IM:

It worked quite well even during a solar eclipse. And if going in about twenty years from 0.5% of electricity to 25% isn't an success, what is?

And that with huge pressure to negate, impede and obstruct its growth from BAU/Coal/Gas/Nuke lobbies.

It's the writing on the wall for them, what with subsidies, tax breaks, corruption (in Italy the mob are neck deep in renewables) and inertia/apathy/ignorance, some caused by decades of disinformation designed to make the greener industry blameworthy for increased electricity prices.)

<Apologies for even-more-mangled-than-usual syntax>

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

Baseline comparisons: The French and Swedish drives to stop burning oil for power. Complete de-carbonization in approximately 15 years.
That is the standard I compare policies of decarbonization to because they are the current best examples.

You could also if you are so inclined, compare results to historical promises.

If you step into your imaginary time machine, went back and asked the people who launched and lobbied for the energiewende at the time they were doing said launching and lobbying if they would consider the current status quo a success, they would call you a fossil fuel shill for predicting such abject failure.

I don't consider this a reasonable standard - The planning fallacy gets everyone, which is why I compare to best historical examples.