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
Well, there's where you said it. As for the cost of building a solar plant, we priced out construction of a 25 MW solar farm, so I know what I'm talking about.
As for solar cells having a limited lifetime, well what the flip doesn't? Certainly every other power generation technology that I can think of has components that have a limited lifetime. By the way, the warranties for modules typically state that the module will produce at least 80% of its rated output after 20 years... that's hardly the same thing as expecting the module to croak after 20 years. These things can last decades.
As for the lowered cost of PV systems, I find it odd that I am being asked to do your own research for you. I have seen prices fall just in the last six months as the industry gets bigger and more competitive. Anyway, I have signed contracts and have built systems for $6-$8 watt, so I know it can be done, and I know that with newer products coming on the market, it can be done for less than that.
As for one "concrete and realistic advantage" to using solar for on-site DG is that is the only renewable, clean technology available for companies or homeowners that want to reduce their consumption of grid power or go completely off the grid. Diesel generators are restricted in Southern California to running no more than 200 hours per year for pollution control. What's more, solar systems run with no fuel costs and very low maintenance cost.
The downsides, about which we are very open with potential clients, is that solar takes up a lot of roof space and has a high initial cost and payback relative to other technologies. However, the cost is coming down, and efficiency is rising, so the technology has promise, and it is working well for a lot of people here in California where air pollution is a constant concern. I remember what it was like growing up in the 60s and 70s, when the air could get so unhealthy that they actually recommended that children not go outdoors. Solar-generated power doesn't pollute the air, as even "clean-burning" natural gas plants do, and around here that counts for a lot.