4 ms·
EDIT: my numbers regarding annual kWh/m2 were wrong. Are you sure you would spend significantly less than 150 euros per square meter of panel to dismantle, tra
by Tade0 6y ago
EDIT: my numbers regarding annual kWh/m2 were wrong.
Are you sure you would spend significantly less than 150 euros per square meter of panel to dismantle, transport and recycle the solar panels?
Yes, because it's being done by leading companies and doesn't seem to diminish their competitive advantage:
http://www.solarscorecard.com/2018-19/scorecard-2018-19.php http://www.solarscorecard.com/2018-19/scorecard-2018-19.php
- jvanderbot 6y agoAnd, by pairing your comment with parent, a nuclear power company would have a competitive advantage over solar, but for the head start that solar go due to gov incentives, massive investment, and lack of a scare movie like Chernobyl.
- semi-extrinsic 6y agoHow are you getting to 1000 kWh/m2/yr? From what I can find, Saudi Arabia is one of the best locations for solar power globally, and they have a total solar influx of 2300 kWh/m2/yr. Commercially available solar panels have efficiencies of 22% at best. For the second point: I'm not saying people aren't recycling solar panels in a good way. I'm saying it doesn't look like the cost of that is significantly lower than for cleaning up after nuclear power.
- Tade0 6y agoYeah, you're right - I confused m2 with kW. It's 1000kWh/kW/yr or in other words 1000h/yr. I'm saying it doesn't look like the cost of that is significantly lower than for cleaning up after nuclear power. Raw solar panels currently cost less than 45 Euros per m2 and since these companies recycle them and still get ahead, it can't be expensive.