We should be investing solar in lower income communities, as those people could really use cheaper utilities, and any saving they get would immediately go back into their communities.
OP doesn't have to pay the electric bill anymore, but the average residential solar install exceeds $30k before credits. Someone has to pay off that loan...
Not to mention the Chinese factory that manufactured the solar panels is probably dumping toxic waste chemicals into the local drinking water unabated. We're all too busy patting ourselves on the back for saving the world to consider the impact of the whole lifecycle.
In order for large numbers of homes to go solar, individual homes need to go solar. Are you saying we just shouldn't bother with solar and EVs because not everyone is going to do it? May aswell just stop donating to charity too right?
> Someone has to pay off that loan...
I think the OP is probably paying for the loan themselves. The subsidies are just a small part of the total cost.
> probably dumping toxic waste chemicals...
Again, I think everyone would agree that it'd be better if the solar panel production process was totally clean, but the fact it isn't yet doesn't stop solar being a net win.
Assuming that SFH remain the standard. Even with ADUs, that changes. (Idea: subsidize only based on the presence of multifamily on a lot?)
>I think the OP is probably paying for the loan themselves.
Hm. Knock-on effect. That homeowner now has to command the income to pay for the loan. That changes his job choice, consumption habits. Maybe his boss feels that he has to pay him more to keep him happy (and not another worker). If he has to sell, price has to be higher in order to break even/get a return. Solar is probably a good thing for municipal expenses, re: less strain on the power grid, but you also get a better turn in that regard converting multi-family or non-residential buildings.