A recent report suggested, not inaccurately, that it would be cheaper to cover your roof with 40 inch televisions than it would be to cover the same amount of space with solar panels, so said the word from DuPont Innovalight's general manager, Conrad Burke. And while Burke is indeed right about the cost differences between flat-screen televisions and solar panels, it's the why of it all that he doesn't really make mention of, and the why is fairly simple: the market.

Indeed, the prices of solar panels have been bottoming out for some time now. Over the last three years alone, the prices have fallen fully 80 percent by some reports, and can actually fall further due to the comparative simplicity of making a solar panel. And while this is hard to dispute, at least on the surface, a second part of the equation comes into play: that of the market.

Take, for example, the United States. Most residents of the United States have both electricity and a way to receive signals for use on a flat-screen television, be it an antenna, a cable feed, a satellite dish, an Internet connection or a peripheral device like a Blu-ray player. Basically, most of the United States can use a flat-screen television. And many have gone out and purchased same; I actually updated mine not too long ago and have been very happy since.

But compare that to solar panels. Those same residents who have electricity and a way to view programs on a flat-screen television may not have access to a roof. Apartment or condo dwellers often fit into that range. And of those that do have access to a roof, not all of them live in an area conducive to solar power. Those who live in congested urban areas without a clear view of the sky, or those who live surrounded by trees fit into that category. And of those that have both roof access and an unrestricted view of the sky, only a comparative few of them receive sufficient regular sunlight to make solar panels truly effective. If you live, say, north of the Mason-Dixon line, you likely find yourself in that camp.

There are a lot of reasons people are largely unable to use solar panels to their fullest, and thus, a much smaller market for them. With any small market comes higher cost per product, as companies need to recoup their investments and make profit, which is why most companies actually exist.

However, many of those people who could only get half the use out of solar power would likely come into the market anyway if the product were sufficiently inexpensive. The other advantages of solar — a short-term backup supply in case of outages, or as a supplementary power generation system to reduce an electric bill — would come into play if the panels were sufficiently inexpensive and easy to install and the like to expand the market substantially.

So while solar panels may indeed be less complex and easier to assemble than flat-screen televisions, they are also in much less demand. So until the price can drop sufficiently to overcome the other objections to solar panels, I'd look for people to buy a lot more flat-screen televisions and a lot fewer solar panels.