Actually, your figure won't work if Dr. Alvin Marks' Lumeloid (solar cell on a roll) becomes a reality. Lumeloid, a photovoltaic film, has a theoretical conversion efficiency of 72-84% and can cost as little as $1/m2. The table you cited only used a conversion efficiency of 12% (88% cell converison loss). Even if one were to assume a sold frame will increase Lumeloid's cost to $10/sq meter; the payback ratio will definitely be positive within the first year alone even if one prices it at only 3 or 4 cents/kWh
Here are my figures for an equatorial site:
Solar Intensity above the Atmosphere 1,370 W/m2
Loss of energy from passing through the atmosphere
Absorbed by atmosphere (20%) 274.0
Scattered (6%) 82.2
Reflected back into space by clouds (20%) 274.0
Reflected back into space by earth’s surface (4%) 54.8
Total loss (50%) 685.0
Remaining insolation hitting the earth’s surface (50%) 685.0
Insolation for solar power purposes (54%) 739.8
P.S. I did a Project Proposal for Lumeloid but for a 1,5 and 20 sq km solar power plant located in Yuma (32.67 degrees) latitude. My studies have shown a Lumeloid power plant of 1 sq km in Yuma can break even within two years even if selling the power to utilities for only 2 cents/kWh.
Lumeloid is made from un-obtainium. My table is wholly insufficient to predict the performance or economics of such a non-product.
We don't live on the equator.
--Boot Hill