Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
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.
I bet you would also find it economically unfeasible to build your own coal or natural gas power plant for your house. Maybe let the utility companies deploy solar? I mean that's literally what wheels' document shows is the cheapest source of electricity we have.