>>11940873>Yeah, the $247b for solar seems a little low. That's based on the cost to provide utility scale solar energy in 2020 and the figure you provided for US energy needs.
Best spots of Arizona and California? Maybe.
It's based on the real cost, not some ideal location.
>Unsubsidized I'm seeing figures that are double that.
Really? According to pic related the low end is 0.03 $/kwh and the high end is 0.11 $/kwh so 0.06 $/kwh should be pretty reasonable.
>And, again, we're assuming that, like batteries, the improvements in tech (TBD) counterbalance the massive spike in demand that pressures the supply side.Or, again, you could proceed at a reasonable pace which encourages competition as the market grows.
>It's also a little weird you'd get a figure that's 1/8th the number from a recent study. Maybe the seasonal and other variations in grid-level batteries tank the lifespan much more relative to optimal cycles.Maybe. Without their data, assumptions, methodology, ect. we can only speculate.
>And while you may be fine with paying double for a renewable switch, at a macro scale the $4.5t/decade number is like $30,000 per taxpayer.I never advocated using taxes to pay for the switchover. You could easily legislate the transition and move the burden of the cost onto the power companies and their consumers. If we were to use taxes to fund part of it we could start with the 20 billion dollars in fossil fuel subsidies which would cover 1/200th of the yearly cost.
>Shift it to industry without tariffs (which are anathema if the president's name is not Trump) and they offshore to the Chinas and the Indias.Believe it or not, you can't outsource your power supply without building infrastructure between where you generate the power and where you use it.
>Right, but their lifetime seems to be about 5-10 years. So you need to continuously replace that part of the puzzleWhich is why we use the lifetime cost. Try to keep up.
