Please don't take offence at this post I just want to point out how differently we view RE compared to the other things we buy.

 "I really want to power my home with solar electric, but the economics just are not there. "

 Now replace "to power my house with solar electric"  with I really want to buy a bass boat, but the economics are just not there.

 Or. I really want a new truck, but.........

 My point is that very few or possibly none of the things we purchase are held to the scrutiney that renewable energy systems face.

 If the economics were there, hoards of people and busnesses would have RE systems without even thinking as to whether they "wanted" it or whether it was right. As it is fossle fuels are cheaper (as long as the externalities stay external ie pollution ,resouce depliation, health effects. etc......) and so thats what is economicly justified. It has nothing to do with consumers "wanting" to burn coal.

 The real case is that you don't "want" it badly enough to pay the preamium of what solar electricity costs.

 To people who live off grid, solar or wind is the least expensive way to get electricity and for many, they would hook up to the grid and get rid of all that solar crap if they could do it "economically".

 Again Sam I am not trying to pick on you personally and I realize that my arguments are mostly semantics and would fall apart if held to the same scrutiny as I'm using on your statement. Just trying to make a point.

 To people who have grid power with low electric rates and no state buydowns RE is a (pick one),toy, hobby, passion, belief system, investment in the future, or just a "want"  and when the 'Value" of one of the above is added to the value of the energy savings the economics are justifiable in the minds of the people who end up as purchasers.

 Well, I guess I've ranted long enough and I hope RE prices come down enough for more people who want them to afford them.

Just kidding.  Someday when the coming energy crisis arrives in force those that have invested time and money into solar or alternative energy will certainly be rewarded.  Even without a crisis, I love the idea of a renewable resource.  Solar is even better, in that it does not have to be renewed, it's alway on, so to speak. Same for wind power.

Wind, solar are the best bet for me here in St Louis.  I'm in the process of designing a new home on a rather tall bluff overlooking the Mississippi River.  The main thrust of my new design will be an energy efficient home utilizing passive solar as much as possible in the design.  This is what inspired my initial interest in alternative energy.  But now it's the businessman in me that wants to understand the poor supply and high demand for PV panels.

Bob your response was very informative and helps fuel my interest into why and how to make them cheaper.  Is there a PV panel production facility in the USA?  Any information on the process of producing panels would also be interesting.

"Silicon is commercially prepared by the heating of high-purity silica in an electric arc furnace using carbon electrodes. At temperatures over 1900<C, the carbon reduces the silica to silicon according to the chemical equation<p> SiO2 + C ¨ Si + CO2
Liquid silicon collects in the bottom of the furnace, and is then drained and cooled. The silicon produced via this process is called metallurgical grade silicon and is at least 99% pure. In 1997, metallurgical grade silicon cost about $ 0.50 per g; in 2000, silicon metal (> 99% pure silicon) averaged 56 cents per pound [1] (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/760301.pdf).

[edit]
Purification
The use of silicon in semiconductor devices demands a much greater purity than afforded by metallurgical grade silicon. Historically, a number of methods have been used to produce high-purity silicon.

[edit]
Physical methods
Early silicon purification techniques were based on the fact that if silicon is melted and re-solidified, the last parts of the mass to solidify contain most of the impurities. The earliest method of silicon purification, first described in 1919 and used on a limited basis to make radar components during World War II, involved crushing metallurgical grade silicon and then partially dissolving the silicon powder in an acid. When crushed, the silicon cracked so that the weaker impurity-rich regions were on the outside of the resulting grains of silicon. As a result, the impurity-rich silicon was the first to be dissolved when treated with acid, leaving behind a more pure product.

In zone melting, the first silicon purification method to be widely used industrially, rods of metallurgical grade silicon are heated to melt at one end. Then, the heater is slowly moved down the length of the rod, keeping a small length of the rod molten as the silicon cools and resolidifies behind it. Since most impurities tend to remain in the molten region rather than resolidify, when the process is complete, most of the impurities in the rod will have been moved into the end that was the last to be melted. This end is then cut off and discarded, and the process repeated if a still higher purity was desired.

[edit]
Chemical methods
Today, silicon is instead purified by converting it to a silicon compound that can be more easily purified than silicon itself, and then converting that silicon compound back into pure silicon. Trichlorosilane is the silicon compound most commonly used as the intermediate, although silicon tetrachloride and silane are also used. When these gases are blown over silicon at high temperature, they decompose to high-purity silicon.

In the Siemens process, high-purity silicon rods are exposed to trichlorosilane at 1150<C. The trichlorosilane gas decomposes and deposits additional silicon onto the rods, enlarging them according to chemical reactions like<p> 2 HSiCl3 ¨ Si + 2 HCl + SiCl4
Silicon produced from this and similar processes is called polycrystalline silicon. Polycrystalline silicon typically has impurity levels of 1 part per billion or less.

At one time, DuPont produced ultrapure silicon by reacting silicon tetrachloride with high-purity zinc vapors at 950<C, producing silicon according to the chemical equation<p> SiCl4 + 2 Zn ¨ Si + 2 ZnCl2
However, this technique was plagued with practical problems (such as the zinc chloride byproduct solidifying and clogging lines) and was eventually abandoned in favor of the Siemens process."

So, to summarize, all of these processes use extremem high temperatures in "clean room" conditions to produce silicon that has less than one part per billion contaminant.  It's both difficult and expensive to make anything that pure, even water.  Then once you get it pure, you cut the ingot into wafers and lose ~40% of your super duper pure silicon as sawdust.

Then you tediously put conductive traces and leads on them, and enclose them in expensive iron free glass, etc.

Oh yeah, they also want to make a little profit in there somewhere.

That's why they're expensive.  Though in real terms (accounting for inflation) they have gotten considerably cheaper in the last ten years.  The recent price hike is because europe and asia see the handwriting on the wall and are actually trying to do something before energy costs skyrocket.  In a competitive market, high demand usually means higher cost.  The bonus is production often ramps up in respons to high demand with subsequent price drops.   So in the long view, this little price spike may actually be a good thing.

Best regards,

Looking from the point that you want power and the price per watt, solar is HIGH.

 Looking at the size and weight of those pannels for a few hundred dollars then comparing them to those junk Italian charm braclet links that are so tiny and cost $3-$4 then solar panels are not high at all. What would it take to equal that size? About 1,000 charm braclet links for around $4,000???? And those do nothing at all!!
 From that point of view based on size and weight we see that one panel for a few hundred dollars is not so bad.
 My wife just bought a few hundred of those junk charms to resell. For people who like that stuff they aren't junk, to me they are, when the profits roll in from the sales then I'll like them too.

I am planning to build a fake roof over a trailer house to reduce the summer heat and cut air conditioning in it. Mine will be cheap built from varirous scrap. A friend got an estimate though for thiers and nothing but a roof on poles will be way over $5,000 just to shade the house and do nothing else! Ok, if properly mounted with the intent to make shade, how many panels could they buy with $5,000?? The panels as shade would last longer and need less repairs in the next 20 years than the fake roof will. Both could be used to shade the houses actuall roof and reduce cooling costs. Only the Solar pannels would produce power and lower the electric bill though. Not alot of watts for $5,000 but maybe a good bit of shade :)
 From the point of wanting the most power you might not want to mount the same way as for shade, but if your going to pop 5 grand for shade then why not just get whatever power you can from the pannels and mount for the purpose of getting the most shade instead.

I never had a bass boat and don't even want one, I don't even like to fish actually, but in defense of bass boats anyway :)

A bass boat for a real fisherman has a faster payback than solar for certain!!
I mean think about it logically. Catfish is about $2 lb at the grocery store, trout is far higher, and I don't think I ever even see bass available. So if you actaully eat the fish you catch, and catch only 5lb per day average of edible fish (after cleaning) then you average a $10 per day payback on that $5,000 fishing boat. Lets see you do that with $5,000 of solar pannels :)
 And I know people who fish on cloudy days and in the rain, count out solar on those days :)
 It's true however I also know people who fish from a $100 row boat and catch more fish than people with a fancy boat and equipment costing near $10,000 total.

As far as recent price increases all I can say is "Why Not"?
I mean steel prices have encreased, I pay more for almost all my food this year, Gasoline is hanging in the higher prices and will be going up agian soon too I am sure. Don't beleave any of the crap about shrotages, war, etc.. driving up the prices or Bush causing such things. For a fact these gas prices existed durring the Clinton term also. First time I ever saw $1.85 gasolene here in this area was in the Clinton years BEFORE war and it went WAY down once Bush took office. Now it is back up again. We didn't make any NEW oil between Clintons high gas and Bushes lower Gas prices or the currant prices. I was working/living about 150 miles from home and traveling alot then and Clintons last year or so gas was $1.85 and higher in this area for a pretty long time, now it's floating anywhere from $1.65 to todays price of $1.80 per gallon.
 Just all games and politics of oil companies and governments. It's bad for the enviroment and someday we will run out, but that's got nothing to do with the high prices.

Back to solar, while it is expensive to manufactor the cells and such I have read in several places about costs could easily be cut various ways and bring down the prices while still maintaining high quality. Wasn't the stuff I cared to be reading then and I moved on to other subjects. Articles were discussing manufactoring methodes and so forth. REAL stuff not just fluff, but I skimmed through it all and didn't pay that much attention. Basically what it all says is at this time no major manufacturor cares about cutting costs, upping production, lowering prices, and meeting higher demands. Although it's all said different ways by different people, it all basically says the same thing. These were in trade and tech type publications from various industry sources. Stuff corporate execs might read but normal people don't. One of the publications was investment oriented, kinda stated while solar might be a good long term investment for distant future it was not as good a short term investment and sighted the above reasons, basically no interest from the big guys to cut costs, lower prices, create demand, or to establish any MAJOR markets though they remain in the playing field and competive with each other for when they feel the time is right they will be in position to move quickly. No mention of when that time is right is supposed to occure though, and other investments were recommended as being far better for short term gains and as I recall even 2-3 years gains.
 Let's hope they are wrong!

In the meen time who ya gonna beleave? The used car salesman that claims the 95 mini van is perfect or the indepenant mechanic down the street that tells you don't buy it, the brakes are shot the tranny fluid is burnt and the oil has water in it and tie rods about to fall off??

We have been told for 20 years that there is an oil shortage and we're gonna run out soon so they have to jack up the prices. 55cents a gallon or far less when I started driving around 1976 or so, a few problems but then they all went away as soon as gas hit $1 a gallon :(
 Hmmm, same people telling us a shortage and high cost for the needed silicon quality for cells  and that's whats keeping the prices high?????
.
nothing to lose