Reply #33: Ok.

[kristopher]

I don't mean to insult you, but you aren't capturing the meaning properly. Perhaps you aren't familiar enough with the system you are trying to understand. The reason I say that is the prices you are quoting: ". That would mean when the study discusses a $2/kwh cost per solar energy in 2015, that is likely to translate into a $5/kwh retail price."

Now compare that to what the excerpt on your linked page says: "Installed solar PV prices are projected to decline from an average $5.50 to $7 peak watt (15-32 cents kWh) today to $3.02 to $3.82 peak watt (8-18 cents kWh) in 2015 and $1.43 to $1.82 peak watt (4-8 cents kWh) by 2025."

Now, aside from that confusion, I see your point about preaching to the converted. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand you might make that conclusion if you aren't able to evaluate the data.


Take a careful look at this website and see what other data you can find on the company. My argument is that it is advances like this that capital investment will bring into play. Indeed, increases in technological efficiency are a predictable part of the process of lowering costs. For example , very recently NanoSolar has developed a machine that produces 1GW worth of panels per year yet costs only $1.65 million. Previously, a plant to produce that capacity cost around $500 million.
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/