5 ms·

Solar efficiency degrades over time. When these sites are no longer economical their owners will turn to bankruptcy, we'll have thousands of hectares of green

Solar efficiency degrades over time. When these sites are no longer economical their owners will turn to bankruptcy, we'll have thousands of hectares of green fields covered in disarrayed broken blue panels, overgrown, unmaintained, a public nuisance of massive proportions in the making.

mrtksn 1y ago
Everything degrades over time.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Those locations have a large grid connection, which is valuable enough to pay for the decomissioning / cleanup costs so something else can use the connection. Heck, there are companies cleaning up coal plants to use the connection for solar or wind, and that's a lot more expensive than cleaning up an old solar plant.
- ForestCritter 1y ago
  Solar panels are not degradable and are piling up in toxic landfills as are windmill blades.
  - adrianN 1y ago
    Nuclear waste is not biodegradable either...
    - defrost 1y ago
      I'm not pro nuclear, but FWiW: There are bioremedition techniques used to treat contaminated sites, just as there are similar techniques for toxic metals contamination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioremediation_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioremediation_of_radioactive_... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765722000047 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266676572...
      - adrianN 1y ago
        The radioactive material doesn’t go away, it’s either diluted until safe or concentrated until you can bury it somewhere safe.
        defrost 1y ago
        So we shouldn't bioremediate radioactive or heavy metals contaminated sites then? The point being, there are biological processes that address toxic waste. Further, there are waste issues with pretty much all human uses of energy and resources, including "green" technologies. It's impossible to have green tech w/out rare earths, and impossible to have rare earth end products w/out creating radioactive waste. * https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/business/china-rare-earth-environment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/business/china-rare-earth... * https://hamiltonlocke.com.au/unlocking-clean-energy-the-crucial-role-of-rare-earth-minerals-whats-all-the-fuss-about/ https://hamiltonlocke.com.au/unlocking-clean-energy-the-cruc... The sane approach is to address external costs from the get go, not assert that there are none.
        adrianN 1y ago
        The point is that solar panels in landfills are not a problem and nuclear is not a panacea.
        defrost 1y ago
        Either path leaves us with radioactive waste to treat.
        ben_w 1y ago
        > It's impossible to have green tech w/out rare earths, and impossible to have rare earth end products w/out creating radioactive waste. Where do you get this idea from? (If it's NYT, paywall, can't read it). Solar power does not leave us with radioactive waste. Considering radiation and heavy metals as the same problem because they're both bad for you and involve remediation processes when things go wrong is like treating a lack of seatbelts in cars the same as sugar induced diabetes. Closest I can think of for why someone might think "rare earths" are "radioactive" is lithium deposits come in salt flats, salt flats contain potassium, some potassium is radioactive. But that's already diffused everywhere on the planet making *all life* radioactive well before we arrived in the pre-neolithic.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    Solar panels are made of exactly the stuff needed to make solar panels.
  - Sabinus 1y ago
    The ability to recycle solar panels will only get better with time.
ChocolateGod 1y ago
Yeh, it's not as if they can't replace the solar panels or anything.
mikeyouse 1y ago
Just absolute nonsense. Modern panels are often guaranteed to produce 90% of their nameplate capacity for 25 years and then degrade at something like 0.35%/year afterwards. A panel installed today will likely be generating more than 60% of it's capacity by 2100 and will have done so for 75 years.
ericd 1y ago
Good thing it only takes a couple dudes with impact drivers and a truck to tear that down in under a week. Even a hand truck is good enough to cart a few of them away at a time.

mrtksn 1y ago

Everything degrades over time.

bryanlarsen 1y ago

Those locations have a large grid connection, which is valuable enough to pay for the decomissioning / cleanup costs so something else can use the connection. Heck, there are companies cleaning up coal plants to use the connection for solar or wind, and that's a lot more expensive than cleaning up an old solar plant.

ForestCritter 1y ago
Solar panels are not degradable and are piling up in toxic landfills as are windmill blades.
- adrianN 1y ago
  Nuclear waste is not biodegradable either...
  - defrost 1y ago
    I'm not pro nuclear, but FWiW: There are bioremedition techniques used to treat contaminated sites, just as there are similar techniques for toxic metals contamination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioremediation_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioremediation_of_radioactive_... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765722000047 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266676572...
    - adrianN 1y ago
      The radioactive material doesn’t go away, it’s either diluted until safe or concentrated until you can bury it somewhere safe.
      - defrost 1y ago
        So we shouldn't bioremediate radioactive or heavy metals contaminated sites then? The point being, there are biological processes that address toxic waste. Further, there are waste issues with pretty much all human uses of energy and resources, including "green" technologies. It's impossible to have green tech w/out rare earths, and impossible to have rare earth end products w/out creating radioactive waste. * https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/business/china-rare-earth-environment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/business/china-rare-earth... * https://hamiltonlocke.com.au/unlocking-clean-energy-the-crucial-role-of-rare-earth-minerals-whats-all-the-fuss-about/ https://hamiltonlocke.com.au/unlocking-clean-energy-the-cruc... The sane approach is to address external costs from the get go, not assert that there are none.
        adrianN 1y ago
        The point is that solar panels in landfills are not a problem and nuclear is not a panacea.
        defrost 1y ago
        Either path leaves us with radioactive waste to treat.
        ben_w 1y ago
        > It's impossible to have green tech w/out rare earths, and impossible to have rare earth end products w/out creating radioactive waste. Where do you get this idea from? (If it's NYT, paywall, can't read it). Solar power does not leave us with radioactive waste. Considering radiation and heavy metals as the same problem because they're both bad for you and involve remediation processes when things go wrong is like treating a lack of seatbelts in cars the same as sugar induced diabetes. Closest I can think of for why someone might think "rare earths" are "radioactive" is lithium deposits come in salt flats, salt flats contain potassium, some potassium is radioactive. But that's already diffused everywhere on the planet making *all life* radioactive well before we arrived in the pre-neolithic.
- ben_w 1y ago
  Solar panels are made of exactly the stuff needed to make solar panels.
- Sabinus 1y ago
  The ability to recycle solar panels will only get better with time.

ChocolateGod 1y ago

Yeh, it's not as if they can't replace the solar panels or anything.

mikeyouse 1y ago

Just absolute nonsense. Modern panels are often guaranteed to produce 90% of their nameplate capacity for 25 years and then degrade at something like 0.35%/year afterwards. A panel installed today will likely be generating more than 60% of it's capacity by 2100 and will have done so for 75 years.

ericd 1y ago

Good thing it only takes a couple dudes with impact drivers and a truck to tear that down in under a week. Even a hand truck is good enough to cart a few of them away at a time.