Edit: your comment has changed a bit, so let me address the new sentence here: > I don't understand. Why is it that in every single discussion about power- and

Edit: your comment has changed a bit, so let me address the new sentence here: > I don't understand. Why is it that in every single discussion about power- and in particular, solar power- is the cost of land omitted ? You are incorrect that land costs are omitted; in fact I don't recall any sort of cost comparison that has ever omitted land costs, whether it's from Lazard or NREL or anywhere else. It's part of the CapEx, or as rent, or however it's modeled. NREL in particular looks at overall costs on completed and built systems. Further, the developers building these things know the land costs very well. Can you point to a discussion or paper where land cost was not included? If it's still an open discussion I'd love to add the high quality solar-is-cheapest studies that all include land costs. And as for this particular study: First, doesn't omit the cost of land. Secondly land is only the most important resource in very very few markets. Razing skyscrapers in Manhattan would be a bad idea. Instead of farming crops or the sun in Manhattan, it's done elsewhere and shipped in.