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

Technology

59587 readers
3037 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Shanedino@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (6 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] markpaskal@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I doubt they put out much power at all compared to modern panels. Solar back then was a pipe dream, we didn't have the battery technology to store the energy and the panels had a lower voltage and could supply less current.

I have a 100w foldable panel for camping that at >= 20% efficiency is probably double what the 90s panels could do.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In the 90s, rooftop solar was around 10-15% efficient. Now rooftop panels are closer to 20%.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Some are 25% now, and don't even break the bank. You can get modules that store the power and feed it back into your house for use later. I kinda want to get some to offset heating and cooling costs.

https://us.ecoflow.com/products/175w-rigid-solar-panel?variant=41362064179273

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'm getting some new panels installed this year, and I think they're suggesting they'll be at 80% after 25 years.

It looks like there is disagreement between the title and content of the article. Title says 75.9, content says 79.5

Either way, does this suggest that new panels might do better than expected over a 30 year timespan?

[–] nailingjello@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

To give you an idea, my 12-panel PV system installed in 2011 has put out 3.5 MWh per year at its peak and now produces between 3.1 and 3.3 MWh yearly, depending on the weather.

[–] dan@upvote.au 0 points 5 months ago (6 children)

It's hard to attribute that just to panel degradation, though. It could be differences in weather (cloudier or snowier this year) for example.

To measure degradation, you'd need to track the peak output of each panel. Enphase microinverters let you get per-panel metrics but I'm not sure which other brands do.

I'm pulling data from my panels into Home Assistant via Enphase's local API (directly from the device), then into VictoriaMetrics (which is similar to Prometheus but with a more efficient file format). I've got per-panel production data at 5 minute granularity from when I installed them until now.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] nailingjello@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Newer panels are generally much more efficient and produce more electricity compared to old panels.

The 80% after 25 years might be their warranty, my panels have a similar warranty on them. If they start producing less than 80% of their original output before 25 years, the manufacturer will replace them (or something like that).

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yes, I'm looking at the paperwork and I'm realizing that you're right, 80% at 25 is the warranty guarantee, so I'm guessing they're confident it'll typically be much better than 80 at 25

[–] Nighed@sffa.community 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Or that they were expecting to be out of business by then...

[–] dan@upvote.au 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The warranty is provided by the manufacturer of the solar panels, not by the installer. If your installer goes out of business, you can claim the warranty via another installer.

Of course, it's possible the manufacturer will go out of business or sell their business.

[–] Nighed@sffa.community 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

yeh, thats what I mean, who knows what the state of the market will be in 25 years, unless its an insurance backed guarantee, be very suspicious of it.

[–] dan@upvote.au 0 points 5 months ago

For what it's worth, a lot of the major manufacturers (QCell, REC, Canadian Solar) have been in business since the late 90s or early 2000s. SunPower (now Maxeon) has been around since 1985.

[–] dan@upvote.au 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It's a very conservative estimate, as manufacturers really don't want to deal with warranty claims.

One part of solar system design is often to undersize the inverter a bit, so you might not see any degradation in the first few years at all. The logic there is that the electricity lost to clipping during peak times of the year doesn't make up for the higher cost of a larger inverter.

Try to avoid SolarEdge inverters if you can. Enphase is really good and has a local API (so you can pull data into Home Assistant and other apps without going via the cloud) with a bunch of data, including per-panel production. Fronius and SMA are good too. Everyone I know with SolarEdge inverters has had issues with them though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 0 points 5 months ago

Title says 75.9, content says 79.5

Looks like there's a typo in the English title. The French one has 79.5%.

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I thought that solar panels that old performed much worse or stopped working. Especially considering where the tech was in the 1990s.

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

There is a solar plant in switzerland that still has functioning panels from the early 80s.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

They work fine, just not at full capacity. Financing and payback calculations tend to assume they'll be replaced after 30 years, but that's just guesses made by accountants, not reality.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Similar holds for EV or phone batteries. They usually don’t suddenly die, but lose more and more health over time. Realistically, you have to set a threshold, where you call it no longer useful.

If the life expectancy was 80%, then we’ve passed it and they are due for replacement. If it was 70% the they still have years of useful life.

It’s probably one of those two. For phones, I replace batteries when health drops to 80%, because I spend too much of my life online. Also, I’m probably giving my phone to my kid about then, so they deserve a fresh battery. I have kept phone batteries down to about 70% life, but then it usually doesn’t last the day and I’m carrying portable chargers everywhere

I haven’t had an EV long enough but I believe the typical battery warranty is defined like that: not just that it’ll work for 10 years, but that it will still be at least 70% health after ten years

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I thought that solar panels that old performed much worse or stopped working. Especially considering where the tech was in the 1990s.

"performed much worse" is compared to today's manufactured panels. As an example, a 100w panel in 1992 was likely around 12% efficient. This means "of all the light energy hitting the full panel under perfect light and temperature conditions", 12% of that energy is converted to electricity and would produce 100w. Compare this to a middle-of-the-road panel you'd buy for your house today the efficiency is 21%. Both the old and the new panel's efficiency will go down over the years.

What the article is talking about is how much of the original efficiency is retained over the years in real world tests. Lets say we have a 1992 100w panel from my example above at 12% efficiency. That means under the best possible conditions it would generate 100w. Because of age, the article notes that efficiency has degrade to produce 79.5% of its original rating. Meaning this 1992 100w panel today would generate 79.5w. That's still pretty darn good and useful!

[–] nailingjello@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

One other point I see I left out was physical size of panel as related to efficiency of converting light to electricity and the reason that 2024's 22% efficiency is so important over 1992's 12%. The 2024 100w panel will be about half the size of the 1992 100w panel. This is important because space to put panels (and cost per panel) are large factors in being able to install solar. So you'd be able to install many more 2024 100w panels in the same space as 1992 100w panels.

[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (37 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 5 months ago (29 children)

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

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is it too much to ask for people to not get their political opinions from cartoons?

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

Instructions unclear, politics informed by WW2 doctor Seus propaganda.

load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 0 points 5 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 5 months ago (6 children)

Dude.

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

That's impressive.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] antler@feddit.rocks 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As far as I know that's nothing to write home about, monocrystaline solar panels get like ~30 years dropping down to 80% and then slowly begin to fail from there. I'm far from an expert, but my understanding is this is the norm and that if we found out they weren't lasting this long then people would be getting worried about a messed up cost calculous.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›