[incomethax]

Sort-of. Transmission for HTHV lines (745kV single circuit cost $2.5-4M/mile with ~1% line loss; 345kV single circuit will cost ~$1.5-2M/mile with 5% line loss). For 1MW solar capacity you typically need about 4 acres. 100GW of solar would require 400k acres of land - and come at a cost of about $3 billion for the panels, not to mention the price of land or entitlements. Add in cost of substations and transmission you’re realistically looking at a $10+ Billion project. Which while doable would not profitability compete with other grid solutions. If panels drop by another 30% and power densities improve the grid will naturally tend towards that direction.

[Retric]

The US already has 121GW of solar installed the majority of that being large scale Grid solar. Which shows the transition is already happening at current prices.

A major part of that equation is there is a lot of land in the US available for under 2,000$/acre, however spending more is a tradeoff to reduce the need for longer distance power transmission etc.

PS: 10B for 100GW at 30% capacity factor for 20 years is 10,000,000,000$ / (100,000,000kW * 0.3 * 24h * 365 * 20) or 0.2c/kWh ignoring interest. So, I think you messed up your estimate somewhere if you think that’s uncompetitive.

[outworlder]

If I were a billionaire, I could spend 10 billion project with a massive reduction in fossil fuel emissions.

Or I could spend over 4 times as much to buy a social media site.

Decisions, decisions.

[vmception]

One sounds like an expense, the other sounds like a transfer from one pocket to the other while allowing for shifting the public perception any way desired while retaining unparalleled access to capital.

[zeroonetwothree]

If only we weren't spending $105 billion high speed rail no one will use, we might have been able to scrounge up $10 billion for solar.