large up-front capex at this point, which will create the demand that will further lower the cost, but it's pretty clear that the cost curve for wind is on a significant decline and for solar the decline is steep almost to the point of precipitous, such that it's now falling below wind on a direct price/kWh basis and is soon likely to be cheaper even when including the cost of storage typically required to time shift supply to meet evening demand. Low interest rate financing certainly helps to fund the capex, and in Berkshire's case, the tax treatment allows these technologies to provide returns above their hurdle rate, encouraging truly huge capital investment while sustaining low power bills for end users. I suspect there may be benefits to the likes of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon, locating many of their vast data centers close to renewable energy sources, not the least being in term of energy cost savings.
It's also clear from many parts of the world, including Norway with it's sparse population and the UK with its large coastline for offshore wind despite its high population density, that a low carbon, high reliability grid is not the problem it is often painted as by the fossil fuel lobby. As a UK resident able to choose my supplier (but paying for the network services indirectly through their billing), my cheapest suppliers (I switch most years) have nearly always been 100% renewable for electricity, with only natural gas (methane) for heating and cooking being fossil based. (There are suppliers working on bringing green methane gas to market too). I believe it's the case that the offshore wind industry has employed a lot of former oil and gas workers whose skills are transferable to that sector after oil prices plummeted, though many helicopter pilots who used to serve Norwegian and British oil and gas rigs are no longer employed in that sector.
I suspect that by switching from fuel costs paid to various oil exporting nations to capex and maintenance costs, the costs to build and maintain green energy facilities over time will continue to boost local employment rather than paying oil workers and well owners in other countries. If the costs of renewables continue to get lower, it's likely than maintenance expense per kWh will remain similar, but the capex savings will reach the consumers by way of lower utility bills, and will presumably also boost their spending on goods and services, at least some of which are likely to be spent locally.
I think there's a virtuous circle that will probably increase the rate of uptake, and it's not looking like a promising time for new investments into coal technology, though gas peaker plants may have a place for a little while longer, until battery supply completely supplants those with superior response time for frequency stabilisation and peak shaving and at lower cost too. The huge automotive demand for batteries is also an important driver for rapid cost and energy density improvements in battery storage and possibly even power inverters.
