Could 79 People Solarize the U.S. Electric Grid?

Abstract

Although wealth inequality has many established negatives, this study investigates a potential positive, unprecedented wealth concentration makes it possible for solutions to large and seemingly intractable problems to be deployed by convincing a relatively small number of individuals to invest. In order to probe this potential outcome of inequality, this study quantifies the number of people necessary to radically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global climate destabilization from the U.S. electric grid, which is one of the largest sources of emissions. Specifically, this study determined that 1544 GW of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology must be deployed to eliminate the use of fossil fuels on the U.S. electric grid, if PV is conservatively deployed as a function of population density. The results showed that only 79 American multi-billionaires would need to invest in PV. This investment would still leave each investor with a billion dollars of liquid assets as well as substantial long-term profits from PV. The analysis also concluded that 79 people is a conservative upper estimate of those that would need to be convinced of the usefulness of moving to a solar U.S. grid and that this estimate is likely to decrease further in the future.

Economics of Grid-Tied Solar Photovoltaic Systems Coupled to Heat Pumps: The Case of Northern Climates of the U.S. and Canada

“…Finally, this study has shown that the rhetoric describing the transition to renewable energy as a high cost, such as the Wood Mackenzie analysis claiming the cost of shifting the U.S. power grid to 100 percent renewable energy would be $4.5 trillion [106], is misleading. Previous work has shown the wealthy could profit from large-scale PV deployment in the U.S. [107], and yet referring to the cost of a transition to renewable energy [108] remains the primary means of discourse. Some authors have pointed out that with the reduction in renewable energy technology prices such a conversion could be done with no costs [109] or even for less than it saves [110].…”