20 Billion is a rough guide. Apparently this estimate is approximate to 100%
It also depends on lots variables, like - for a large powerline the towers can cost $1M each. I also assume the initial cost does not include maintenance costs.
Maintenance costs exist, but they can also extend the lifespan well past 50 years. So it’s all a big cost vs benefit tradeoff where maintenance occurs because it’s a net gain.
The point is the upfront costs aren’t actually that significant.
There are several 50 year old solar installations that are still working fine. They've only degraded 10%-20% or so. The reason that they are typically replaced after ~20 years is that the technology has gotten so much better that you can replace the old panels with new ones and get 4X the power in the same space. The wires and the mounts are worth more than the panels, so reuse those with modern panels.
Considering they work by basically taking electrons from the material, they are guaranteed to get much less efficient and I doubt it's a linear effect.
I think once you have destroyed the first layers, it becomes much more complicated to get meaningful power depending on variables.
Solar panel talk always focuses on the ideal conditions like California, but you have to account that plenty the energy transition is necessary in place where solar panels are not that efficient to begin with.
Perth and that part of WA has its own generators and independent electrical network. Darwin in NT Australia is probably the same situation too. Large expanse's of desert and very sparsely separated areas to the east coast.
You need to persuade the median voter about this, and looking at the state of Western politics right now, it seems to me that peak willingness to spend huge money on environmental projects is behind us.
We certainly can. However it is expensive. In my country (Australia) is is estimated to be cira $20 Billion