this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
74 points (100.0% liked)
technology
24187 readers
429 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you look at the study, this is based on an n of 6 and there was significant variation across altitude, so reporting this as an average or a definitive result seems a little weird.
Moreover, the degradation rate was highest in the low-altitude installations, which experienced up to 1.5% efficiency loss per year. Whether your system operating at 80% efficiency after 20 years is material to you depends on the original installation size and power consumption (obviously), but I imagine it would be a replacement signal for most.
On top of all that, given changes in solar panel tech over the years, it's not like current installations really resemble the ones in the study. Apparently thin-film solar panels have a shorter service life, but modern monocrystalline panels can be rated up to 40 years with estimated 0.3-0.5% efficiency loss per year.
It's a fun study but I'm not sure why science reporting keeps insisting on trying to generalize or why this information would be considered groundbreaking given that it seems in line with manufacturers' current understanding of how their products perform.
I think it would be expansion signal for most, non? adding 20% more capacity is still cheaper than rehauling the whole thingy, nor is it likely their efficiency will increase that much to save space or whatever reason
Depends on how much roof space you have left and how easy it would be to add panels to the array, I'd imagine.
Do most people go for the full grid independence tho? I think supplemental panels make just as much sense, and utilities forbid disconnecting anyway, so it’s more like if it works it works type dealio
According to Google you need about 300-500 sq ft of panels to power a single family home so it might be simple to start with a 100 sq ft array and gradually build it out to compensate for losses over time and spread the cost. But I'm not a rooftop solar installer
tbh the shittiest part of residential solar is how unsynced it is to work, aside from like boiler, your car is gone during work, ac should be off, fridge eats like 500w at worst, you can maybe use like 5kw (and that's what, for 30-60 minutes per day?) with boiler at best on your own, you can't charge car cause it's at work, and batteries explode costs. so you either go quarter-hog or full hog
My impression is that these have to be permitted before they're allowed to be operational (at least in the U$, depending on location or whatever). I'd guess you'd at least have to get a new inspection when more were added on?
Most solar installers around me seem to be concentrating on grifting financing/leases, so I'd think they would make this hard to do.
It does genuinely seem like a good idea, though!