And the point about PV pricing, esoterica aside, is that there are multiple, competing technologies in play, well funded, and just at the start of their S-curves. All of Nanosolar’s output is contracted to Germany for 2008, for example, and several of the other roll-to-roll thin-film players haven’t actually turned on the presses yet. So we are in the ‘eagerly anticipating’ phase, here at the other end of the world. But there are a couple of predictions that are no-brainers about this whole business:

1 - production capablility already announced runs to gigawatts per year, and more players are joining the gold rush. There will be much scope for local dealerships, franchises, JV’s and other distribution modes. SunPower, for instance, sells only in 25+ subdivision house lots. There’s scale to burn.

2 - in NZ’s funky little economy, with new large-scale generation made practically impossible, the more-aware power companies will be looking at this and other distributed generation modes, as their mainstream business model.

Ain’t nanotechnology wunnerful?

Moore’s law is not necessarily applicable to solar cells. It was originally used to describe transistors, where reduced feature size directly increased capabilities and therefore reduces costs. Solar panels need area, so reducing feature size doesn’t help (or if it does help, it doesn’t help as much as when making arrays of transistors).

Solar panel prices will fall, but I doubt that it will be by a factor of 2 every 2 years.

Trevor.

You are IMHO thinking too narrowly on two points:

1 - letting the perfect get in the way of the good. Ferget the world population. Act Local. Solar is a good thing from several POV’s: it decentralises generation, end-runs the otherwise rancourous debate about haram and halal appliances (if you can generate the juice, why not have the electrical equivalent of a Humvee?), and privatises presently social costs of generation such as wild viewscapes (windfarms), wild rivers (hydro), Gaia’s body temperature (geothermal) and the relic of the 5000 ppm CO2 levels of yore (coal).

2 - not thinking about the capacity of private sector marketing and financing to get that good deal. Hell, if a gormless car hoon can put down $1 and drive away in his Nissan Skyline, it should be possible even for the calcified bureaucracies of State generators to devise a pay-as-you-go scheme. You’re assuming a self-funded private-person approach. Stand in a central generator’s shoes for a second - if you cannot build new capacity because of NIMBY’s, the RMA, a wallowing Gummint and a raging mass delusion over AGW, then, suddenly, financing thousands of homeowners into their very own personal generator does have some sudden appeal as a new business model, no?

The very situation LAQC was designed for. Am I right or am I right?

The reality, is that most of the world’s population will not be able to afford PV panels, even if the cost came down by a factor of 10 (I’m serious). At present, it costs over $10000 to equip an average house with solar panels. Even at $1000, people in developing countries are not going to be able to afford the initial outlay.

What is needed is some inovative way to make the installation costs affordable.

I agree thought that this does highlight another area in which New Zealand could really improve its energy legislation. Keep on pushing the good policies on energy, Greens!