Well -
We don’t need to know the exact numbers - for two reasons -
1. Many of us have run the calculations. You see the results in these posts. Solar don’t pay - even with good sun, in high electric cost areas, with 65% government subsidy. On large installations.
Whether the WH uses $2K or $4K or $100K per year makes no difference - it is the cost/KWHr that drives the equation.
Anotehr way to tell? See all of those provate business NOT putting up soalr? If it paid - even with the subsidies that the WH can’t get - more places would have solar.
majority of solar are government buildings - or CA - where they made a mistake with the kickback, and give rebates too large.
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.