We agree on this. And I think we agree that drawing a square on a map can help people wrap their heads around what that number represents. When I draw the square, I say "Golly! I have to zoom in three clicks before I can see the speck that is the Hoover Dam. Maybe solar is not yet ready for prime time, even if we could overcome the storage and transmission challenges." When Elon Musk draws the square, he says "actually very little land is needed to get rid of all fossil fuel electricity generation in the United States" and his map has the title "Surface area of solar panels required to power entire U.S." He would make a Dyson sphere look small by drawing it next to the Milky Way. Elon Musk is a visionary, a dreamer, and a savvy marketer. Attracting investment is his game, and he does it well. If his reality distortion field gets private investors to sign up, and the result is cool luxury cars and awesome rockets and better solar power, I am all for it. When he dips into the same public funds that brought us Solyndra and Fisker, I have reservations. I want to see reality as it is. The numbers show that, for now, the words "solar" and "power entire U.S." should not appear in the same sentence. There is a niche for solar. Pilot projects are useful. More research and development is warranted. I didn't interpret your flippant comment as a serious policy proposal. But the "tiny" typo gives the reader the wrong idea, I think. b_b appears to have anticipated that readers would conclude that "it's such a small area." Renewable energy takes a staggeringly large amount of area. 100% solar would require about as much as there is paved road in the lower 48. Hmm. If "more worthwhile than war" is the standard, then sure, we should build giant pyramids covered in solar panels. If "making responsible use of resources" is the standard, then I don't see solar contributing more than 1% of consumption anytime soon.25 thousand TERAWATTS is a staggering number.