Hacker News Reader

Comment by greyb | Hacker News Reader

Building solar panel installations in remote locations still requires linking that back to the main grid, and all the in-between infrastructure needed to transform and transmit that power. Building it in an urban location allows you to tap into the existing grid without much added public investment, similar to how some power grids will purchase power from homeowners as an added incentive for doing a home solar install.

View on HN

Right, they actually have siting advantages over ground mounts for that very reason.

And let's not forget that they are investments, not just stranded costs (it's baffling to see them discussed that way to and down the thread). You get something back for having built them and the barrier to entry is the upfront cost, which is easier to overcome if you're a state spending on infrastructure.

> Building solar panel installations in remote locations still requires linking that back to the main grid, and all the in-between infrastructure needed to transform and transmit that power

Some people actually have an idea of how electricity works and statements like these make them think that the whole renewable energy industry is one big scam.

In your opinion, what percentage of the total cost is involved in tapping into the existing grid from nearest wasteland?

The really critical cost isn't monetary but time. There's plenty of places where the interconnect queue is holding up projects a lot: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2025/05/06/study-...

Same in parts of the UK. Scottish renewables are bottlenecked on transmission to London.

Whereas connecting generation to a substation near demand usually shows up as "negative demand" and doesn't require big upgrades.

The grid connection is very trivial. Connecting panels to the grid is as simple as adding inverter. For example in many places the panels provide electricity to location itself where they are installed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com