Far north places have long summer days. This doesn't align well with the winter heating needs but it does balance really well with wind generation which peaks in winter.

Latitude is not everything. Oslo, which is further north than all of Denmark gets more insolation than Hamburg, which is further south than all of Denmark.

And don't forget that storage is getting cheaper so it will get more and more practical to save a some of that midday solar energy to be used in the evening.

Thing is, panels are so cheap that if you put them on your roof, it very well might cost the same or less as roof tiles per m2.

You can also put more panels on than the rated peak of your inverter. As long as you don't surpass voltage limits, if you put on more panels, youll get more generation during non-peak hours, and it wont even affect your inverter negatively.

Usually you can easily put 2x+ the peak wattage, as your inverter likely has 2 strings, and each of them can take the whole capacity of the inverter alone.

If it's a poor location for photovoltaics, it's exactly as a poor for photosynthesis

I don't understand why energy production must be profitable.

from the article which uses intentionally deceptive photography angles to paint a very different picture, yes

more interesting is, if that is actually true. Or only true because idk. the investors also bought the land and they profits are used to amortize the land buying cost etc.

That's a terrible argument on the face of it. "They can't make any energy, but also they make so much energy they can't use it all".

I actually live in Denmark, and we can produce solar energy just fine. My dad installed rooftop solar 10 years ago, and that thing has 90% of his electricity usage since then. It's still producing at around 85% capacity too.