Things may be different now but some cities used to the condemn the house if it did not have electricity from a provider. It is a scam, considering most people did not have electricity even 100 years ago.

That's fair if you're talking about all utilities in the city. Sewer and water are the main problems in an urban environment. Rooftop solar on the other hand is dirt cheap and only slightly more complicated to install then plugging in a toaster.

Actually rooftop solar isn't dirt cheap where we are. And typically requires an electric service upgrade - you also need to make sure you aren't near the end of your roof life as you'll need to upgrade your roof as well.

I'm all for it where it makes sense but it isn't a blanket statement.

I mean dirt cheap and absence of cumbersome regulations and requirements. For example, you can find panels as low as $0.07/kwh these days.

My primary complaint is in agreement; solar is not cheap once you take them into account

What period of time is that kWh over?

kWh/h :P

Solar is typically quoted as $ / Watt.

For reference what you quoted was 0.7 $/Watt not 7 cents.

While the cost of the panels has dropped - you still have balance of system and, yes, the unbelievably high interconnection costs (location dependent)

I totally agree and fixed it in the post you responded to. At the end of the day a panels and electronics are a minor contribution to the project cost.

I think in most of California it is still legal to do home electrical work, provided it is permitted and inspected, but I'm not sure if this is true for solar as well.

> for people living in the city to be able to go off grid in a meaningful way.

Everyone has a use for hot water. You can always have off-grid solar heating an auxiliary tank to take the load off the primary water heater.

Having a hot water heater isn't the equivalent of going off-grid in a meaningful way.

You are talking about incremental improvements.