More people should buy things based on the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). It'd revolutionize government procurement if more contracts were awarded based on TCO instead of going to the lowest bidder for the initial acquisition.

A cheap solar panel is only cheap if it lasts long enough to recoup the investment. From what I've read recently, amorphous silicon solar cells are very cheap to produce compared to conventional solar cells. However, they had a problem with rapid degradation. Supposedly, the manufacturers might've solved that problem but I'm not sure.

By the same token, a super efficient solar cell like the one described in the article are only cost effective if they can be produced for a competitive price per watt with conventional cells and last at least as long. However, there might be other factors that tip the choice to the super efficient cell for terrestrial applications, such as reduced panel size for a given power requirement. For massive projects, you have to include things like higher land acquisition costs and perhaps the need for more trackers to keep the panels pointed at the sun. Cells with higher efficiency would require less land and less supporting hardware for a given amount of power output. Those savings could outweigh higher cell costs.