On 5/13/2017 2:40 PM, Tony944 wrote:
"mike" wrote in message news On 5/13/2017 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure
that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small subsidy.
That's only because the penetration of rooftop solar is so small.
Consider the limiting case where YOU are the only one not using
rooftop solar. You'd be paying the entire cost of the grid which
is still capable of providing peak needs at night
and on cloudy days for all
those other people selling their peak power back to the utility.
My electrical bill was $30 for electricity and another $26 for
fixed costs. Would be interesting to know how that ratio would
change if everybody but me had rooftop solar without storage.

*I do not read all stories about Solar. However it is necessary to know *
*Did you purchase the whole solar system or do you leasing it.*
*How many kilowatt is your system.*
*How much you are paying per kilowatt Solar Co. *
*How much you are paying Electrical Co. for paper work monthly?*

Hard to tell from your unusual posting format.
If you're talking to me, my consumption numbers are in the above paragraph.
I don't have solar for two reasons.
1)My neighbors have 60' trees that block a lot of sun.
The fast and loose solar system providers won't touch it because
they can't make enough money off me.
2)Without subsidies, rooftop solar doesn't pencil out for me
even if there were no trees. I'd be dead long before payback.
It's far too cloudy in Oregon.


Rooftop solar without local storage is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Local storage is impractical with current technology
for anybody with grid access.
How much carbon is released while manufacturing/installing/maintaining
a rooftop solar system? What does all that additional installation
do to your property taxes, or roof maintenance costs, or home insurance
costs?