This is a commentary – Published in the news media Klimamonitor on 2 December 2025
Rooftop solar should play a much bigger role in the green transition. The technology works — and it’s something neighbors shouldn’t have to be compensated for. It’s about choosing solutions that people can actually live with — even when they look up at their own roof, writes Mikkel Karlsson, CEO of Solartag. The debate on the green transition has moved closer to everyday life. The most recent local elections made that clear: Danes are not voting against green energy. They are voting against installations perceived as ugly, noisy, or poorly anchored in local communities. And that is why it is remarkable that we still spend resources on schemes designed to compensate neighbors of huge renewable energy projects for loss of property value — rather than supporting solutions that do not create those problems in the first place.
The property-loss compensation scheme was created to patch conflicts. When a large wind or solar farm negatively impacts a local community, residents can file claims for compensation. That is fair enough — if we insist on building projects that nobody likes. But the scheme reveals something else: We know these solutions are intrusive. We choose them anyway — and then try to pay our way out of the opposition.
A “two-for-one” solution
This raises an obvious question: Why build so many solutions that require compensation at all?
At the same time, we are vastly underutilizing the potential of rooftops. Solar City Denmark points out that large roof areas alone could deliver more than 10 GW of solar capacity. By comparison, Denmark today has around 4.8 GW installed across both solar parks and rooftops.
Other analyses, based on data from IDA, Tekniq and Solar City Denmark, estimate that Danish roofs could theoretically produce around of electricity per year. Denmark’s entire electricity consumption in 2024 was about 38 TWh. In other words: Roofs alone hold a technical potential equivalent to our current electricity use. Yet the attention remains focused on fields and farmland.
When people talk cost, the difference is usually described like this: ground-mounted arrays are cheaper. And that’s true — if you only look at the “raw” price per kWh produced. A fact comparison from Green Power Denmark shows that large ground-mounted solar farms are estimated at DKK 200–250 per MWh, while rooftop solar typically lands between DKK 450–1,100 per MWh, depending on size and system type. That is a major difference — but it’s also a very narrow calculation. Because we need a roof anyway.
Looking at total construction costs, a new roof in Denmark typically costs DKK 1,200–2,200 per m², depending on roofing material. A fully integrated solar roof usually costs around DKK 2,500–4,500 per m². In practice, the additional cost of choosing a building-integrated solar roof is often DKK 1,000–2,000 per m² compared with a quality roof without solar. In return, you get a new weatherproof surface electricity production in one solution — without taking up nature or creating neighborhood conflicts. Over a roof’s lifetime, that is a very different calculation from simply comparing the market price per MWh.
Noise-free, invisible, and embedded.
This is not an argument for abandoning all solar parks. Denmark will need wind, large solar installations, and rooftop solutions if we are to reach our climate goals. But it an argument for rooftops playing a much greater role — especially in cities and in municipalities where opposition to land-based installations has become politically decisive. It doesn’t have to be a choice between either rooftop systems or large ground-mounted arrays. If we use rooftop potential wisely, we can reduce the overall need for new solar farms — and thereby also reduce conflicts over nature, landscapes, and neighbors. That requires better framework conditions:
The state must increase incentives and make it easier for citizens, municipalities, businesses and housing associations to utilize their roofs. Building-integrated solar roofs should become a natural part of roof renovations.
We must dare to treat aesthetics and architecture as real parameters in energy policy — including the government’s 2024 solar strategy.
Solar energy does not have to be something neighbors must be compensated for. It can be invisible in the streetscape, and embedded in buildings, that we need anyway. If we want a green transition that is politically and socially sustainable, it is not only about technology choices. It’s about choosing solutions that people can see themselves in — even when they look up at their own roof.
How hard can it be, Christiansborg?
This article reflects the opinion of the author. You are welcome to join the debate — send your contribution to debat@klimamonitor.dk