Although the headline isn't great, the article does do what I've been taught to do by the BBC's More-or-Less programme, and ask 'is this a big number'. It's ve

Although the headline isn't great, the article does do what I've been taught to do by the BBC's More-or-Less programme, and ask 'is this a big number'. It's very easy to not comprehend big figures, so there are a few techniques to make them relatable - bring it down to the cost of an individual and/or per year, and to compare to other costs. Here they have chosen to compare it to the existing cost of the grid, and the existing maintenance and operation costs, but which seems like a good comparison (if you haven't read the article, it's about one third of the cost of the existing grid, or about three times the annual operation/maintenance costs) An alternative would be to say it's a cost of about 500 USD per Californian, or about 50 USD/year which isn't nothing, but doesn't feel like an outrageous figure.