>> Why are we choosing rooftops instead of a central location for solar, like we do for all other types of electricity generation? solar is different to say co

>> Why are we choosing rooftops instead of a central location for solar, like we do for all other types of electricity generation? solar is different to say coal, because the economics of home-generation, and grid generation are not miles apart. In other words it's not like I can have a coal-fired power station at home, but I can have solar panels. Up to now electricity generation has been constrained to large-scale (hydro, coal, nuclear etc). The advent of solar, and to a lesser extend small-scale wind and hydro, makes local generation more accessible. >> rather than now having to pay expensive home solar panel loans and maintain them. Solar maintenance is minimal. (Again, not like a turbine generator.) Loans are a function of capital. It takes capital to populate a home roof, and capital to build a power plant. If you have no capital then the point is moot. As an individual I have enough capital to fund my solar system without loans. (I get about a 14% return on that capital.) I don't have enough capital to fund a power station. Other benefits of home generation include more resilience should the grid fail. So for example, after a storm, power lines may be down, but I get electricity during the day. That's a bonus though, not the main driver. So to answer your question - it's not either or, it's both. There's a lot of roof-top solar in my city (measured in gigawatts), there's also solar farms generating power. Lastly' I'll point out that distribution _from_ my house is cheaper than from a plant, because I generate a few spare kw, and the wire already coming into my hose is sufficient for that. So no new (grid) hardware is required.