Green Energy

2226 readers

80 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq

SteveKLord

Solar power is the fastest growing energy technology in history, and wind is not far behind (twitter.com)

submitted 1 year ago by keepthepace to c/energy

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have been pro-nuclear for more than a decade, but it is clear that it has lost politically at this point. I used to say that we needed a 40 years nuclear transition so that the solar tech could catch up. We are almost there. We sadly relied on oil and coal instead to develop these tech but we finally are here and it will soon start to make sense to advocate for a direct transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Does wind have the maintenance and waste issues that solar has? I know these panels only last 30 years, and I worry about what’s going to be done with these giga solar fields when they’ve become unproductive.

[–] keepthepace 7 points 1 year ago

The same we do with 40 years old nuclear power plant: either prolong them with some ajustement (so far efficency losses over time have been overestimated) or renew them with new panels. With the added bonus that the wastes are much more manageable once you have removed the precious metal on it.

[–] MrMakabar 6 points 1 year ago

Solar panels degrade and technology advances. Industry standard is 1% less ouput every year, but many are better then that. Combined with much better panels and having mounting systems and so forth in place already, it was often economically smart to replace old panels with new ones prodcuing much more power. However after 100years and 1% degredation, they still produce 36% of the old power. We have panels with 0.3% degredation annually. So after 100 years that 75% of the original power generation.

In the EU manufacturers have to gurantee a 95% recycling rate by weight for solar panels.

[–] BastingChemina 4 points 1 year ago

I'm not too worried about solar. After 30 years solar panels are still productive, they are just slightly less efficient.

I think the standard is that they are still at least at 80% of their capacity new. So unless they are damaged by storm they can still produce pretty much indefinitely.

Even after that it's quite straight forward to remove solar panels. Any Joe with some basics told should be able to revive the panels. He might need few extra friend to remove the concrete foundation i but that's it

Wind turbines on the other hand have a lot of moving parts. It's more like a car, it need regular maintenance and can last for a while but at one point the maintenance might become too expensive. The turbine can also become dangerous. After that removing the turbine will require more advanced equipments but most of it is steel so easy to recycle. The blade on the other hand are not recyclable. So a wind turbine will last between 15-30 years but not much longer.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Solar has no waste issues other generation does not. This is a pro-fossil fuel talking point.

The average lifetime of a nuclear plant at shutdown is 25 years and there is more material consumed per capacity-adjusted watt than with solar. Then there is as much material consumed again as low level and conventional waste, but unlike PV, none of it is recyclable.

Wind consumes more material in the foundations, but used blades (the part people claim is a problem) are insignificant and inert compared to waste from fossil fuels or nuclear.