Sans incentives, it is NOT cheaper than other forms of energy in MOST areas. Yes, there are exceptions to everything, but by and large, it is NOT profitable without subsidies. You can argue whether or not it's worth the extra cost to taxpayers and consumers etc., but you cannot argue that it's profitable and/or cheaper in most markets without subsidies.
> Sans incentives, it is NOT cheaper than other forms of energy in MOST areas.
You may be referencing old sources. For example, even though the UK's solar potential is reasonably low, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) shows that levelized cost of solar-generated power IS cheaper than MOST other forms of energy.[1]
People in inner parts of California have to spend significantly more on energy because of extreme weather while we enjoy the moderate weather in Mountain View.
California has higher energy prices and the poor people who tend to live in inner parts are suffering a lot.
When you look at profitability you need to deduct the government subsidies and assume that it comes from our taxes. Is it really sensible idea to tax a farmer in yolo county to pay more for his energy usage because the rich people in bay area have decides that solar is more important ?
This leads to more inequality, resentment and a divided society.
If solar is profitable why is some private company not doing it already ?