Those problems you cited all pale in comparison to global warming. It's a disingenuous comparison.
How much area do we have to cover with solar panels to power a largish metropolitan area?
If you get high deployment in places with high urban sprawl (lots of rooftops), the long term prospects (say 35 years) negative power bills may become the norm - I know a number of people that already have them.
There's been dramatic gains in solar output and power efficiency in the past few years. The trajectories are looking good.
There's a pretty solid upper-bound on that.
I think seeing another 100% gain in affordable solutions is conservative, since 400% is what's possible.
When people compare say a million homes power needs, which is about 1000Gwh/month, in the non-distributed systems you need a 1000Gwh/month solution (think nuclear). However, this hypothetical 4-fold increase in efficiency would need only 7 solar panel (1.6m x 1m) per house for a net zero need distributed system.
If the right market incentives were there, and in a future market anticipating the swanson curve, someone may install say 25 panels (18 in excess of their need) to generate monthly passive income ("fans" of solar have 30+ panels)
Under this model, someone would be powering their house and two of their neighbors.
You can see how this can add up with the right market structure.
My argument is that in a world of a free-market entrepreneurial energy, you won't need a centralized power generator capable of powering 1 million homes. In fact, you may not need centralized power generation at all.
The future problems aren't going to be in power generation, but in storage.