>I see this argument made more and more, as all the other arguments against solar are proved beyond doubt to have been total nonsense. I see this logical falla

>I see this argument made more and more, as all the other arguments against solar are proved beyond doubt to have been total nonsense. I see this logical fallacy made more and more where people start out by begging the question. No need to prove anything when everyone should just assume you are 100% right on everything! >...For starters "expensive" rooftop solar costs roughly the same as nuclear, which means it's part of the solution, not the problem. Tell that to Germany! (or a fair number of the people on this site). >...Distributed solar (and batteries) are useful to the grid. It simply makes economic sense to share some of the economic benefits with the people doing the work. The homeowner pays the installer, and then gets payed back over time as they deliver energy to the grid for use by their local area. In places like CA, a consumer installs solar cells, gets the federal tax credit and can then sell their power back to the utility for the retail rate (around 30 cents per KWH). A commercial entity that installs solar cells can maybe sell their power back at 1/10 that rate. In order to subsidize the wealthy home owner, rates for the less wealthy households had to increase. As an example, at the current time, non-solar households in CA pay an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It is estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost will grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030 for less wealthy households to cover the costs of wealthier households. I can understand why those getting the subsidy like it, but that doesn't make it good public policy. >So rooftop solar is good. It is a bit silly to just say something is 'good'. We need to compare it with its alternatives. The direct alternative is ground based solar. Consumer rooftop solar is much more hazardous to the installers and much more expensive - I don't think either of those two statements is in doubt. In order to hide the cost of consumer rooftop solar, there are tax credits and often those who can't afford solar are forced to subsidize the costs for their wealthier neighbors. >Subsidies to make markets work better are good. Subsidies to take money from the poor to give to the wealthy are not good public policy. In CA, the PUC proposed lowering the credit paid to solar owners for sending electricity to the grid to 5 cents a KW and the uproar from wealthy people was large enough that the plan was put on hold. The 5 cents is still more than the 3 cents it costs PG&E for nuclear power, but if the change was implemented, "...The manufacturers of solar systems predicted the death of solar in California,". While I can understand that those who benefit from these huge subsidies would prefer they remain, this is not good public policy.