But not a "huge" issue really.

It really depends on the frame that you put around the systems when doing life cycle analysis. For example, if you focus ONLY on GHG emissions over 25yrs and you frame teh entire home, my guess is that the lifecycle cost of your solar system, with batteries will be MUCH MUCH less than cooking with gas.

That would include all the transportation costs, mining, manufacturing, etc.

With solar at least the USE will not contribute GHG, where with gas, even if the transportation, extraction, etc is less than solar/storage, you are releasing more for every pan of bacon.

This is not to "shame" the use of gas, but to put decisions in a framework.

I have gotten into arguments with engineers about the "subsidization" of wind energy where they "don't get that for coal". I would try to remind them that the roads and rail that transport the coal is not paid directly by the plant, the plant was built with taxpayer money, directly, etc.

Those subsidies are forgotten over the years. The role of subsidies is to steer society towards a set of values that are decided upon through elections and those that we elect.

Sorry for the ramble.