> And during the day, when you have peak-solar energy, you'll be at work and won't be taking advantage of it.
I'm in Central Texas and I have two dogs at home. Even if I'm not there, I still leave the air condition going so they are comfortable. The last time I checked, my A/C system was the biggest power hog and so my electricity consumption aligns very closely with when the sun is shining.
But not the only thing. My point is that its way too idealistic to assume that 100% of the costs will be covered.
I mean, yes, the laws as written seem to encourage a 1-to-1 transmission of energy. "Net Metering" is a law that subsidizes decentralized solar energy.
But in the future, when the subsidies run out and the laws are written to be FAIR (instead of written to encourage solar, as they are right now), you will not be allowed to purchase electricity and sell electricity back at the same prices.
All markets have a bid-ask spread. Wholesale prices are always going to be cheaper than retail prices.
I'm not sure what you mean by 100% of the costs will be covered. All I know is that I can reduce the amount of electricity that I buy during the day when I consume the most. The savings are greater than the cost so it's pretty much a no-brainer for me at this point. If I finance, I can pretty pay for the system with the money that I'm no longer using to buy electricity.
> when the subsidies run out
Why stop subsidizing solar? Do you think all energy subsidies are going away, or just solar?
I think that net-metering is going to go away once solar adoption reaches a certain critical mass. You can't keep giving away free batteries to consumers, someone eventually will need to pay for those batteries.
Other solar subsidies may remain a bit longer. But net-metering is probably the biggest once.
> I'm not sure what you mean by 100% of the costs will be covered. All I know is that I can reduce the amount of electricity that I buy during the day when I consume the most. The savings are greater than the cost so it's pretty much a no-brainer for me at this point. If I finance, I can pretty pay for the system with the money that I'm no longer using to buy electricity.
SunEdison's model has been proven to be incompetent. SolarCity's "MyPower" loans have been scuttled. That's WITH the current large number of pro-solar subsidies that the US Government is paying for.
I think that it's a "no brainer" to take advantage of SolarCity's deals as a consumer. But in the long-term, it looks like their finances are unsustainable.
Personally speaking, I'm more concerned about a long-term reliable model that manages to get the energy to the most number of people. Utility scale solar seems to be the best solution, although its a bit boring.
I'm not sure that the net metering argument applies to places like central Texas. People consume the most power when the sun is shining so solar, even without net metering, makes sense. Of course other regions are different.
> Utility scale solar seems to be the best solution
I don't think it makes sense to talk about a best solution. Large scale solar will contribute along with nuclear, coal, natural gas, wind, etc...
I'm in Central Texas and I have two dogs at home. Even if I'm not there, I still leave the air condition going so they are comfortable. The last time I checked, my A/C system was the biggest power hog and so my electricity consumption aligns very closely with when the sun is shining.