So. The main argument that people seem to bring up about why solar panels suck is that they currently take just as much in carbon burning to produce as the energy they output over a lifetime. Of course this assumes that carbon is used in heating the ingots that are necessary to make the solar panels which is not always the case (three gorges dam) but I digress.
What if we have vastly overstated how much carbon we actually need for day to day life in modern civilization? Realistically - in fuel alone one Apollo mission might today produce enough solar panels to keep a township powered for a year. Add in the power cost of pounding out the metal for the rocket - and you might be able to produce enough power for that township for a lifetime.
I mean: Its fine that they did certain things once. But do you really want to eat a team of ponies to get to the South Pole a second time? Especially if you are only going to play a single round of golf?
As far as I can tell, if the US navy gave up simply fuelling 15% of its death dealing naval fleet and put all that carbon towards renewables, in a 1:1 ratio - the power output would be enough to keep several cities running.
Just like how someone figured out long ago that 40,000 nukes was probably overkill. Just a thought.