>>11112519>>11112519>>>11109200 (You) #>You are not an accountant.>>11109213 (You) #>And you are an accountant huh?Not sure why a common profession requires proof, nor am I sure how to provide that proof other than posting my degree, but yeah I am an accountant.
An S&P 500 index fund has a 2% dividend yield, which would reduce the electric bill by about $34/month with $20,000 invested plus of course capital gains based on a rising market. If we went full dividend, such as a utility stock (oh the irony) we could expect to triple that yield giving us about $100 a month in dividends. My electric bill is around that price, though I live in PA, not CA, so cheaper electricity, but not as a good of location for solar, nor as many tax benefits.
Are you still claiming that powering your house would require a $20 000 solar setup? Even though the real value is closer to $5000, so even if solar for a house costs $20 000, and you invest for dividends, you will still save significantly less money with on grid mains vs on grid solar,
And that's not factoring in money you make from selling the unused solar energy back to the grid,
So your hypothesis of solar being non viable is only true if you
-alter and misrepresent the data to fit your narrative
-make fraudulant claims
-deliberately mislead people with lies
-use unreferenced unsourced graphs that are wildly inaccurate
-avoid questions that disprove your theory
Soooo regular power with $20 000 in dividends doesn't even cover your electricity bill
On grid solar costs $5000 but save about $3000 plus unused energy rebates.
So basically it's $5000 with solar for thirty years of free electricity......
And you vehemently opposed this in favour of hundreds of nuclear power plants and electricity costing people a significant amount of money forever.
It's not financially viable Mr Shillington
It's not ethical, logical, it costs more, it's more dangerous, and the majority consensus vote is that you are wrong.
