3 ms·
Because if you want to do it at scale it’s cheaper to install some GW on a field somewhere than bothering with roofs of privately owned residential buildings.
by Ma8ee 6y ago
Because if you want to do it at scale it’s cheaper to install some GW on a field somewhere than bothering with roofs of privately owned residential buildings.
- dzhiurgis 6y agoI totally agree, but my partner says - fields for forests, not for stock or solar. We can totally pull it off using roofs, but I agree it costs more and is not possible for some. Lithuania has this solar share that you can buy - the only option for most people as they live in apartments, but you do get dicked by monthly maintenance fee.
- AtlasBarfed 6y agoYes, it's cheaper for utility scale solar because the environmental cost of dedicating land to an industrial purpose is ignored. In the case of solar it is still preferable to do fields of solar to replace carbon-emitting power generation though. But I do think governments should subsidize rooftop solar to within shouting distance of "utility" solar. Heck I think they should be subsidizing solar and storage regardless of location. Once tech curves make existing utility installations obsolete in a few decades, then maybe move them back to rooftop.
- pfdietz 6y agoOr because that environmental cost isn't actually large (if it were large, what would that do to the cost of agriculture and food?)