There was a test on 30 year old panels and they only lost 20%.
Also, PV panels are kinda non uniform in performance, long term studies show that one fifth of them perform 1.5 times worse than the rest.
Either way, 20 year lifetimes where you build once and reap the rewards for 20 years is sufficient to put to rest the kind of argument being made about dependancies.
That's more than enough time for any G20 country to be making it's own PV production chain.
It's not sufficient. We have had plenty of time to start making all of the critical things we import, and that never happened. In most cases, these things used to be made in the West in the first place. Just because you CAN make a thing doesn't mean it makes sense. The economics of solar would be totally different if you had to pay 5x more for solar panels to replace Chinese-subsidized slave-labor-backed imports.
There are other arguments to be made against mega-scale solar. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of solar because it is on a small scale one of the best ways for an individual to get a bit of electricity without reliance on fuel supplies. But it has a lot of disadvantages at scale which make it unsuitable for many regions. Hail, snow, dust, vandals, and strategic vulnerability all make it look precarious. The supply chain concern is that much worse.
In the very long run we need to find alternative sources of energy but I think solar is not going to be that solution. Solar is most likely going to be a fringe backup alternative to nuclear power. Batteries have tremendous disadvantages. In the long run some kind of biofuel or synthetic hydrocarbon might win over batteries.
>Weird that it took way less than 20 years for that to hit.
No, it's not weird. It hit in the 70s and is an actual avoidable problem. Don't kick the hornets nest. The issue of the Strait of Hormuz was known to nearly everyone for decades, and we got a bunch of leaders all over the West who are collectively batshit crazy.