In short:
ERA5 is ok for wind time-series, but not so good for solar time-series in some regions.

Urraca et al (2018) summarise it nicely:
"[...] This makes ERA5 comparable with satellite-derived products in terms of the mean bias in most inland stations, but ERA5 results degrade in coastal areas and mountains. The bias of ERA5 varies with the cloudiness, overestimating under cloudy conditions and slightly underestimating under clear-skies, which suggests a poor prediction of cloud patterns and leads to larger absolute errors than that of satellite-based products. [...] We conclude that ERA5 and COSMO-REA6 have reduced the gap between reanalysis and satellite-based data, but further development is required in the prediction of clouds while the spatial grid of ERA5 (31 km) remains inadequate for places with high variability of surface irradiance (coasts and mountains). Satellite-based data should be still used when available, but having in mind their limitations, ERA5 is a valid alternative for situations in which satellite-based data are missing (polar regions and gaps in times series) while COSMO-REA6 complements ERA5 in Central and Northern Europe mitigating the limitations of ERA5 in coastal areas."

Originally posted by @euronion in #50 (comment)