Exactly right P100, and I totally agree. That's why I said that wind, solar and their unavoidable battery cousins must stand on their on two feet. Absolutely no subsidies for these pretenders to base-load power in my opinion.
But, if they make sense to your own home scenario, then great, invest in those puppies as deep as your own pockets will permit. If you dare.
Just don't expect one red cent in subsidies from the the government, who in reality are your perhaps less well off neighbours, who are too busy paying to keep the imperative base-load power stations operational for you so you have the luxury to call upon them when your green power dream runs dry (which it will, often), to be able to invest in their own green power utopia.
If the unsubsidised wind and solar power options don't add up, which they won't for most families, then let them die their natural death, like any of a thousand other opportunistic industries over the centuries. If they do add up for enough consumers, then great, let them find their own non-subsidised niche.
But regardless of whether wind, solar and battery technology ever finds a self sustaining market- whether domestic or industrial - it will still need a constantly available base-load power back up, which no one that I've read is denying, seriously.
That necessary base-load power security should transition to nuclear power over the coming decades as the only true "green" alternative (if that really is important?), and I've not read or heard anyone anywhere seriously debunking that contention.
