Hmm, that is significantly lower cost which definitely makes residential solar look more attractive compared to nuclear &etc, but it still doesn't outcompete utility-scale solar or wind. Speaking of which, this source seems completely one-sided as no comparisons are made with any other methods of electricity generation.

If residential solar cost is falling, what about other solar systems?

Well, of course there's going to be overhead costs at the point of delivery, but saving money for individual households is not the point.

The $ amount in this report is representative of the raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, installation and long-term maintenance required by each method. The point is to do a direct comparison between them (hence "levelized") so that we can judge which is the most effective.

Because material use and manufacturing are included, the $ amount represents environmental impact (at least in part). Based on this report, residential solar is a terrible use of resources. We could put the same resources to better use building more efficient large-scale systems.

So again, we have to solve these problems collectively, not individually.

In this report, everything is reduced to a $ amount so that a direct comparison can be made between methods. The amount is a representation of raw material/manufacturing/logistics/installation/etc, possibly reductive but intended to be all-encompassing. So, we can use that amount to judge where resources can be used most effectively - and the conclusion has to be that residential solar is a misuse of those resources.

The same materials and labor could be put to better use building large-scale systems, which would produce more electricity with less environmental impact from inneficiency.