Actually I do agree that Solar power is in fact far from cost effective as far as the cost per unit goes. I mean there are obvious reasons why we are not all switching to the stuff. I was merely questioning the point of comments about $2300 X 5 = $100,000 or whatever which is not being said in the article in question. The “news” item in question is poor because it relates assorted numbers which are insufficient/irrelevant to make reasonable a basic cost/benefit analysis. So I perhaps came on a bit strong. My apologies for that.
Actually - the article did say it would pay for itself in five years.
Anyone who knows about solar knows this is just silly. Off by practically an order of magnitude.
Some of us - apparently a few of us - have worked all the numbers multiple times. The numbers are so far off that regardless of what lies are in the article, it still won’t pay for itself. I have sized systems of size similar to WH.
The article is poor. The attempt is just PR, and the whole thing is another Obamacrap.
Just another “Feel good” ooh Ombama is a leader piece of claptrap.
I apologize for being direct - but this is just misinformation for the public - while we have real issues.
By the way - if you want to see real quality eco-friendly house - google George Bush’s house in Crawford. The media will never tell you.