@dgpcolorado really hit the nail on the head with this earlier post:
My take on solar is somewhat different from the "green eyeshade" ROI calculations. I put in my first 700 watt array in 2008 as "phase 1" of a future electric car. The panels were not remotely cost-effective back then (35 year payback) but I budgeted it as part of the price of an electric car. In 2012, after driving an electric car for awhile, I knew what my actual electricity usage was so I added another 1470 watt array, putting my total at 2170 watts. As before, solar prices were much higher then than now so my new array wasn't cost-effective — I considered it part of the cost of my electric car. My view is that "people by less useful toys than solar panels, do they not?" It seems odd to me that people will calculate ROI on solar panels to the penny but then go out and buy a fancy new car, when buying a used car, or just keeping the old one, is far more cost-effective. Doesn't make sense. No, my solar arrays weren't cost-effective but I'd much rather have them than a hot tub or boat or some such thing. I like "driving on sunshine" and I seem to be something of an early adopter when it comes to doing that.
This basically comes down to the "capitalist/consumerist" mind set, for lack of a better phrase. For things like utilities, electricity specifically, the thinking is that one needs to spend the absolute smallest amount possible for the amount of power they will be consuming. On the larger utility scale, you see this all the time with utilities asking for power providers to provide bids, where the lowest bidder gets the contract. If coal or gas is a bit cheaper than equivalent solar, then the solar loses. Only recently have solar costs dropped, via incentives, to the point where it can compete on a "cost only" basis. Back to the individual now... This is why when many people are considering replacing their utility provided $0.10 electricity, they won't do it unless it is in their financial interest, hence grinding out the ROI calculation as the previous poster questioned.
Alternatively, when one is shopping for a new car, or a new toy that provides direct benefit to the purchaser, very little consideration is given to ROI. Some people are going to buy the $200,000 Porsche Taycan instead of the $50,000 Model 3 or a cheaper car because that is what they want, and the perceived benefit of having the "best", the fastest, the newest, or whatever.
It requires a totally different mindset to look at it like dgpcolorado did. This echoes my own thinking on the subject, though I can't say that I ever voiced it that clearly. I would also say that I over built my solar array to be twice as large as I needed to because, from my perspective, I personally feel better providing pollution free power to my neighbors than I would if I had spent the $6,000 on something that I really don't need, and would probably tire of in any case. Model 3 excluded
I don't know what it would take to get more people to consider the "greater good" when spending their own $$$, or when voting for representatives who will be spending the collective $$$. It could be that November 2020 will provide some insight into the number of people who consider it important to address climate change in the fastest manner possible.
RT
P.S. In the normal "what would you do if you won the lottery" conversations that invariably come up, people are dumbstruck when I say that I would like to replace the Pasadena garbage truck fleet with electric trucks, followed by anonymously starting a program to put solar panels on every home in the City.