What is the most environmental place to live?

[brimstoneSalad]

I think you are over complicating things here. A person simply needs to compare his current carbon impact compared to the proposed off-grid option.

Not if you want to minimize impact. Just doing slightly better than the average grid user wouldn't necessarily get us there, and it could also end up being a waste of money which as Jamie put it would be better going to effective charities.

When you use a large enough array of solar panels and batteries, that's not always going to be lower off-grid compared to modest use on a grid, depending on the details of usage. Like if you use a relatively large amount of electricity for a couple hours each night, but otherwise use none.

I think "waste" is too strong of a word in this context as it is quite different from, for example, leaving the a.c. on in an unoccupied room.

They could literally be doing just that during the day and it would make no difference because that solar power was going to be wasted anyway.

What you refer to as "waste" also applies to on-grid systems that would rather overproduce than risk not being able to support its energy needs.

On the grid, usage is pooled and it creates a pretty predictable curve which power companies increase or decrease production to match (only a little excess).
When you have solar panels and you're not connected to the grid (if you are on the grid, by the way, you can sell your unused power to the grid), it's all dependent on the sun, not on your usage.

Solar without grid to absorb excess can be an issue.
Like I said, though, if you pair it with wind (vertical axis so you don't kill so many birds), and you are prepared to reduce usage in certain times when you're producing less power, you could probably do a lot better than being on the grid (or being in a simpler off-grid over engineered solar+batteries setup).

It's worth noting that VERY good infrastructure design can also absorb extra power by diverting it to tasks that are more flexible.

For example, if you have a specially designed freezer you could pump more water into it and have it running double duty to make extra ice when you have surplus power, and then you can use that ice over time.
Or if you have a very large and well insulated hot water tank, you could use extra power to make more hot water that you could use over the course of a week, and have extra hot water for when production is low so that energy can be devoted where it's needed.
You could also use that energy to PUMP water up to a water tower when there's excess... but honestly, pumping water doesn't take that much energy unless you're pumping a LOT of it (most energy is used in heating and cooling), so the other two options make more sense.

[Jebus]

I think you are over complicating things here. A person simply needs to compare his current carbon impact compared to the proposed off-grid option.

Not if you want to minimize impact.

Minimizing impact would mean not using electricity at all. At the moment am more interested in how I can lessen the impact of my home without making large lifestyle changes.

They could literally be doing just that during the day and it would make no difference because that solar power was going to be wasted anyway.

But the harm that you refer to has already been done.As long as it is greener than the on-grid option of identical energy consumption I would consider it a good choice.

On the grid, usage is pooled and it creates a pretty predictable curve which power companies increase or decrease production to match (only a little excess).

I was referring to the construction of the power plant in response to you commenting on the construction of excessive solar panels. A power plant is designed for decades and I assume it's size is determined by estimating its power needs and then adding some.

My point is that it is faulty to label this as waste just because one chooses to over purchase to avoid being without power during a stretch of cloudy days. A more valid comparison would be to compare the long-term impact of let's say 10 daily kWh between an on-grid option and an off-grid option that ensures that you will always get your 10 kWh.

edit (added for clarification)

Option A: Not using any electricity.
Option B: Using the grid to get one's electricity needs.
Option C: Using an off-grid solar power system that covers ones usual electricity needs (but that won't cover one's needs during stretches of cloudy weather).
Option D: Using an off-grid solar power system that covers ones not only one's usual electricity needs but is large enough to cover any reasonably imaginable stretch of unfavorable weather.
Option E: Using an off-grid solar power system so big that it exceeds any needs one could reasonably expect (even during a stretch of cloudy weather).

I consider Option E wasteful. You consider Options D and E wasteful. My point is that one cannot consider D somewhat wasteful without also considering B and C somewhat wasteful.

[brimstoneSalad]

But the harm that you refer to has already been done.As long as it is greener than the on-grid option of identical energy consumption I would consider it a good choice.

It's not necessarily greener, in terms of the resources (including time) you're investing. It may be worse or better than the grid, it depends on the overkill. There are very likely better options with the same amount of effort, and that is designing smart instead of over engineering.

I was referring to the construction of the power plant in response to you commenting on the construction of excessive solar panels. A power plant is designed for decades and I assume it's size is determined by estimating its power needs and then adding some.

Construction of power plants requires very little energy compared to manufacture of solar panels.

The carbon output mostly comes in the operating of a power plant, vs. the output coming in the building of the panels. The fewer panels you can install the better. After you install them, you need to use them to the fullest potential. For a power plant, the opposite is true; use it as little as possible to save carbon emissions.

Similar energy costs apply for batteries. Have as few of them as possible. If you can manage to get by with only a few hours of power from batteries, and not use a lot of power at night and other times when the sun isn't shining, that's best.

My point is that it is faulty to label this as waste just because one chooses to over purchase to avoid being without power during a stretch of cloudy days. A more valid comparison would be to compare the long-term impact of let's say 10 daily kWh between an on-grid option and an off-grid option that ensures that you will always get your 10 kWh.

It depends on how you're using it, but if you want an off grid option that guarantees that you'll always have 10kWh a day no matter what, it will probably be more harmful than the on grid option. It means a very large panel array and substantial battery storage; thousands of dollars worth of batteries.

edit (added for clarification)

Option A: Not using any electricity.
Option B: Using the grid to get one's electricity needs.
Option C: Using an off-grid solar power system that covers ones usual electricity needs (but that won't cover one's needs during stretches of cloudy weather).
Option D: Using an off-grid solar power system that covers ones not only one's usual electricity needs but is large enough to cover any reasonably imaginable stretch of unfavorable weather.
Option E: Using an off-grid solar power system so big that it exceeds any needs one could reasonably expect (even during a stretch of cloudy weather).

I consider Option E wasteful. You consider Options D and E wasteful. My point is that one cannot consider D somewhat wasteful without also considering B and C somewhat wasteful.

Option F: Use an on-grid solar power system so you can sell unneeded power back to the grid on sunny days, and you don't have to have a huge solar and battery array to cover cloudy weather. That's probably the best next to Option A.

My point is that it's possible to do better than D without ever losing power if you stay on the grid. The increase in house cost probably has to do with more expensive real estate, not so much carbon output. Whereas with a bigger solar power system the increase in cost is well represented in carbon output.

It's also possible to do better than D off-grid without a huge carbon footprint if you diversify your power (like with supplemental wind), and store energy from demanding tasks like heating and cooling so you only need to run things like your LED lighting and computers off electricity.

And if you have a long cloudy stretch, maybe it's worth it to not be able to use the blender multiple times a day in order to save a few tons of carbon going into the atmosphere for a system over-sized for 99% of your possible needs.
There's a point at which sacrifice becomes small enough that we should probably live with it given the immense benefits.

It's all a spectrum of waste vs. benefit, of course, vs. not using electricity at all, but there are sensible compromises in there somewhere too, and some options that are better in every way (preserving benefit without waste).