An outdated idea about solar panels has been slowing advancement: study

inverse.com

15 points·xbmcuser··5 comments

Alternative title: "Why don't we make solar panels last 10-15 years instead of 20-25?"

How about no. The technology improves in very small increments, there's no need to replace panels for a 3-5% gain. This smells of wanting programmed obsolescence because the current growth rate will stabilize in the future.

In recent years, the price of solar panel technology has been driven down, but the cost of labor and installation hasn’t. As the framework technologies go out of date within a 25-year period, individuals and companies are facing larger costs when they are required replace both the framework system and the panels themselves every 25-30 years in order to install entirely new systems.

In contrast, the authors write that replacing panels more often with newer and more advanced models would allow cross-compatibility between the panels and the system, allowing the framework itself to remain the same while new panels are popped on and off.

So even though the installation and replacement labor is what's expensive, they assume that some kind of cross compatibility will appear, and it will be cheaper? Seems like quite a leap.

The cost of installation is why I don’t have solar. While I agree 25 year life is a limitation on adopting better panel technology, it’s hard to justify the installation costs at shorter intervals.

Terrible mobile site.

In the HN hive mind, this makes solar even more deadly. With installers falling off of roofs at a faster interval, the death rate per gigawatt will grow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com