What if... this time we got smart, just for one day?

Oil prices have dropped over $40 per barrel since June(1). Americans import over 5 million barrels per day(2). So, Americans are saving a cool $200 million dollars every day that these prices hold.

What if we took just one day of savings, and invested it into solar energy? A 1.66MW solar installation near Slayton, MN was constructed for $7M(3). A site 5 times the size at Camp Ripley is estimated to cost $25M(4).

Using the more conservative, and actually implemented numbers from Slayton, let's assume no additional economies of scale, nor cost and efficiency improvements since that construction. As a nation, if we wanted to, how much could we buy with our $200M savings?

The Slayton site produces 2,600MWh per year(5). So, for every dollar invested, the site produces 370Wh per year, every year. At least for 45 year "useful life" on the project(6).

The LEAF EPA rating is 30kWh for 100 miles(7), which equates to 300Wh/mi. Your mileage will vary, and your driving will not match the EPA test. But this is in the right ballpark of what to expect of an electric car.

Power line losses are roughly 8-15%(8), so let's be conservative and say that 15% of the energy produced by solar is lost before getting to my wall plug. So of the 370Wh per year per invested dollar, only 314`Wh will reach my wall plug. And that would be enough to drive over a mile (I conservatively rounded down again).

So with $200 million dollars invested, you could produce enough installed solar PV to drive 200 million miles per year. Every year, for the life of the solar panels. The average American drives 13,500 miles per year(9). So, that's enough power for over 14,000 people to drive all year, every year just by investing one day of savings.

Once you've made this solar investment, then you can invest the savings of not buying fuel for 14,000 people (not cars, people) and buy more solar, or invest in other renewables, or bail out the banks or automakers again.

Now some may argue that the reduced oil prices are also hurting American production of oil, and that would certainly be true. While the prices remain low, there will be jobs lost in that industry in our country. I did not count any savings on the American production, so we could continue to pay more for the domestic oil if you like, and certainly save all of those jobs. But also consider that such a project will create jobs, Jobs that improve our carbon footprint, reduce our air pollution, and are distributed throughout the country... conveniently right next to the realized savings.

This country "invested" $3B in cash for clunkers(10), and over $10B on the GM bailout(11), and 3,500 American lives(12) and $700B on the Iraq war(13).

Now to be fair, the site in Slayton received $2M of grants that made the difference between producing electricity at a slightly higher cost than other methods, and being able to produce at a marketable rate and have a profit margin. That extrapolates out to some $57M to make the solar investment realistic. It also took advantage of the 30% investment tax credit on solar infrastructure (money the treasury won't see if you don't do this project, and that would be deducted from taxable income eventually through depreciation anyway). So where is that money going to come from? ...well, those grants were in the $7M total cost of the Slayton project used in the calculations. But since we didn't act on this plan today, we could use the $200M that we saved today to easily cover any costs or incentives. Tomorrow's savings we invest in solar and reap the benefits for the next 45 years.

(1) http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/%40CL.1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(2) http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_MOVE_NETI_A_EP00_IMN_MBBLPD_A.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(3) http://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Corporate/Corporate%20PDFs/SlaytonSolar-RDF_Final_Milestone_Report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(4) http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_26415107/25-million-camp-ripley-solar-farm-will-be" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(5) http://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Corporate/Corporate%20PDFs/RDF_OutlandIS.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(6) http://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Corporate/Corporate%20PDFs/SlaytonSolar-RDF_Final_Milestone_Report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(7) http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/bymake/Nissan2015.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(8) http://blog.schneider-electric.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(9) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(10) http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(11) http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/oops-gm-bailout-cost-taxpayers-almost-1b-more-estimated-n93816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would require long term thinking. Not gonna happen. Same people buying battering rams of death today, will be complaining on the evening news about the high gas prices and why they can't drive Jimmy to school because they can't afford it in a couple years.

Our brains evolved to deal with short-term emergencies. The longer term ones don't register as "real" so we don't generally act on them until they become very, very imminent.

The OP has a wonderful but unrealistic vision.
As someone whose first move in the cleaner less energy use direction was a 2009 Altima to replace a 1991 Ford Ranger 4.0L V6 truck, and who was an early adopter buying a 2011 LEAF SL that I had never driven till it arrived in my driveway, and who loves it and will struggle to drive electric as much as I can from this point forward; the vision outlined is higly unlikely.

Maybe a 1% chance, but with rapidly falling petroleum prices, unlikely.
More likely we will head down the path of the "revered" President Ronald Reagan who in another moment of shear stupidity removed solar panels from the roof of the people's house, the White House.

well the bailout for the most part turned out fairly well for the government so can't say we spent what we invested.
Cash for Clunkers would be MUCH tougher to evaluate especially since it had too many loopholes although the idea was good but the rapidly declining cost of Solar and other renewables has not been lost on utilities and there is a movement to transition a larger part of their source supply to that end.

what is really the focus is developing effect storage options where they can reap all of the power during the bountiful times and put it away for the lean times. Several experimental options seems to have potential like molten salt for one. but the sticking point is getting a board on board so the money has been slow up to now but the balance sheets are getting better daily and soon , greed will surface