It's not really meaningful to compare production cost to retail price, that ignores all the other costs and markups along the way. Here I'm crudely comparing $/kWh for your solar idea to nuclear, which is pretty expensive.

1.3 trillion kWh/year = 140GW

Solar, assuming power can be stored/sold elsewhere to ignore nighttime:
Setup cost, 140GW of solar panels: $5700/kW
Setup cost, other: ?
fuel: 0
other ongoing costs: ?
Cost over 25 years: 5700/kW / (25*365*24)
= $0.026 /kWh

Nuclear:
Setup cost: $2000-5000 / kW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_o..._cost_estimates)
fuel 0.0071 $/kWh (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html)
other ongoing costs: ?
Cost over 25 years: $4000/kW / (25*365*24) + fuel = $0.018/kWh + $0.0071/kWh
= $0.025/kWh

So they end up about the same, but for solar I ignored labour, land, maintenance, etc. For nuclear I ignored maintenance. That means this result is inconclusive, but certainly doesn't show any clear advantage of solar. For solar PV there's also the impossibility of storing power overnight and adjusting generation to match variations in demand, so it can never be the major power source.

Someone else has done it properly for Australia, this shows solar PV as the MOST EXPENSIVE of many existing power sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_co...fferent_sources


If you're generating power at twice cost of your competitors, and selling it at the same price in a competitive market, you're bound to fail.