Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
16. Are you saying you expect your panels to suddenly go kaput in 3 years?
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 08:25 PM
Nov 2015

Just as 3 years means nothing about the life of an automobile, 25 years is a warranty figure that bears no known relationship to the actual expected life of silicon solar panels.

Solar Panels Creating Electricity for Much Longer than 20 Years
December 27th, 2011 by Zachary Shahan

As indicated in a study Josh wrote on just a couple weeks ago, the lifespan of a solar power system is far longer than the 20 years most analysts use to calculate solar power costs. Last November, Susan featured one that was going strong at 30 years. A Facebook fan notes that solar panels at the Technical University of Berlin have been in operation for 31 years. Similarly, Kyocera, one of the oldest solar panel manufacturers in the world, recently posted on the fact that a number of its early installations continue to generate electricity reliably nearly 30 years after installation.

I would also note that technology has improved, solar panels have become more durable, and if early solar panels produce electricity for far more than 20 (or even 25) years, what to expect of today’s solar panels?!

Here are a few case studies Kyocera highlighted in its recent article on the matter:

- In 1984, Sweden’s first grid-connected photovoltaic system was built in Stockholm. Since its installation, the façade-mounted 2.1kW system has been continuously and reliably providing the residents of an apartment building with environmentally-friendly electricity. The modules’ average annual power generation performance is still reliable — with no significant change since the system was installed 27 years ago.

- Also in 1984, Kyocera established its Sakura Solar Energy Center just outside of Tokyo. At the time, the Center was equipped with a 43kW solar power generating system which to this day continues to generate a stable amount of power for the facility.

- In 1985, Kyocera made a donation of a 10kW solar power generation system to a small farming village with no electrical infrastructure located at an elevation of 2,600m (8,500ft) in Gansu Province, China. In 1993, the area received electrical infrastructure, and the solar modules were moved to a regional research facility for clean energy, where after more than 25 years, they are still producing consistent levels of electricity.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/27/solar-panels-creating-electricity-for-much-longer-than-20-years/

Or if you prefer a more analytic approach:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Photovoltaic Degradation Rates — An Analytical Review

Dirk C. Jordan and Sarah R. Kurtz

Abstract
As photovoltaic penetration of the power grid increases, accurate predictions of return on investment require accurate prediction of decreased power output over time. Degradation rates must be known in order to predict power delivery. This article reviews degradation rates of flat- plate terrestrial modules and systems reported in published literature from field testing throughout the last 40 years. Nearly 2000 degradation rates, measured on individual modules or entire systems, have been assembled from the literature, showing a median value of 0.5%/year. The review consists of three parts: a brief historical outline, an analytical summary of degradation rates, and a detailed bibliography partitioned by technology.

1. Introduction
The ability to accurately predict power delivery over the course of time is of vital importance to the growth of the photovoltaic (PV) industry. Two key cost drivers are the efficiency with which sunlight is converted into power and how this relationship changes over time. An accurate quantification of power decline over time, also known as degradation rate, is essential to all stakeholders—utility companies, integrators, investors, and researchers alike. Financially, degradation of a PV module or system is equally important, because a higher degradation rate translates directly into less power produced and, therefore, reduces future cash flows [1]. Furthermore, inaccuracies in determined degradation rates lead directly to increased financial risk [2]. Technically, degradation mechanisms are important to understand because they may eventually lead to failure [3]. Typically, a 20% decline is considered a failure, but there is no consensus on the definition of failure, because a high-efficiency module degraded by 50% may still have a higher efficiency than a non-degraded module from a less efficient technology. The identification of the underlying degradation mechanism through experiments and modeling can lead directly to lifetime improvements. Outdoor field testing has played a vital role in quantifying long-term behavior and lifetime for at least two reasons: it is the typical operating environment for PV systems, and it is the only way to correlate indoor accelerated testing to outdoor results to forecast field performance.
Although every reference included in this paper contains a brief to slightly extensive summary of degradation rate literature, a comprehensive review could not be found. This article aims to provide such a summary by reviewing degradation rates reported globally from field testing throughout the last 40 years. After a brief historical outline, it presents a synopsis of reported degradation rates to identify statistically significant trends. Although this review is intended to be comprehensive, it is possible that a small percentage of the literature may not have been included...

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This should exacerbate the heavy metal pollution in China's crop land. NNadir Nov 2015 #1
No, it shouldn't - in fact, just the opposite kristopher Nov 2015 #3
Really? I would guess that the unenlightened really have no idea about Chinese mining... NNadir Nov 2015 #9
Interesting choice of arguments kristopher Nov 2015 #19
Wow! As always, we have another case of someone knowing nothing about nuclear energy... NNadir Nov 2015 #22
As usual you write a wall of nonsensical text to divert from not addressing the issue kristopher Nov 2015 #23
Um...um...um...yeah...yeah... NNadir Nov 2015 #37
This is what moving away from fossil fuels (and nuclear) looks like kristopher Nov 2015 #38
Just to clear things up, this plant WILL NOT produce and electricity. Binkie The Clown Nov 2015 #11
Exactly dumbcat Nov 2015 #14
Are you saying you expect your panels to suddenly go kaput in 3 years? kristopher Nov 2015 #16
No, I don't dumbcat Nov 2015 #17
There's no problem with my reading comprehension kristopher Nov 2015 #18
And that is exactly the problem with your reading comprehension dumbcat Nov 2015 #20
I get the idea from the words you write. kristopher Nov 2015 #21
You've been doing this for 25 years and don't seem to understand the basics of the warranty? Finishline42 Nov 2015 #34
I stand corrected. I read that 10 yr figure a long time ago, Binkie The Clown Nov 2015 #25
What a load of crap. kristopher Nov 2015 #28
So when somebody points out an error I made, I should do what? Stand my ground Binkie The Clown Nov 2015 #30
You didn't make an "error", you made a deliberate false statement kristopher Nov 2015 #32
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Orrex Nov 2015 #36
I used to use a 10 year estimate dumbcat Nov 2015 #35
2 million homes each year. 50 years to minimally finish the US. Festivito Nov 2015 #2
More like 1,666,666 homes per year, every year the factory is operating kristopher Nov 2015 #4
The number of houses that 5GW/Year represents. eom Festivito Nov 2015 #5
You might want to learn what a "GW" is first. kristopher Nov 2015 #6
Oops. Monday. I was treating 5GW-year as power, not 5GW per year as energy. Festivito Nov 2015 #7
Yeah... Oooops... Riiiiiiiiight.... More like 1.67 million homes per year. kristopher Nov 2015 #8
{Sigh} This is really sad dumbcat Nov 2015 #10
They understand. kristopher Nov 2015 #12
What you just said dumbcat Nov 2015 #13
It follows from the words you typed. kristopher Nov 2015 #15
The answer is simple. Binkie The Clown Nov 2015 #24
You are right, it is simple kristopher Nov 2015 #26
The truth will set you free... Binkie The Clown Nov 2015 #27
I don't have a problem dealing with the truth kristopher Nov 2015 #29
There comes a time in a discussion when you realize that Binkie The Clown Nov 2015 #31
Playing the innocent lamb after trying to pass off RW falsehoods on a liberal forum? kristopher Nov 2015 #33
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»China's Tongwei Group Pla...»Reply #16