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.
A 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.
Land 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...
But 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.
> lock in for 25 years and shelter against rate increases. Some developers say customer bills will drop below regular retail rates within a few years; others say the savings begin immediately.
Ouch ouch ouch.
Electrical rates are unlikely to go up, they are going down instead.
And prices for solar cells are also going down, not up. Buying now, with the expectation of making money later is a sure way to lose money.
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.