Let us build solar panels on the least valuable rural land, and benefit from the economies of scale and the ease of installation and maintenance - better to look after one acre of solar panels and inverters than the same number spread over a hundred houses. Transmission losses are negligible, easily single digit percent for 100km.
For individuals, it may make sense if they value grid independence or if they can benefit from tax breaks imposed by a government that doesn't agree with my take.
We do, OTOH, demand that every housing unit have, say, flush toilets, because the waste problems without them cause a negative externality we don’t want to deal with.
Solar panels can be viewed as the same thing with regard to electricity use.
> Let us build solar panels on the least valuable rural land, and benefit from the economies of scale and the ease of installation and maintenance
Shading rural land with solar panels makes it less valuable for the one thing rural land is most likely to be valued for.
Putting solar panels on rooftops doesn’t compete with other uses of the space.
Here's something that might help, then. I have rooftop solar and its lifetime cost (labor + parts) is lower than the price of electricity, meaning it's cheaper to have solar than to not have solar. Secondly, the book Drawdown lists solar farms as the #8 solution and rooftop solar as #10. So rooftop solar is more than financially feasible, and necessary from a climate perspective.
Decreasing demand for energy feels like an important step on the path to a healthier ecosystem, and withdrawal will be tough for many. I also propose that more people do grow their own food, or at least be much closer to the farm and garden.
I can do it myself. Now.