703
consider the implications for a post scarcity future (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/8471507

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

but they used to be dysmal, like 30% reduction in generation capacity over 5 years.

??? Monocrystalline silicon losses less than .4% a year. That means after 50 years it's still producing 82% of when it was new. It takes 90 years to get a 30% reduction rate.

https://www.engineering.com/story/what-is-the-lifespan-of-a-solar-panel

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Do you know the type of pv panel that was used 20+ years ago? I lived in an off grid house and my dad mentioned that at one point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Monocrystalline silicon was used 20 years ago. It's the oldest solar technology.

    According to the source data in a link in the page I linked thin film CIGS rollable solar sheets was the least durable. Panels installed before 2000 had a degradation of 3.5% a year. That's 10 years to lose 30%. But CIGS solar systems installed after the year 2000 show only .02% degradation a year. The document talks about manufacturing defects that were corrected.

    http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah but your point is that solar panels degrade 30% after 5 years, and then you reframe the context for 20 years ago?

    Go astrosurf somewhere else.

    Any grid has a maintenance cost and degradation. Solar panels isn't any different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •