Originally Posted by
Richard
It is irrelevant that the cost of solar is the cheapest,what is relevant,is it economical to supply the masses of home owners of 100% sustainable reliable electricity,even after 200 years of being in existence.
I live in Florida and it would supply my needs 45% of the time.
In this state it is illegal to have your house 100% off grid and to keep it as occupied you must remain connected to the grid.
They quoted me $28,000 which would only supply 45% of my current usage,they do not like it when you run the A/C.
My current electric bill is $145 peak summer months,and now when it is freezing cold at 60 degrees my bill will drop less then $100.
It would take me 28 years before the system paid for it self the panels die at 10 years?
So before it has even showed me a return in the 28 years it will cost another $8000 to replace the panels.
That is paying $37,000 just so I can say,I got solar that does not even meet my needs,nice.
You could say ,that’s saving $5000 by going solar,but it is not because it is only covering 45% of my needs and you could take that same money and put it into a money market account or Tesla stock and walk away with a heck of a lot more in 28 years.
Besides I would not feel comfortable with the taxpayers having to support my electrical bill,next I will be looking at food stamps and a new EV at the taxpayers expense,not the way I was raised anyways.
It is easy to say you are saving money when everybody else is covering the loss.