this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58937 readers
3335 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Shanedino@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The weird thing is that in this scenario these panels are still applicable for replacement probably because the the solar panels of today compared to then are about ~40% more efficient. So compared to a new replacement it's at around 60% efficiency. A major site plans profit off of 30 years and plans to replace glass at that time, so while it may still be somewhat useful long term it's probably more profitable to replace them.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

... And since they're still good they can be resold and used by others where efficiency isn't the main concern, no need to trash them

[–] K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I want to add they aren't even that inefficient for 20 year old tech thats impressive

[–] wedeworps@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry to tell you that the nineties were a little longer ago than that!

[–] Dragster39@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

You mean I shouldn't wear my baggy pants with a chain for my wallet anymore?

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It’s good to know that they have pretty good longevity. One thing complicating this is that panel technology has gotten better and better during that time. There’s a graph on Wikipedia plotting how much better the various types of panel have gotten since the 70s. A lot of them have doubled in output since the early 90s.

So on the one hand, these old panels are outputting 75% of what they started with, which is good. But on then other hand they are only outputting about 37% of what new panels could.

Not that we should throw old panels away. There’s plenty of sun to go around (though I guess the average homeowner only has one roof to use). It’s just interesting how fast the tech has improved and how that might factor in to some longevity calculations.

[–] buzz86us@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's funny how all the FUD idiots say that solar panels will wind up in the landfill and shit like that

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's a stupid argument against solar power, but it is a legitimate argument against cheap and poorly-constructed solar panels that do not have the same longevity as the ones built in the 90s.

[–] Dragster39@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

I still plan on retiring my solar panels once I retire, or later

[–] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is gonna sound so dumb... But they had solar panels back then?!

[–] LiquidSmoke@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

Carter called for solar panels to be installed on the White House in 1979. Modern ones are probably way more efficient but they were definitely a thing.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ. Look, back in the Stone Age when I went to school the coolest calculator was the TI-36 Solar. It was already that mundane.

Naturally, I used a non-solar Casio, because I wasn't one of the cool nerds.

[–] Dragster39@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

And then there are the calculators with fake solar cell windows

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, how about coal? Does that get any less efficient over time? Exactly. I've been burning the same lump of coal for easily the same amount of time and it remains 100% efficient, that's the beauty of combustible fuel.

[–] univers3man@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dragster39@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

/s or bot or completely degenerate

[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Wow, imagine where we'd be if Oil and Gas hadn't convinced almost everyone that solar was never going to work well.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Imagine where we’d be if people didn’t automatically think nuclear power=Homer Simpson

[–] Flipper@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

The great thing about nuclear power is that the real cost only comes after the power has been generated. How do you store the spent fuel cells and what do you do with the reactor when it can't be used anymore. Just before that happens you spin the plant into its own company. When that company goes bankrupt the state needs to cover the cost, as it isn't an option to just leave it out in the open.

Privatise profit communalism cost.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like you should install double what you think you need. Reason? The panels will start losing efficiency over time and your electricity usage over time will do nothing but grow. That's very common.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Dude.

Those panels lost only 20%, so far from half, in 32 years.

That's impressive.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town -1 points 4 months ago

I didn't say they lost half but they lost 20% so you need to have at least 120% today and then you need to account for the fact that you will get more electric devices in the future. How are you going to charge your electric car if you don't have the electric to do it? So therefore you should probably double it.