Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Danne660 t1_iu0vfov wrote

Reply to comment by PicardTangoAlpha in World facing 'first truly global energy crisis', report says by zsreport

If you are worried about you solar becoming useless after 25 years then just replace them every 10 years. It is still cheaper then nuclear even if you replace it that often.

And bitch more about downvotes just because reality don't conform to your will.

9

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu0w2kd wrote

So.......correct or no? Is this your way of agreeing?

−12

TrainOfThought6 t1_iu1hfbm wrote

Not correct. As the other fellow said and you're conveniently ignoring, you're grossly overestimating the degradation. We're regularly designing utility scale solar with a 35 year life.

Energy storage is trickier, as degradation is much more pronounced, but there are so many levers you can pull to make money off a battery that it still works.

12

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu1u3r3 wrote

I said 25 years, you said 35. That's not grossly overestimating the degradation.

And when they're useless, they're not recyclable. Glass doped with rare earth metals. How the hell do you recycle this?

−2

TrainOfThought6 t1_iu4m1by wrote

You said they degrade at 3-5% per year, when it's more like 8-10% over the full 25 years. Yes that's a huge difference.

You realize designing for a 25 year life does not mean we aim for the panels to hit zero output at the end, right?

2