citation pls? ETA: This? Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells. While i

citation pls? ETA: This? Averaged over 30 years, the trend is for an annual 7 percent reduction in the dollars per watt of solar photovoltaic cells. While in the earlier part of this decade prices flattened for a few years, the sharp decline in 2009 made up for that and put the price reduction back on track. Data from 2010 (not included above) shows at least a 30 percent further price reduction, putting solar prices ahead of this trend. An average of seven percent per year for 30 years, then a breakthrough year in 2009 (which is well-documented). Then the author -- whose resume includes Microsoft, a company doing "nanotechnology research," and writing some books about transhumanism -- claims another good year in 2010, and you claim a third in 2011. In other words, the author wants to extrapolate an exponential trend 10 or 20 years into the future based on (at best) 3 data points, while ignoring another trend that's been operating ten times longer. And he could be right. Technologies do change growth regimes sometimes. But you don't make that argument by talking about the magic of exponential growth. You make it by talking about why all the rules are changing now. Instead, he says "manufacturers are learning how to reduce the cost to fabricate solar." He doesn't say how, or how long they can keep it up. Then he throws out a paragraph about increasing efficiency ("in the lab," which could mean anything). Then he goes back to electricity prices in 2030. Obviously, I hope he's right. But that article doesn't do much to refute my claim that solar power is over-hyped by people people who seem to think hype is OK for a good cause.