The link you provided actually disputes what you stated above.
Not if you understood my sketchy comment as intended. ;-)
By the time you count ALL the factor inputs that go into solar electricity (including those Boot Hill mentions that are not in his calculations), including the energy to produce them, reduced output from overheating, dirt, damage, common shade factors (particularly important in winter) such as hills, trees, and other buildings, orientation problems with existing construction, downtime, maintenance, repairs, and (a biggie) disposal costs when they go bad, they don't produce as much energy as they consume. I can't wait to see people using LimeAway on their panel glass to clean off the calcium deposits from rinsing off dirt, only to have the acid eat the aluminum housing.
Nor have I seen even once, in any article touting the blessings of solar cells on domestic housing, the cost of interest taken into account. Then there's the cost of lost opportunity when considering what the same capital could have produced when invested in a more efficient source of electrical power. Did I mention earthquake loading on existing construction? How about the marginal cost of roof repair with a set of panels installed?
Then there are the costs of solar on a large scale that aren't even in the picture now. Consider the reflections off a hillside of panels in an urban area. It won't be pleasant.
There may be sound reasons to install solar cells on new houses in remote areas, particularly if we could back them up with stationary fuel cells running on propane at night to eliminate the need for batteries, but as a primary source of electricity they suck compared to nuclear and biomass (the latter of which we have to do something about anyway).