. I’ve never yet met an unhappy person who fronted the cost for their residential solar. Those who are bound to a contract, sometimes not so happy.The grift is collapsing.
Residential Solar Is In Trouble
Complicated financial products helped the U.S. rooftop-solar-power industry grow, but now put it at risk of implosion.time.com
"After interests and fees, that $62,000 turned out to be more like $90,000. Today, Hernandez pays about $400 a month on the loan. Worse, his electric bill is still in the $500 range, because the panels do not produce the promised electricity. The company took out a lien on his house without his knowledge, he says, and it turns out that his 2019 income—around $50,000—meant that he wasn’t making enough money to qualify for the tax incentive upfront. He sued Southern Solar, and a jury awarded him $500,000 in November 2023 but he hasn’t seen a penny yet, he says. "
I am trending hard away from this, and I don't think it will stand the test of time. Multiple use was a nice idea, but you can only squeeze so much juice from the fruit. You can't keep piling more and more and more one and expect to maintain the status quo let alone improve conditions.
www.hunttalk.com
www.hunttalk.com
www.hunttalk.com
www.hunttalk.com
www.hunttalk.com
If you own the panels outright, and the company that sold them to you goes tits up, the warranty is worthless. See how happy they are in the years to come.Good point to bring up
And you continue to make excuses for continuing this solar energy charade.
More than a few solar companies out there with awful customer service reviews and pyramid scheme vibes for the sales people
And now they want to put their pyramid schemes on the BLM..... with our tax dollars.
The same argument can be said of local, state and federal governments.
They're called "alternative facts" @Ben.
I think we would effectively lose all motive for innovation without capitalism, slippery slope for keeping up with our world competitors while still maintaining our “freedom”
Probably some truth to that. Like I said in an earlier post, you can only compromise so many times, because sooner or later you can't cut things in half anymore. But take for instance here in North Dakota. If one took a stance that it all has to go (development), there would be a blood bath here over selling it all off. The fact that it is multiple use is what keeps it in existence to some degree.
Oil wells can be on the landscape for over 70 years. In terms of the climate discussion that may just as well be permanent. I'm not smart enough to sit here and argue climate change, timelines, etc. But I can tell you that 70 years is a multi generational impact. That the infrastructure that comes with it, often time never goes away. Even after the well is gone. I can point to examples here in ND that highlight that very case. Your post makes it sound like we just see industry pop in quick, just a few years, and you never knew they were there. That's not only not true, but it's a completely disingenuous to suggest that is even remotely close to the truth.
I think "in theory" is the operative word here. Having grown up just outside a massive superfund site, and covered much ground in my home state, the scars are deep and lasting. I've seem some incredible reclamation work as well, but once you level a mountain (as they did in Butte), or destroy an old growth forest, you can never get something back.
nothing is absolute. There are options. We can put carbon capture filters on nat gas plants, hell even coal plants. If the real issue is carbon pollution, there are alternatives. The cost of that is it will add an estimated $0.03/kwh to our electric bill. Let’s see how @BigHornRam feels about that. I think some just have a list of things they hate and learning more about it is “too hard”.
Thats not really true. In areas, there is grazing of it.
americanlamb.com
Covered under most homeowners policies.
Stop it. Your sounding like someone who reads.
