4 ms·
TL;DR A loophole to get a subsidy on something. Personally I think it's a bad idea, giving commercial incentive to destroy land for solar panels. How about we
by aaron695 12y ago
TL;DR A loophole to get a subsidy on something.
Personally I think it's a bad idea, giving commercial incentive to destroy land for solar panels.
How about we cover all the available roofs first.
And I know in theory it could be a 'garden' on existing roofs, but this is not the way they seem to being created. It's cheaper to just knock down trees and put them up.
- EliRivers 12y agoA big lump of land with some panels on isn't "destroyed"; it's being used. This is what land is for. Using. Putting banks of panels on areas of land is much more efficient in every way than scattering them over rooftops.
- jotm 12y agoLand can be used for many other things, while roofs are quite limited in what they can house. It is, in fact, much more efficient to install solar panels on all the roofs instead of (literally) the ground...
- EliRivers 12y agoBut roofs already being used, as roofs. They are of limited area, you can't work on them so easily as open land, each roof will need its own negotiations and agreements, each roof will be different, each building will need to be connected separately to the grid, harder and more expensive to maintain, harder and more expensive to inspect, on and on; it's massively inefficient compared to just doing it on open land.
- jotm 12y agoI'm more of a fan of individual installations than a distributed grid. My point is, you can install solar panels on roofs, but you can't install anything above and around solar panels.