this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
696 points (94.4% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9550 readers
259 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Solar panels degrade over time, I don't know what the numbers are but they used to be dysmal, like 30% reduction in generation capacity over 5 years. Whatever the actual numbers are, we will constantly be replacing panels. I am sure we can figure out refurbishing too at some point.

[–] Juvyn00b@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah they're definitely better now, I'm reading anywhere between 1% per year or 12.5% at year 25. There are other things that can pop up though, micro cracks causing localized overheating of the panel - to backing failures and other physical issues. I'm interested in standing some up at some point but the capital eludes me at the moment.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm am certainly wrong, that figure was something my dad told me as a kid, we were on solar back then.

[–] Juvyn00b@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No worries at all. Like you said though, with advancements people will likely do upgrades over time anyways. I don't have numbers off the top of my head, but even just the per panel efficiencies have grown fantastically since your last experience.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah I was totally wrong, that is great though!

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 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

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (2 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.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Ok, I'm just flat wrong! Til!

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

The fuck are you talking about. I was wrong. Get over it.