The power company had a lot of control over our job, but they don't have control of our power usage or how much we're sending back into the grid. However, neither do we expect to actually receive a check from them--this *is* PG&E we're talking about in this specific instance, after all.
We decided against battery banks because of the total sum "pain in the ass" factor. It's huge. We'd have to dedicate a significant portion of our property just to the batteries, weight, environmental issues, initial cost and replacement costs all made them not feasible for the package we went with or our real needs. I mean, I truly detest PG&E as a whole, but not so much that I had to insist we completely cut the teat.
Bolded, both bear repeating. We investigated wind, but that would have required an initial capital outlay we couldn't bear, and we're in a bit of a valley that doesn't normally have sufficient wind speeds for good power generation. Not to mention that there are rather significant set-backs required that would have severely limited the sizing possibilities for wind power generation. AND, we would have had to cut down a lot more trees, didn't have to cut any for the solar but if we do take down two pines, one directly east of the house and the other directly west, we would increase efficiency. I'm not ready to cut down more old trees just yet.
Caring for our now-5yo roof was but one of the big questions we had for the companies handling our installation. There is a better chance that we'll need to replace the roof before the panels (which means the installation company gets work from us again in future).
Lost, perhaps our musings might be better for a thread of their own? I happen to know someone who's a paleoclimatologist and he's been working on building a data set that will add to the body of science that demonstrates that, outside natural decadal climate shifts, what we're experiencing very well may be rooted in human industrial activity. He's using coral heads around the world, began in Florida, added to the set with some Caribbean samples, and last year received funding approval for study in Vanuatu and the Oceania region.
Anyway, there are many factors that add to climate variables, and so that leads to much debate. Where I think we would find common ground is the idea that the overall, total mean sum of human impact, irrespective of whether we're discussing private citizens or large corporations (which is yet another debate for me, that could become very political), whether via causing climate shift or other activities, is significant. I mean, it can be seen from space, ya know?
On the subject of climate change and greenhouse gases I find it kind of amusing (and kind of not) that people are so insistent on their view being correct. I mean here you two seem to be arguing over whether it's caused by people or industries when that's really one and the same. Then there is also the popular view that it could all be natural and therefore uncontrollable by man. Regardless of who causes climate change what matters is that it exists and we have to find a way to exist along with it. Not only that but also in changing how we interact with the environment we also change other pollution issues (hopefully for the better). Pollution that we know for a fact is altering life on this planet on a genetic level.