Wow, is this guy optimistic! First, his comment that a PV cell is no more complicated than a beer can suggests that a computer is no more complicated than a block of plastic. In fact the price ratio is about a factor of 1000. The PV cell is probably close to as cheap as it's going to get.

Second, he ignores the interest on the PV cell which must be paid while the PV cell is cranking out the electricity. This will tend to double the effective price of the PV cell.

Third, he ignores the price of installation.  Suppose that the PV cells are free (Slightly less optimistic than Grist). Assume that the PV cells are twice as expensive as shingles to install (about 3K$ per roof). So 6K$ per roof will cost ~600$/yr interest. So this eats up most of the price of electricity.

Fourth,  he is overly optimistic on how much electricity one can get. If the PV cells are optimally placed, with no clouds, you get 25% (i.. 6 hours per day); with clouds and random placement, 7% is more likely, or about 1.7 hours not 5.5. This, of course, multiplies all of the costs, so the cost of installation is too high.

Fifth, he ignores the chemicals needed to process the PV cells. If we get the cells down to 1 mm thick,  that's about 1000 lbs. per house, x 100,000,000 or 50 MT of cells. That probably is at least 100 MT of chemicals....

Sixth, he ignores the problem of storing that electricity. For a small fraction (maybe 20%) of the electricity, that is not a big problem in that the use of electricity is higher during the day, and also higher in the summer (air conditioning), but PV for all electricity is MUCH harder.

Dale Fixsen

There are just some values that can't be measured in economic or financial terms.  Theodore Roosevelt realized this when he created the National Park System, co-founded the American Bison Society, urged Congress to create the Forest Service, created the first National Bird Preserve (precursor of the National Wild Life Refuge), and stopped industrial concerns from using Niagra Falls to generate power for factories.

He believed that human beings could use natural resources with an eye to the future. He believed that it was possible to have a high standard of living without using up all our resources and destroying the wilderness in the process.

Stopping global warming may be economically difficult but in the end will have greater benefits  for our species and the planet than any temporary hardships that may arise from switching to more sustainable sources of energy and wiser use of our resources. Denying global warming is nothing more than rationalization of selfishness. Our generation doesn't own this planet, we're just borrowing it from the next one.

"...even if it turned out that climate mitigation was unnecessary, we would still be in a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner rather than later."

That's not necessarily true, it depends on the costs of energy sources and the time value of money.

Might be true, just ain't necessarily so, depends on the numbers.

Might be oil saves you a dollar today, but switching to solar today saves you a dollar tomorrow. If climate mitigation was unnecessary, then save the dollar today, even if just to put it in the bank for a year and give the interest to your favorite charity.

Course, might be that oil saves you a dollar today, but solar saves you ten dollars next week. The ten dollars is almost certainly a better deal.