Hmm… I think that the question of whether the price declines have “flattened” is a semantic issue without much significance. Moreover, the original graph has a built-in bias. When you are looking at percentage declines, the lower portion of the graph automatically flattens — which is why the log graph is more revealing. Suppose, for example, that the price of solar panels fell by half every year. The first year, it would fall from 100% to 50%, a huge decline. But just six years down the road, it would halve from 3.12% to 1.56% — a percentage decline of ‘merely’ 1.55%, even though the price actually halved!

What matters for policymaking purposes is the projection of these price curves into the future. And there can be no question that prices will continue to fall. Moreover, the period over which we are looking at such steep declines is very short — just eight years. For policymaking purposes, the next ten years comprise the “immediate future” for which we must make concrete plans. During the next ten years, we can certainly expect continuing falls in prices, and should plan accordingly.

However, I disagree with your suggestion that further government research funding is required. We’re now in the deployment phase for all these technologies, and private concerns are able to provide sufficient funding to bring these technologies into mass use. I would prefer government funds to be directed further upstream, to research on technologies that are nowhere near deployment.