The report, produced by the DoE’s Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), proposes that this could be done without raising the cost of electricity, because of continued technological improvements and “demand flexibility.”
Expanding on what “demand flexibility” would mean, the report hints at the possibility of expanded real-time changes to electricity pricing, “enabled by Internet-of-things appliances and communications.”
Solar capacity would have to reach 760 to 1,000 gigawatts by 2035 to realize either of the report’s two decarbonization scenarios (the report also includes what it calls a “business as usual” scenario).
For context, the United States had installed roughly 80 gigawatts of solar capacity in 2020, according to the report.
The report projects that its maximum deployment scenario could require up to 0.5 percent of the contiguous U.S. surface area—roughly 16,080 square miles, an area slightly smaller than the commonwealth of Massachusetts and the state of Connecticut combined.
While it notes that “land acquisition poses challenges,” the report asserts that contaminated land, bodies of water, farms, and grazing areas could all be used.
Notably, the report assumes that the costs of both decarbonization scenarios would be offset by benefits to air quality and avoided climate change damages, which it calculates at more than $1 trillion for both scenarios.
The report doesn’t appear to calculate the pollution or other environmental damage associated with producing or using solar panels, which may contain lead, cadmium, arsenic, and other toxic heavy metals mined in countries with more lenient environmental standards than the United States. The new solar infrastructure could potentially occupy land used by other organisms or ecological processes.
Although the report does note that producing and disposing of solar power technologies could negatively affect “[low- and medium-income] and communities of color,” it asserts that such harms “are trivial relative to the existing energy system,” arguing they could be mitigated through the repair, reuse, and recycling of solar panels.
The NREL didn’t immediately respond to questions about the potential environmental costs of large-scale solar deployment.
The report was met with a range of reactions on Twitter.