Monopolistic energy

Is energy the ultimate natural monopoly?

In the short term, the answer is clearly no: there are many methods of producing electricity, for instance, and none of them necessarily benefit from the natural monopolistic arrangement.

But long-term, when we've stopped using coal and even are depleting our nuclear supplies, when we've tapped the major sources of hydro power and wind power, etc... is solar power best produced in a monopolistic setting?

While many natural monopolies come from distribution issues (water) or public goods (defense), the solar monopoly would be due to the vast differences in geography between high-quality and low-quality sites. The middle of the Arizona desert, I'm told, is a fantastic place to collect solar energy; Seattle, not as much.

In fact, in the real long-term, solar panels may need to be either placed in space or covering a substantial fraction of the Earth's surface. In either case, the defense requirements of the arrangement are such that it may be impracticable for private companies to support the whole grid.

Perhaps this can be the issue that the world unites behind as the 21st century progresses.