3 ms·
If you read the Bloomberg article more carefully, you'll notice that the 5-8% figure refers to rooftop solar installations, not the sort of large-scale solar pa
by scythe 16y ago
If you read the Bloomberg article more carefully, you'll notice that the 5-8% figure refers to rooftop solar installations, not the sort of large-scale solar panel fields produced by a utility company.
That all is not terribly relevant -- the article isn't claiming that solar power will be cheaper than coal by 2013, rather it is simply fielding speculation about the implications of solar becoming cheaper than coal. There's a much longer article linked, and it deals with the practical issues of solar power:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/131/solar-goes-supernova.html?page=0%2C0 http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/131/solar-goes-supernova...
- ericd 16y agoYeah, I realized that he was talking about rooftop installs, but the bulk of that cost is in the panels, and the unit cost decrease of manufacturing those should fall roughly in step with industrial panels. My main point was that it was a long way to fall, 5-8% at a time, or even double that, if you make some very favorable assumptions. The article did make a point of saying that they would reach cost parity by 2013, and I'm fairly sure that they were intentionally glossing over facts to make their article more linkbait-worthy. That solar/wind continue to be championed by the media is keeping the public from taking seriously the fact that we don't have that many realistic options when it comes to getting off fossil fuels besides nuclear.