I will believe it when I see it in action.
It's realistic ... there have been some serious advances in production-quality arrays. IIRC, there are currently satellite solar arrays operating above 30%.
Back in the 1970s, I read a book by a Czech electrical engineer named Petr Beckmann titled “The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear.” I remember him writing that even if a solar cell were 100% efficient at converting sunlight into electricity, it would still only produce 1 kilowatt per square meter under ideal conditions (i.e., clean cell, cloudless sky, sun’s rays perpendicular to the surface of the cell). The upshot is that one would need to cover many square miles with these cells to generate the same power as a nuclear plant does on a few acres.
He also wrote that even if used on a small-scale basis (e.g., the roofs of peoples homes), the number of injuries and deaths from accidental falls, as owners clean the cells from dust, debris, snow, etc., would no doubt increase.
Though pro-nuclear, Beckmann wasn’t anti-solar. He was, of course, against subsidizing solar-cell technology.