What does it take? I don't think there's a magic solution to that. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the United States produced a report recently for the United States zero-energy home program, as it's referred to down there. They did a zero-energy home impact study, and the outcome ultimately was that if you don't act now, you're not going to transform the marketplace by 2030.
So it doesn't matter what the price is right now. What they're trying to say is that you've got to start now to implement tools, to initiate tools to begin to transform the marketplace. There's not a number that they can land on. They have homes in California; they have homes in New York State; they have homes in other parts of the United States. They all have different cost premiums. They all have different markets.
But what they are doing is leveraging some federal-, state-, and municipal-level support. All that is to say that they're trying to transform the marketplace, but they've got to do it now. There's going to be an impact from zero-energy homes in the United States. It's part of their energy strategy, their security strategy. There's a reason they're doing this.
We have different reasons, possibly, but the point is that if we sit and bicker or discuss how we make this cost effective by a certain timeline, we're going to get caught in the trap of never being able to accelerate integration of these tools into the marketplace and letting the market decide for itself.
It could be five years from now that solar PV is cost effective, depending on how fast it's deployed. That's unrealistic, notwithstanding that silicon is expensive, but the price of PV on a global scale is dropping. So the point is that if we act now, we're not getting caught in this trap of what if or how do we get to reduce our costs faster? Let the market decide that as quickly as possible by giving some intervention from government in the short term.