4 ms·

Because solar (for example) can often go on rooftops so not needing new land. And solar and wind are often good in remote areas where population is low and lan

Because solar (for example) can often go on rooftops so not needing new land. And solar and wind are often good in remote areas where population is low and land is cheap.

nonethewiser 1y ago
That doesnt really seem to answer the question unless you are suggesting solar doesnt have any land costs? I completely understand that in some situations its effectively zero. But in aggregate?
- DamonHD 1y ago
  If UK golf courses were turned over entirely to solar PV that would more than cover the ~30GW extra called for in the UK's Clean Power 2030 plan, IIRC. I would regard that as a huge improvement in use from areas that are otherwise often fairly sterile from a biodiversity point of view, and only get used by a fraction of the population. What is the 'cost' of those courses, vs PV, vs horrible climate change? But the point remains that very significant PV can be provided on already-in-use land from homes and warehouses to reservoirs and farm land agrivoltaics.
IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago
In good faith, rooftops are not the solar that is generally talked about, when we discuss solar as the cheapest form of energy. The solar discussed is massive investments into solar farm production. To your point, sure you can do "remote" - you still have to get a lot of power transmission lines to remote locations, and yes you still have to buy the land. Its not a 0 cost investment. But that's what the accounting looks like when discussing this topic. Its sloppy
- DamonHD 1y ago
  We generally don't like to put our nukes (or coal plant) in the centre of cities even though that would reduce transmission costs, nor are major hydro resources often close to the areas that power from them goes to. So that is not unique to wind and solar even if sometimes amplified for them. Separate reports in the last couple of days suggest that both Norway and Germany could get ~25% of their total solar power from viable rooftop spaces, IIRC. And indeed one very positive feature of solar is that it IS safe to deploy AT load/demand centres, very much reducing costs and losses in the last 'distribution' mile. Solar also works when there is no grid locally, which is useful from rural UK to Africa. [1] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/10/03/rooftop-solar-could-generate-30-twh-of-electricity-in-norway/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/10/03/rooftop-solar-could-g... [2] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/rooftop-solar-housing-blocks-could-cover-over-quarter-new-capacity-2030-researchers https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/rooftop-solar-housing-b...
  - hwc 1y ago
    Yep, I can't quite get as much power out of the panels on my roof as I use on average, but that's okay because I am reducing the cost of transmission by a significant amount.

Because solar (for example) can often go on rooftops so not needing new land. And solar and wind are often good in remote areas where population is low and land is cheap.

nonethewiser 1y ago

That doesnt really seem to answer the question unless you are suggesting solar doesnt have any land costs? I completely understand that in some situations its effectively zero. But in aggregate?

DamonHD 1y ago
If UK golf courses were turned over entirely to solar PV that would more than cover the ~30GW extra called for in the UK's Clean Power 2030 plan, IIRC. I would regard that as a huge improvement in use from areas that are otherwise often fairly sterile from a biodiversity point of view, and only get used by a fraction of the population. What is the 'cost' of those courses, vs PV, vs horrible climate change? But the point remains that very significant PV can be provided on already-in-use land from homes and warehouses to reservoirs and farm land agrivoltaics.

IG_Semmelweiss 1y ago

In good faith, rooftops are not the solar that is generally talked about, when we discuss solar as the cheapest form of energy. The solar discussed is massive investments into solar farm production. To your point, sure you can do "remote" - you still have to get a lot of power transmission lines to remote locations, and yes you still have to buy the land. Its not a 0 cost investment. But that's what the accounting looks like when discussing this topic. Its sloppy

DamonHD 1y ago
We generally don't like to put our nukes (or coal plant) in the centre of cities even though that would reduce transmission costs, nor are major hydro resources often close to the areas that power from them goes to. So that is not unique to wind and solar even if sometimes amplified for them. Separate reports in the last couple of days suggest that both Norway and Germany could get ~25% of their total solar power from viable rooftop spaces, IIRC. And indeed one very positive feature of solar is that it IS safe to deploy AT load/demand centres, very much reducing costs and losses in the last 'distribution' mile. Solar also works when there is no grid locally, which is useful from rural UK to Africa. [1] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/10/03/rooftop-solar-could-generate-30-twh-of-electricity-in-norway/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/10/03/rooftop-solar-could-g... [2] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/rooftop-solar-housing-blocks-could-cover-over-quarter-new-capacity-2030-researchers https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/rooftop-solar-housing-b...
- hwc 1y ago
  Yep, I can't quite get as much power out of the panels on my roof as I use on average, but that's okay because I am reducing the cost of transmission by a significant amount.