[com2kid]

> So what? They've invested a large amount of capital in order to avoid low $0.13/kWh residential electricity rates that come from more or less entirely carbon-free sources

As per PSE (the power company for the Seattle Metro but outside of Seattle itself), only 23% of the energy sent to surrounding areas outside of Seattle city proper is from hydro. FWIW Nuclear is less than 1%. 46% is fossil fuels, natural gas and coal.

As for the payback period on solar installs, it made a lot of sense a few years ago when the state had incentives.

With the ability to bank credit, plenty of people around Seattle who have solar panels are only paying for electricity for 3 or so months of the year.

Is it a slam dunk? There is probably better ROI on an index fund, but it is not a money losing proposition by any means.

[WalterBright]

It's hard to see the ROI on rooftop solar, especially taking into account the cost of replacing the panels and the battery now and then. They're not lifetime purchases.

[loeg]

We're talking about Seattle residents. We get power from Seattle City Light, not PSE.

[com2kid]

As per your original comment

> > Yes, rooftop home solar doesn't make a ton of sense at this latitude and especially not adjacent to this much hydro power.

Latitude is inclusive of the surrounding area, not just the city of Seattle.

Also in general when people refer to a city they are also referring to the metro area around it.

Yes, if you are concerned just about greenhouse gas reduction, and if you live in the Seattle city boundaries, then solar is not a meaningful way to make a reduction.

However many people who live in the Seattle Metro area, but outside the city itself, are shocked to learn how dirty PSE's power is.

For those people, getting solar installed might be meaningful.

And again counter to many people's expectations, Seattle does get enough light to make solar somewhat cost effective, especially with net metering in effect.