Cool. Very good news. Is this based on falling solar prices reaching current fossil fuel prices, or falling solar prices reaching some projected future fossil fuel prices?

This is fantastic and encouraging news for those interested in helping to offset their source of energy.

My question is how soon should we expect the next generation of photovoltaic cells to come out. I admit my ignorance here, my understanding is that current generations use only one band of light from the sun, but current research is focus on the absorption of a 2nd and 3rd band of light from the sun, thus increasing the amount of energy generated from the panel.

As a planet, I think making this source of energy affordable for all will make a huge impact globally and a responsibility we all share in creating and distributing renewable energy.

We need to follow Germanys example of the use of solar power. If you are interested in watching the documentary, please go www.pbs.org and do a search for story entitled, "Saved by the Sun".

I thought that solar had already reached parity and that the nay-sayers were just perpetuating the myth that solar is expensive? Or is this talking about without subsidies? The only reason why fossil fuels are so cheap is because they get mad assistance from the gov't. If sustainable energy sources had the same support, they would have reached economic competitiveness years ago. Yet I can tell you right now, the energy you invest in constructing PVC is paid back 6-31 times in it's life time. I don't have the link to the report, but just google life analysis PVC - there are plenty of studies that debunk the myths of net-loss of energy with current generation PVC.

Hann-

You are right on both counts. Solar PV is still pretty expensive. There are government tax credits and some state incentives but for the most part solar is not affordable for most people. What we would really like to see is an elimination of the $2k cap on tax incentives. Right now for residential systems you can get a tax credit for 30% of the system cost up to a max of $2k, but there is no cap for businesses. If they lifted the cap for residential systems solar would suddenly be a lot more affordable. In my state (VT) with state incentives and that full 30% credit people could have around 48% of their installation cost covered by the government.

Right now renewable energy leaders aren't asking for more subsidies. They want no subsidies to any energy company. Your average grid electricity is so cheap partly because the fossil fuel sector (oil, gas and coal) get huge subsidies from the government. I'm sure everyone has heard that we are still providing Exxon-Mobile with $17b in subsidies despite their status as modern history's most profitable company.

Renewable energy companies want to government to stop subsidizing oil and gas so people can see the true cost of those fuels (which are now partially paid for by tax dollars). If we no longer subsidized them we should have lower taxes (as if the government, republican or democratic would do that) and thus more money to invest in personal renewable energy systems.

Roger- Sharp or Sanyo (can never remember which) has some bi-facial technology out now. The real problem with solar is the silicon processing bottleneck. The raw material is cheap (sand) but it takes a lot of energy and technical knowledge to get it from sand into processed silicon. The US is supposed to quadruple its silicon manufacturing capacity in the next two years, but that will still probably only keep up with demand and won't translate to a price drop.

Man, Delaware must have one of the best incentives that I have heard of yet. The state covers 50% up to $28,000 I have heard. I am starting a small supplemental solar project in DE now to take a few things off the grid then adding to it if I have the $$... It is cost effective in my case if I go with manufactured panels...

Nanosolar declared six months ago that they already are beyond parity with their thin film CIGS sheets. Why should it take seven years for the industry in general reach similar efficiencies? Or is Nanosolar just hot air?

Global Solar had CIGS technology (at 15%+/- efficiency) all the way back in 1998. I know this, as I toured their new facility outside Tucson that October. And yes, they were using the same inexpensive printed roll equipment as companies like Nanosolar are now using, although efficiency/manufacturig has improved a little.

Problem is, their majority investor was a power utility (read COAL utility). I believe they were actually withholding this technology somewhat, maybe to buy time? Sorry to sound like a cynic here folks, but these companies are not here to save the world, they are here to make money, PERIOD. That they can call themselves green is just a marketing bonus. They will sell to the highest bidder and limit production just enough to keep prices reasonable and profits high. (why do you think all of 1st year's production is going to Germany?) Prices will only start to come down when the market becomes saturated and there are enough companies out there (selling cheaper CIGS & other thin film) to force competitive pricing.

Been in the biz since '94 -- sorry to break the bad news to the optimists out there (I often am one).

So if at least Global Solar and Nanosolar are for real then we can expect similar knowhow to be quickly “discovered” by say… 5000 Chinese PV manufacturers. And they all cannot get devoured by fossil fuel companies or ditto governments, neither can they form a cartel between themselves either. Those poor suckers! That should bring the prices down.