Photovoltaic technologies directly convert sunlight to electricity via panels that do not have moving parts. The Yergin Task Force concluded that "the long-term goal of producing [photovoltaic] power at $0.05 to $0.06 per kwh by 2004 is highly achievable."¹⁸⁰

A proposal by Amoco/Enron Solar Company to sell power at $0.055 per kwh from a 100-megawatt plant (now 10-megawatt plant) built in the southern Nevada desert (Nevada Solar Enterprise Zone, sponsored by the Corporation for Solar Technology and Renewable Resources) suggests that this future is coming. The Amoco/Enron project would use a new generation of photovoltaic technology to reduce costs well below thermal solar and previous photovoltaic technologies. However, this project is not close to being economic compared to new gas-fired capacity and particularly when compared to surplus purchased power that is widely available in the area for $0.02 per kwh. The $0.055 year-one rate escalates at 3 percent per year for the 30-year contract, making its nominal price over 8 cents per kwh. With the federal tax credit, accelerated depreciation, and tax-free industrial development funds for construction, the real cost balloons past 10 cents per kwh.¹⁸¹ And, last but not least, the proposed project was equipped with a gas turbine to average down the cost and overcome intermittency. Instead of a solar project, it was really a solar-gas project, which raises the question why the national media reported the proposed project as a technological breakthrough, "producing solar power at rates competitive with those of energy generated from oil, gas and coal."¹⁸²

The major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar concerns toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium and cadmium)¹⁸³ and energy consumption associated with the large scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. The installation phase has distinct environmental consequences given the large land masses required for solar farms -- some five to 10 acres per megawatt of installed capacity.¹⁸⁴ Species such as the desert tortoise and the Mojave ground squirrel are displaced. Radio-tagged desert tortoises, classified as a "threatened species," were killed either at the Kramer Junction Luz thermal solar site or soon after relocation away from the site -- a problem for photovoltaic farms as well.¹⁸⁵ Hundreds of stacked mirrors create visual blight, and shading from the solar cells creates micro climatic impact.¹⁸⁶ These environmental negatives may seem puny, but it is an "eco-dilemma" for its proponents, who are trying to justify spending millions of involuntary ratepayer and taxpayer dollars for an allegedly benign energy resource.

In 1993 congressional hearings, the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society testified in favor of maximum acreage being made off limits to commercial development in California's Mojave desert, one of the prime solar sites in the United States. The rationale for nondevelopment, implicitly applying to solar as well as other development and recreational uses, was stated by the president of the Wilderness Society:

The California desert contains some of the most wild and beautiful landscapes in America, but these lands are being continually degraded. The fragile desert soils, scarce water, unique ecosystems, irreplaceable archaeological sites and spectacular scenic beauty are receiving too little protection in the face of a variety of development pressures. The opportunity to experience what remains of the frontier quality of the region is rapidly disappearing as development spreads. The public has lost much of this priceless heritage already; it is time to save the best of what remains as a lasting gift to future generations.¹⁸⁷

Another environmentalist has gone so far as to resurrect the nuclear option as an alternative to solar under an air-emission-free standard:

From the standpoint of scenic pollution and the destruction of wildness, there are distinct advantages to the hard energy option. . . . A nuclear plant modifies a relatively small area compared to a large-scale solar installation.¹⁸⁸