Sharing power via net metering is better (for the environment) because there's no conversion loss from charging a battery.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the argument. My interpretation is that y'all want me to dump all my excess power during the day into the grid, to power other homes that don't have panels, instead of charging a battery. And that's somehow better for environment.

But ... when night falls, and I'm not generating any more power, where am I supposed to get power? Do I just live without power every night? And everyone else does too? Cause the only alternative is to burn fossil fuels to power everyone's homes during the night. Fossil fuels being perhaps the most inefficient solar batteries available to us.

And yes, fossil fuels _are_ batteries. Solar batteries in fact. It's just that they have an unimaginably terrible conversion loss, not to mention they're highly destructive to the environment, and take millions of years to charge. If they ever do recharge, which is unlikely, since our planet is not likely to revisit the eras that gave rise to significant quantities of them again.

I think I'll stick with lithium cells with their "conversion loss" of 80%, that take up a small portion of a wall in my house, and last for decades.

My points are: 1. To go completely off grid, compared to 80% off, takes many more batteries, and is therefore inefficient.

2. Using those batteries a lot every night wears them out more.

3. There are many alternatives to fossil fuels at night, wind, tidal, solar salt heating, nuclear, biofuels. Whether it's better to share or store would depend on many factors.

a) What power sources are used on your grid b) What the demand is at each point in the day c) The transmission efficiency vs the battery conversion efficiency d) The resource cost of the batteries

Until the power companies start devaluing your power because there's a surplus of solar on your street and they don't need it.