Sorry but I fail to understand the logic of having to consume more and more to make it look like your conserving power by adding solar. The balance needs to be tipped in favor of solar by reducing cost of solar not consuming so wildly that solar becomes cost effective. Am I missing something? Isn't this like recommending driving like a total maniac to make your insurance more cost effective (my appology to any BMW pilolting yuppie larva with a friend having the patience to explain this put down)?
Lowering consumption would save money for you directly without a large investment, a real quick payback, often in under three years even using net present value calculations to get at the true cost of the investment. The power you didn't use would still be available for others to help gratify your alltruistic needs, feel PC, green, whatever.
I'm not anti solar or cold fusion or anti anyway to get energy for a better life without destroying the planet or robbing our fellow inhabitants, but remain convinced that in many/most on-grid instances it just doesn't pay unless your currency is in feeling green, PC, and or probably fooling yourself. Sure wish it weren't so, really truly I do.
Even gorilla installations (illegal grid intertie, irrespective of quality of engineering or following code are often marginal at best). You can however, on a clear day, if you turn everything you own off and unplug all the parasitic phantom loads like VCR's, TV's, Microwaves, etc that use power when "OFF", actually see your Watt Hour meter spin backwards! Whoopee! What is that worth to you?
Patrick, headed to closet to put on kevlar-nomex underwear.
