this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
620 points (99.7% liked)

Solarpunk technology

4283 readers
1 users here now

Technology for a Solar-Punk future.

Airships and hydroponic farms...

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 95 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is not news but a useful reminder nonetheless.

Advances in efficiency may cause replacing them to be viable. Still.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I wish we could still install the old panels somewhere. They might not be good enough to be rooftop solar anymore, but in the field, why not take all they can still give?

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Because solar panels are dirt cheap to produce and your time and construction materials and land has value. Recognizing trash is vital for an eco friendly economy.

Edit: some red necks do use old solar panels for off grid, low cost setups.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But that relies on the capitalist assumption that producing trash and CO2 is free because you can dump it withouth having to pay for it, and destroying nature to stripmine for the raw resources only costs the purchasing price because the environment isn't monetized.

Plus the imperialist assertion that providing decentralized electricity to poor people in developing nations is net negative because it increases the cost of labor from those regions because they can do other productive things than work in your factory.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No. It relies on the assumption that newer panels produce more energy hence are more eco friendly.

Plus: I explicitly mentioned them being a great opportunity for the poor.

Also Pakistan is rapidly building out solar panels without that.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Depends on how you define eco friendly.

The old panels already exist so if you can use them without having to transport them across the world (like the parent comment suggests), continuing to use them is eco-friendlier than producing new ones, which requires additional CO2 from manufacturing

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I mean if you've got a low power thing at distance further than you want to run conduit. Or if you are in a hurry.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

a grid-tie inverter could get the last bit of juice out of them

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

Yes. But they don't produce power by themselves. They need light. Hence mounting, countryside etc. That's effort.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

You’ve got to have space you want to use for them. Just because I have 10 200w panels for free doesn’t mean it makes sense to mount them on my roof (which is the only space I have facing the sun), because 400+w are available now and it costs money to mount them.

But it might not make sense to take down my 20 year old 200w panels and replace them, or maybe I can sell them to someone with more space.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sure! That's why I talk it might be critical for rooftop, but maybe useful somewhere else.

I'm pretty certain it may make economic sense to install something like this in a large open area. If the panels were meant to be thrown away, the price must be tiny.

Anyhow, I expect this to be more common once the mass-produced solar of the last decade gets old. We may just not be there yet to have plenty of used solar to offer.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My goal one day is to have enough yard space to do an on ground set up. Insanely cheap if you pick up some used panels. The average person would only need an electrician to hook it up to the house.

I understand not being comfortable with diy roof mounting, I know I'm not. The costs scale quickly when it goes on the roof

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ground mount has to address wind load which can be significant. I think the standard is around 500kg wind lift per standard panel. I’ve got a number of 200w panels I haven’t set up because I don’t have an inverter but also because they’re a pain to anchor.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've never lived in areas with high winds. I've seen some people with very simple plywood frames to hold their panels. They've held for years without issue. Totally regional though

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

People get away with a lot, but as you note it’s regional. All it takes is one gust of wind.

But I do have a steady average 8kt wind (I mean average over last 5 years day and night), but gusts and storms push 50kt. I wish wind power was more accessible like solar has become; I live in an area that’s frequently the windiest in the country. I’d be able to use it as primary generation and solar for top off.

[–] French75@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Possibly of relevance to this instance... my dad's place is already in a situation where this would make senses. He did solar early, and has 235w panels. It was not quite sufficient to cover his demand, but close. Current panels of the same footprint are 400w. Replacing them would give him coverage of his needs, plus enough to charge an EV, which weren't really a thing when he installed the solar array. His array isn't even on a rooftop. It's on a canopy in the yard. He designed it thinking some time down the road he'd replace the panels and inverter if need/opportunity arose.

Unfortunately our electric utility changed their net metering and permitting rules, and he can't replace the panels and inverter. They'll only permit it as a new system, which would mean dramatically more expense than just panels and inverter. He'd get a markedly worse rate plan, and would need to install batteries as well.

Replacing them would be a financial no-brainer, and a quick job if not for the utility.

They continue to work, even if output is degraded. Newer planels installed in the same location overheated and their elements cracked, indicating inferior manufacturing quality, but the oldest batch is not showing this symptom.

[–] pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If he's going to have to install batteries, would it make sense to shove all that permitting money into more batteries and go completely off-grid instead?

At least around here, you can just tell the utility company to fuck off if you are off-grid

[–] French75@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, off grid might work, but the expense of adding batteries is pretty big, and the system meets most of his demand currently. So it's a bit of a hard sell. A lot of money for a small improvement. Their shitty rules have taken the simple easy upgrade off the table.