3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWe 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 agoYep, 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.