TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

As solar panels age out, recyclers hope to cash in

79 点作者 thread_id大约 1 年前

7 条评论

pfdietz大约 1 年前
The oldest PV array on the grid is, what, 38 years old? Or is it 39 now? It&#x27;s in Europe.<p>EDIT: more than 40 years. Inverters had to be replaced five times though.
评论 #39500846 未加载
评论 #39501401 未加载
photochemsyn大约 1 年前
This article doesn&#x27;t discuss the lifetime differences between monocrystalline silicon panels and the various thin-film products such as cadmium telluride or lead perovskite. Defect-free monocrystalline silicon PV can last &gt;50 years, and can be refurbished.<p>Unfortunately the US (unlike China) never invested in a robust monocrystalline capacity, and the only US manufacturers of solar panels appears to be First Solar of AZ which uses CdTe (toxic waste). Many other purported manufacturers of monocrystalline silicon are just assembling panels using Chinese-origin wafers, now produced in places like Vietnam to avoid sanctions issues.<p>If the billions poured into fradulent and useless &#x27;clean coal&#x27; programs during the past two decades in the US had instead gone to solar PV programs, things might have been different, but the fossil fuel &amp; investor-owned power utility sectors didn&#x27;t want to face competition, so we got garbage like &#x27;FutureGen&#x27; under Bush and stuff like this under Obama (doe.gov):<p>&gt; &quot;In December 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the selection of three new projects with a value of $3.18 billion to accelerate the development of advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and storage at commercial-scale.&quot;<p>There were eight major clean coal projects - only one was completed, and it shut down later - a complete waste of billions of dollars.
评论 #39502104 未加载
londons_explore大约 1 年前
Unless the land is valuable, you might as well leave old solar farms there. Even when they&#x27;re 50 years old they&#x27;ll still output some power, even if half the inverters are dead and the panels are down to 50% efficiency.
评论 #39500264 未加载
评论 #39501636 未加载
评论 #39499951 未加载
评论 #39500048 未加载
评论 #39500302 未加载
评论 #39500194 未加载
评论 #39500062 未加载
评论 #39500355 未加载
评论 #39500527 未加载
friend_and_foe大约 1 年前
If there&#x27;s anything we have learned from plastic, it&#x27;s that if recycling is not economically viable it won&#x27;t happen. Reducing waste is simply not a potent motivator. If you can get your hands on expired panels for really cheap and still can&#x27;t make new ones with the materials in them cheaper per energy produced than brand new ones then there&#x27;s no viability. So much for sustainable energy.<p>I&#x27;m really hoping that this can be done, I hope the recyclers make a killing.
hedgehog大约 1 年前
If, as commenters here have pointed out, the grid interconnect is the valuable part of a solar site, it might pencil out to relocate the solar hardware to some less convenient location for a non-grid-tied smelting operation or similar. Or build a very large bulk compute cluster bringing in decommissioned servers. If power is free, all the hardware is available for better than free, and the plan is to run until failure and then recycle, I wonder how the math works out.
powera大约 1 年前
Two points:<p>1) The panels being de-commissioned now aren&#x27;t modern panels, they are 20+ years old. They were substantially less efficient (per square-meter) than today&#x27;s panels when they were new, and they (probably) are aging worse.<p>2) A lot of these &quot;the solar panels have to be deconstructed for economic reasons&quot; arguments are the same arguments as &quot;Coyote v. ACME has to be destroyed for economic reasons&quot;. The reasons are completely fake; designed purely to feed Moloch.
g129774大约 1 年前
solar panels on small mom and pop properties (100 or so acres) were entirely exploitative and people in the comments don&#x27;t seem to realize the nature and the extent of the exploitation. there was an analysis document from an ivy law professor which at some point was the only such source, but now googling for keywords brings up a lot of relevant material. few years back i was helping a number of farmland owners in a row with their solar installation deals, and every single one of those deals took a scorched earth approach (ianal, but i read contracts in my day job)<p>cleanup specifically is a huge part, because it&#x27;s an externalized cost burdened on the land owner. bringing up the necessity of documented cleanup strategy in the contract pretty much immediately leads to the solar company withdrawing its proposal (in fact only one company even bothered to politely say no, everyone else just ghosted).<p>elsewhere in comments people are saying &quot;well panels still work at 50% capacity, so why even dismount&quot;, but that&#x27;s not how it works. the entire installation is leased and operated by the third party, the owners typically have neither expertise nor the ability to continue operating an industrial site past the lifetime of a contract, or past its operational lifetime for that matter. a lot of these installations exploit the old age and the effective poverty of the site owners (those 100 acres are a low-liquidity asset, while the industry they supported is no longer there due to aging population and regulatory changes), the companies despite the good cause they are attached to seem to be interested purely in short term gains, the contracts are all about externalizing as much cost as possible, the installed equipment is presumably all treated as write off (i sort of wonder how subsidies factor into this, i suspect that they are significantly enabling this kind of behavior).<p>american socioeconomic model somehow managed to take a wonderful future looking thing and turn it (at least in some instances, but also every single one i had to deal with) into a scorched earth, after après moi, le déluge thing. recyclers will possibly improve the situation, at least for the people who are already locked into financially disadvantageous contracts, but that really depends on how much deinstallation they&#x27;ll be willing to take up.
评论 #39502689 未加载
评论 #39501626 未加载
评论 #39502440 未加载
评论 #39501885 未加载
评论 #39501490 未加载