I think we're mostly on the same page.
I note that the ozone hole and the greenhouse effect are two separate issues that appear to be completely unrelated (although since both involve atmospheric gasses there may be some connection).
The ozone hole is claimed to have a contribution from Chlorine in the upper atmosphere, which accellerates the breakdown of ozone back to oxygen. It occurs at the south pole because the continuously dark winter night prevents the formation of new ozone, and if it breaks down faster than it is replenished from illuminated areas you get a hole. Accellerated breakdown expands the hole somewhat - but don't expect to see the ozone disappear over the temperate zone. B-)
The human component is claimed to be, not from burning fossil fuels, but from manufacturing and eventually releasing chlorofluorocarbons (like Freon refrigerants), which are so stable that they don't break down under normal conditions anywhere below the ozone layer, which they eventually reach by diffusion and where the ozone breaks them down and releases the chlorine. However, volcanoes kick much more chlorine up there than humanity. (And on a planet covered with sodium-chloride laden oceans I have no doubt that salt spray gets some up there as well, despite the stratification of the "stratosphere". B-) )
But the research indicating Freon contributes to the ozone hole, leading to the global panic, banning of Freon, its mandated replacement with newer and more expensive refrigerants, and increased food poisoning in the third world through lack of refrigeration, was funded by the company with the patent on Freon, just before the patent expired (meaning ANYBODY could make the stuff without paying them a cent). Another reason to take it with a grain of sodium chloride. B-)
The greenhouse effect has two halves:
1) A surface that absorbs light in the far-infrared and above and re-radiates it as "black-body radiation" in the near infrared.
2) A covering that reflects, scatters, or absorbs near infrared while passing far infrared and/or bands above it.
A greenhouse does it big-time because glass does a marvelous job at 2), bouncing near-infrared and passing about everything else short of hard ultraviolet. The plants and other stuff inside absorb enough of the light (thus converting it to near-infrared) to keep the place warm on winter days. Solar collectors, with glass covers, black linings, and good insulation can trap most of the energy from sunlight as heat.
The "greenhouse gasses" do a bit of 2) in the atmosphere, absorbing or scattering-back the near infrared from the ground. Increasing them increases the effect. These gasses are the ones that are a concern from fossil fuel production and consumption: Carbon dioxide and methane both have significant greenhouse activity.
But lowering the albedo of the surface, absorbing more of the light energy (thus converting it to near-infrared for its first trip back toward space and reducing its chance to escape) also increases the effect - since the effect is the PRODUCT of the amount of conversion of light energy from high-band to low-band/local-heating with the amount of increased recapture of low-band (realtve to hight-band) light. Thus, painting the surface of the planet black, whether by paving it with asphalt, covering it with dense urban structures that require light to bounce back-and-forth (partially absorbed each bounce) before making it back upward, or covering it with dark-colored photovoltaic panels, increases the greenhouse effect heat trapping and the resulting "thermal pollution".
On the 11 cents per KW I don't know, I have no idea how much it costs the electric company to monitor/re-distribute that power, but I do believe in a fair share, and I think they should return a fair ammount, at least as much as they would pay an outside company supplying their power needs (whether they buy from a Hydro plant or a coal plant etc.). I think they should treat any RE source from private individual the same as they would treat a business supplying them power, and give them the same payment.
Can we agree it would be fair for them to pay for any excess fed them at a wholesale rate appropriate for the times of day when the RE system would typically have an excess? (That would be a pretty good deal for both sides, since PV and wind both tend to be most available when the cost of power is highest.)
For the big guys they'd want to meter it explicitly, with time-sensitive meters, just as they do for other commercial suppliers. For the little guys a single meter and assuming the surplus is at the typical times would be a close model and give the power companies a slight benefit (since the part that canceled out represents drain at a typical residential mix of times and generation at a mix biased somewhat more toward high-price times.)
Next I just wanted to mention about the recycling of copper and iron of any type. [...]
I note that within the last couple days I saw an article referenced on the board giving an analysis of the costs of tearout and restoration of commercial windpower sites. The prices paid for the scrap was figured in. As I recall it was a significant component but typically didn't cover the whole thing - sometimes by a long shot.