I agree that installing solar panels is only financially viable as a long-term investment: the saving on electricity-bills eventually more than repaying the capital costs.
It depends a lot on the individual homes' use of electricity, obviously, but also on whether "surplus" electricity can be sold to the utility supplier. In the UK we had a so-called "feed-in tariff" system to encourage that. I am not sure if it still operates, and of course it may not apply in other countries.
If there is any "scam" as you allege, that is a matter of simple over-pricing by the installers.
However, you are incorrect about using "too much energy from the Sun". That is impossible. The radiation reaching the Earth from the Sun is outside of our influence, let alone control, and for practical purposes is constant irrespective of how we use it.
I think you are worried about the end result, via electric cooking, heating etc, being so much of that energy being converted to climate-warming heat. That happens anyway. As you know, energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only conveyed and converted, and the natural end result is heat.
Left to itself, the Earth radiates its "surplus" heat out into Space, but collectively we are limiting that process - that is the problem.
The climate-change - leading to the greater weather extremities you mention - is from the cumulative effect of burning fossil-minerals or their derivatives, at an increasing rate over a very long time. It converts the fuels' potential chemical energy into heat, however they are burnt; and their chemicals into other compounds.
Not from using solar power - but although solar photovoltaic arrays', and their storage-batteries', "fuel" is free economically and environmentally, their manufacture does bring its own environmental and political difficulties. As of course does any form of electricity generation. The primary advantage of solar and wind power is that unlike coal, gas or oil their use creates no polluting "exhaust".
(Nor does nuclear power but its waste brings considerable difficulties despite its relatively small physical volume.)
The effect was first identified over a hundred years ago, when coal was the near-universal fuel, but largely ignored probably because the rate calculated at the time, based on coal consumption at the time, put the danger-point so far ahead in the 21C that it was probably thought humanity would sort it out by then - or was just ignored!
Unfortunately, although the use of coal has diminished considerably since then, the use of natural-gas and petroleum derivatives has vastly increased so the overall rate is far higher than in the 1900s.
I know man-made, or at least increased, climate-change is strenuously denied in a few countries, notably the USA, but only for purely, rather parochially, political reasons.
