| ▲ | triceratops 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The solar farm produces more energy per dollar spent. Rooftop solar is expensive. It produces comparatively fewer kw to amortize the fixed costs over - permitting, getting up on the roof etc. If a country has abundant land and expensive labor, the money is probably best spent improving grid transmission capacity and otherwise getting the f- out of the way of utility-scale renewables. Places like Pakistan, which is going through a rooftop solar boom, are arguably the opposite - scarce land in the cities, but cheap labor to get up on roofs. Happy to hear any analyses to the contrary and update my knowledge accordingly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 3 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OK, so rooftop solar is a higher <currency-unit>/kW solar farm. That's one argument against it. On the other hand, it is also distributed which from some perspectives is a benefit, and is also do-able with very little planning and grid extension. So that's one argument for it. How things come out on balance depends a bit on what you value and how you imagine the future. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||