Like the crazy idea of eliminating the original Edison bulb.
There are many, many situations where the Edison bulb is a hands down winner -- starting with cold locations and intermittent use.
Fluorescent and LED can do all of that and better and using LESS energy. Sure it can be improved, but no one is going to until the CHEAP option (up front) is removed from the equation.
I also am disturbed to see PV arrays mounted atop residences. It's a Science Fiction theme. But such a location is uneconomic -- forever.
Let's start with the roof falls typical of roofing contractors: their Workman's Comp Insurance is a fright. It can't be much different for PV installers. Does anyone think it through?
Next, the orientation of most homes ( mine ) is entirely contrary to effective PV collection. In my neighborhood the VAST majority of homes are entirely mis-oriented for PVs atop their roofs. HALF of the day is lost!
BIPV is where everything will be in years to come, all residences will have some form of PV integrated into the roof, wall and windows, but for now the large scale utility arrays are the best/most cost effective.
PVs should be operated by experts -- and located in prime collection zones -- like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and West Texas. These spots are enough to power the ENTIRE country -- with enough units!
Placing PVs in northern states with lousy weather is a complete loser on the economics.
Next, clouds are pure trouble for PV collection. Again, we need to use the dry desert conditions to get stability in collection.
Hot climates are definitely NOT good for PV, silicon handles it somewhat, but thin film is way to dependent on the ambient temp. The hotter is gets the lower the voltage produced and all hot climate arrays use a calculated balance of average temps to get their results, this usually means some clipping of the inverters in the winter mornings and afternoons and some mid-day clipping in the summer.
If the same array was located in a more moderate climate production would increase dramatically so somewhere between cold and hot climate zones is best.
Clouds are not the problem they once were, but dust and debris in dry desert type climates is a major draw on PV production so frequent cleanings, which is a further draw on production $$$ is needed.
BTW, there is an outfit that is attempting to PRINT solar collectors on a web-press.
( Web-presses print newspapers and magazines -- google web press. )
When that happens conventional notions of PV collection will be smoked into oblivion. Imagine: a collective surface spewing out at 40 to 60 mph, and 12 feet wide!
Its already been demonstrated on a pilot basis. Tomorrow may be coming sooner than you think.
Most of the new thin film CIGS technology I've seen is using ink-jet printer technology to print the CIGS or liquid silicon cells and the associated cell circuitry in a continuous assembly-line.
When that is perfected the cost per watt is going to make PV economical for just about anywhere, it's already approaching $1/watt.
