I understand your point, but this system also requires water, and therefore does compete at that point as well.
Higher temperatures also have a negative effect at the efficiency of solar panels, but they are indeed a lot more resistant (typically lower temperature=better efficiency for solar panels).
Cold, water, sunlight, no crops, existing infrastructure for moving fuels. Alaska? There's even high CO2 there from wood stoves (Alaska is 4th per-capita).
Alaska is so enormous and sparsely populated that I doubt much that the residents do will have a significant impact on the ambient CO2 levels, compared to a state like Texas or California, which are about 80 and 250 times more population dense for their size.
I agree with all the rest of your factors, though high CO2 is likely not a mark in Alaska's favor. My main concerns with Alaska would be suitably large cleared land area to collect sunlight without damaging the environment, and not having panels get covered in snow in the winter.
