> Florida gets half to one quarter the solar energy at the rooftop that California
Where did you POSSIBLY come up with that?!
Bakersfield gets 1461 kWh/kW/year
Tampa gets 1364 kWh/kW/year
Here, do it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/pvwatts/version1/
I got it from eyeballing http://www.trbimg.com/img-53e6... so why does that map show FL in green not yellow? Apparently whoever chose the color scale on that map made the yellow band way too narrow.
but yes, that was very very inaccurate rough math.
I'm sure Bakersfield is the entire state of California.
Now if you don't believe that Bakersfield fills the entire state you could look for areas with higher solar insolation.
For example
Victorville, CA Annual Avg. (kWh/m2/day): 8.15 vs
Tamp, FL Annual Avg. (kWh/m2/day): 4.98
Nope it isn't twice the solar insulation but it's getting up there.
So edit my erroneous statement to something more like:
No the cost isn't just being subsidized. Florida gets half to 3/4 the solar energy at the rooftop that California gets to for the same power usage you have to install more panels.
Another factor is hurricanes. In California you can use cheaper panels because they don't have to be rated to withstand hurricane force winds. Even if you use the same number of panels in an Florida installation you'll have to pay for more expensive panels and more expensive mounting brackets/rail systems. Everything has to be stronger in a state that is likely to see a hurricane every few years when the panels would otherwise last >30 years.
With no subsidy in either state you'd still spend more for solar PV to get the same power in Florida.