What have you determined about the cost-effectiveness of wind and solar energy? Everything I've been hearing and reading has been pretty negative.
It's very hard to tell. Some people want to weight in the costs of building the panels, mining silicon, etc., like the Prius v Hummer debate, which seems silly. I'm not sure most of them are weighing the costs on the other side as accurately.
In a pure solar v mass generated electricity, it can be hard to get payback in a reasonable time, it's a large initial investment, power storage is hard, utilities don't want to pay, or you spend time arguing for credits, and maintenance can be an issue.
For example, we get lots of sun in CO, for most of the year, so on the initial check, there can be a nice payback in 8-10 years on solar. However you are limited to 10k of generation, which may or may not work for the current McMansions that are being built for removing all your power costs. Not only that, there's a lot of space needed, potential roof improvement or repair over time (shingles may never completely seal for 20 years and we have hail. Replacing panels could perpetually push out your payback period. The people I know with solar tend to use it for supplements, so they're reducing their long term costs, but not necessarily financially the best way. They haven't tracked their investment, often, or considered the cost over time.
It still appears to be a gamble to me at scale. However if you reduce your usage to the point where a 5k system can work, it might be worth it to you. I know a friend in Parker, Glenn Berry, thinks that his 25k system is worth it.