Solar panels are usually sold with 25 to 30 years of performance promises. But what happens after that, when the warranty language is long gone and you are
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, a lot of the places where old solar panels would be useful can’t feed the grid even if they want to because the grid doesn’t reach them. It isn’t worth the cost to utility companies to expand for such low density, so that has to be paid by the property owner. It would in fact cost several thousand to have electric run out to some of those places. I’ve priced it out for various properties I’ve looked at and frankly staying off grid is substantially cheaper in a lot of places. Even If there’s already a grid connection but you don’t want to spend a small fortune to run electric half a mile to where you need it, an off grid solar system is perfect. Not everything has to be in service of everyone for it to be a good option.
Opportunity cost for installing old panels? Such as? If you are suggesting the land itself is more valuable without solar on it, that tells me you don’t know much about rural land use or farming properties. I grew up rural on a bit of land, and we had lots of places that would have been great for solar panels because they weren’t much good for anything else. Rocky, seasonally flooded, pasture space stuff like that. Additionally, if you install solar panels ~6 ft off the ground and well spaced, they can be used over things like garden beds, and actually increase productivity by providing relief from the sun. Or if you mean it still costs to obtain and install, that depends heavily on who puts it up, where it came from, and who they know. Lots of people with land are quite capable of installing a solar array, even if they don’t do the wiring themselves, and they usually know someone who’s willing to help with the electrical work.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
ROFL what? Continuing to use old panels in addition to new ones harms lives and quality of life? Ridiculous.
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.
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.
Even if you have land there still is opportunity cost. And a grid you could feed with your excess.
No, a lot of the places where old solar panels would be useful can’t feed the grid even if they want to because the grid doesn’t reach them. It isn’t worth the cost to utility companies to expand for such low density, so that has to be paid by the property owner. It would in fact cost several thousand to have electric run out to some of those places. I’ve priced it out for various properties I’ve looked at and frankly staying off grid is substantially cheaper in a lot of places. Even If there’s already a grid connection but you don’t want to spend a small fortune to run electric half a mile to where you need it, an off grid solar system is perfect. Not everything has to be in service of everyone for it to be a good option.
Opportunity cost for installing old panels? Such as? If you are suggesting the land itself is more valuable without solar on it, that tells me you don’t know much about rural land use or farming properties. I grew up rural on a bit of land, and we had lots of places that would have been great for solar panels because they weren’t much good for anything else. Rocky, seasonally flooded, pasture space stuff like that. Additionally, if you install solar panels ~6 ft off the ground and well spaced, they can be used over things like garden beds, and actually increase productivity by providing relief from the sun. Or if you mean it still costs to obtain and install, that depends heavily on who puts it up, where it came from, and who they know. Lots of people with land are quite capable of installing a solar array, even if they don’t do the wiring themselves, and they usually know someone who’s willing to help with the electrical work.
Most can’t, especially the old ones are glued shut.
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.