Sharp President Sees Solar Power Costs Halving by 2010

Despite the subsidies (I agree) the reality is that for the forseeable future those subsidies just are -- there's no way to dislodge industry influence that extracts them from the government. Not holding my breath at least. As such this is the right figure to put in the media for sonsumption by developers.

Also, although "homes powered" is not exactly a scientific unit, most media articles do seem to use a standard formula (at least standard within the country.) To figure out what's considered an average home's power is to look at an article for an onshore wind project, multiply the nameplate by 0.3 and divide by "homes powered" I think you'll find they are pinning to the same value (per country.)

Such a rating of (average power) is needed because Wp alone causes nuke people to come screaming out of the woodwork. "Houses powered" is also something the nontechnical can relate to, so it has become the standard.

From the article:

"Solar electricity currently costs about $0.50 per kilowatt hour to produce, more than eight times as much as that produced from fossil fuel."

I really don't like costs being presented in per KW/hr as I feel there are too many variables involved. Every time I see a quote on nuclear cost, I wonder if that takes into account the usual government subsidies that are helping keep the cost look low. Never mind the fact that the cost of fossil fuels do not take into account the huge toll on the environment. As for the cost of solar - the biggest factors are latitude and hours of sunlight per day. How can anyone just throw out a number like that? I think we need some standards here.

The other one I really dislike is when they say "enough power for xxx households". In Florida or Alberta? Gas or electric heat? Gas or electric stove? A/C? Or is this supposed to be based on a North American average?

If true, this means that the cost of solar power will be comparable to the bare bones cost of nuclear power by about the time nuclear plants that start the planning process today would be completed. If all of the costs of nuclear are included, the breakeven point would come much sooner.

To Peter Finamore,

If you were to provide some specifices, I can help you factor your PV Solar requirements. Things needed: Your monthly power bill based on kilowatt hours over a 12 month period, what part of the country you live in (assuming it's in the US) and would this be a ground mount or roof mount installation.

I would be more than happy to help. I am a Solar installer in the Southern California area

I'd like to know how much land area I need to solar generate enough power for my home and to power my vehicles? How many kwH per acre? What will be the cost for istallation, operation and maintenance?

Great developments noted by Sharp but a fairly counter-productive comparison, which only serves to reinforce existing misconceptions.

The fact is that photovoltaics is already cheaper than nuclear power in many instances on the grid.

For an interesting read, 'Small Is Profitable' (http://www.smallisprofitable.org/) by Amory Lovins and Co. gives countless real world examples which demonstrate why this is so.

Cost estimates of various power methods vary quite considerably. I've seen quotes for nuclear, for example, that have ranged from 3 to 14 cents per kWhr. Same for coal, although the ranges I've seen here are from 2 cents to 5 cents per kWhr. Location
obviously makes a difference, as well as the level of consumer raping by the non-competitive, price fixing labor unions.
One giant misleading figure is always given for wind farms, which usually report max output ,
rather than 25 to 35% of that figure, which is the true output.