I think most major solar projects include land and infrastructure so only comparing the costs of the panels is like comparing hydro only based on operating the dam, not building it.
Fossil the way we're running it now is only priced out based on burning it not dealing with its externalities either.
Comparing solar cells without other direct costs is not sufficient for decision making.
The answer to this problem is more precise and complete comparisons, not fewer.
Our point is that they aren't. Find a single study the fossil fuel industry funds, hell even accepts, that includes the longterm environmental and health costs. They’ll never agree it’s accurate. This ripples out to their proponents.
We have a US president touting “clean coal” in 2025. What else is there to say?
> Our Nation’s beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/rein...