• Gladaed@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Because solar panels are dirt cheap to produce and your time and construction materials and land has value. Recognizing trash is vital for an eco friendly economy.

    Edit: some red necks do use old solar panels for off grid, low cost setups.

      • Gladaed@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Yes. But they don’t produce power by themselves. They need light. Hence mounting, countryside etc. That’s effort.

    • Tiresia@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 day ago

      But that relies on the capitalist assumption that producing trash and CO2 is free because you can dump it withouth having to pay for it, and destroying nature to stripmine for the raw resources only costs the purchasing price because the environment isn’t monetized.

      Plus the imperialist assertion that providing decentralized electricity to poor people in developing nations is net negative because it increases the cost of labor from those regions because they can do other productive things than work in your factory.

      • Gladaed@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        No. It relies on the assumption that newer panels produce more energy hence are more eco friendly.

        Plus: I explicitly mentioned them being a great opportunity for the poor.

        Also Pakistan is rapidly building out solar panels without that.

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 day ago

          Depends on how you define eco friendly.

          The old panels already exist so if you can use them without having to transport them across the world (like the parent comment suggests), continuing to use them is eco-friendlier than producing new ones, which requires additional CO2 from manufacturing

          • Gladaed@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Not doing anything at all has the lowest emissions. But it is obviously not the best way to curb impact while preserving lives and quality of life.

            Your adversity to investments that do pay off would be a great hinderance to society as a whole.

            Solar panels can be recycled, take very little materials and manufacturing and are usually not the limiting factor when it comes to transitioning into a low damage economy.

            Throwing away great amounts of cheap solar power because you would have to lift a finger to achieve it is not… Great.

            • CentipedeFarrier@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 day ago

              Using something that still works as long as it doesn’t produce emissions…. Is actually the single best way to curb impact, yeah.

              Like literally the best use is long-term. If it still works and you can eek some power out of it rather than toss it, there’s no harm doing so.

              Assuming you can recycle it now, you can also recycle it down the line when it genuinely isn’t worth keeping anymore. Until then, if you’ve got space, might as well. Because recycling isn’t free, in energy, emissions, or labor.

              preserving lives and quality of life.

              ROFL what? Continuing to use old panels in addition to new ones harms lives and quality of life? Ridiculous.

              • Gladaed@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 hours ago

                Limiting your power output may cause more fossils to be burned. You ain’t got permits or ability to put up solar everywhere. You act like infrastructure and land is free and then ridicule me.

                • CentipedeFarrier@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  19 hours ago

                  Limiting power output cause more fossils to be burned…? What are you even on about? Nobody said use old panels instead of new ones for absolutely everything, yet your argument is based on that, best I can tell, pretty much entirely.

                  You act like nobody can possibly have their own land and a use case for long-term low-power-draw use. That’s why it’s ridiculous.

                  • Gladaed@feddit.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    14 hours ago

                    Even if you have land there still is opportunity cost. And a grid you could feed with your excess.

              • Gladaed@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 hours ago

                They too can. Their materials value is rather low and the available amount of panels is way too small to make it worthwhile today. That will change in due time.