First of all, the SP-150 does not sell anywhere NEAR $25 a watt in quantity... retail cost on that module is under $5 per watt.
The current average rate of U.S. energy consumption is about 3.3 trillion Watts. Based on the above efficiency data, we would need to cover the entire state of New Mexico with solar cells just to generate this amount of energy!
Why would we want to do that? Solar is mostly useful for distributed generation applications, not central power.
The initial capitalization cost of a solar PV generating plant is at least 10 times the cost of a large conventional plant. And that is exclusive of the mammoth land acquisition costs necessary to accommodate the vast expanse of solar cells.
Very large solar arrays (>1 MW) can be installed for under $6 per watt--much more than conventional power plants, but far less than your "ten times" number. And large solar arrays can be sited on remote, otherwise unused land, as long as it is sited fairly close to transmission lines.
PV cells have a limited lifetime. As a consequence, manufacturers offer only limited warranties on power output, some as short as 20 years.
Fine. Name me one other product that has a 20+year warranty. I've never once heard someone fault modules because they "only" have a 20-year warranty.
A violent storm, such as a hail storm, can decimate a solar power plant. A storm covering only one square mile (the size of a small 50 MW solar plant) could destroy a half billion dollars in solar panels.
Modules are glazed with tempered glass, and are much more durable than you suggest.
PV cells have a nasty little habit of loosing conversion efficiency when you put them out in the warm sunlight. A hot day can lower the output power by up to 20%!
This "nasty little habit" is otherwise known as temperature dependency, and is well known and accounted for in PV output estimation models. Next.
A solar PV generating plant is not without maintenance. How are you going to wash the tens of thousands of square miles of PV cells of the dirt, dust and bird droppings that will collect over time?
Ummm... you hose them down. Duh. Considering that that's the biggest routine maintenance item, it wouldn't even be a part-time job for one guy with a hose.
But other than those narrow exceptions, it makes no economic, engineering, ecological or practical sense to use solar power as a replacement for, or even as a compliment to, conventional power plants. Solar may have its' own specialty niche, but in no way does that rise to the level of an "alternative" to conventional power plants.
The recent efforts, particularly in California, New York and Florida, to accelerate the adoption of PV as a distributed generation technology has dramatically lowered the cost of PV systems and has driven new investment into the field. Technology is not standing still.
One point is very important to make: no one is, or at least should be, pushing solar as a replacement for central power. It's simply a clean, long-lasting, low-maintenance form of distributed generation (the only real one for most applications) that, as prices drop, becomes more and more attractive. That hardly amounts to the scandal or fraud that you're making it out to be.
Where did I say it did?
kezekiel says: "Very large solar arrays (>1 MW) can be installed for under $6 per watt."
No they can't. Cite an example.
kezekiel says: "Name me one other product that has a 20+year warranty."
Irrelevant. The importance of the 20 year warranty is that the even the manufacturer recognizes the limited lifetime of PV cells.
kezekiel says: "Modules are glazed with tempered glass, and are much more durable than you suggest.."
Which adds cost, weight and higher losses through reflection and still without making them sturdy enough to survive a significant hail storm event.
kezekiel says: "This "nasty little habit" is otherwise known as temperature dependency, and is well known and accounted for in PV output estimation models."
It is not known as "temperature dependency", it is known as the coefficient of temperature (Tc). And it is not "accounted for in PV output" in any way that the average consumer can detect. Take for example the SP-150 model. It is rated as a 150 watt unit. But that does not account for the losses due to the temperature coefficient. It is only when looking at the foot notes to the data sheet that one discovers that because of Tc, this 150 watt unit barely manages to eke out 109 watts of power under real world conditions.
kezekiel says: "The recent efforts...to accelerate the adoption of PV as a distributed generation technology has dramatically lowered the cost of PV systems ."
No it hasn't. Provide examples.
kezekiel says: "[Solar power is]simply a clean, long-lasting, low-maintenance form of distributed generation ."
We have had distributed generation since the advent of electric utilities. It is called multiple conventional power plants. Name one concrete and realistic advantage to adding solar, wind, bio-mass, etc., to your concept of "distributed generation".
--Boot Hill