Fortunately and unfortunately, there have been so many changes and breakthroughs on solar power over the last 50 years that this doesn't really tell us much about current technology.
Oh yeah, how about coal? Does that get any less efficient over time? Exactly. I've been burning the same lump of coal for easily the same amount of time and it remains 100% efficient, that's the beauty of combustible fuel.
The weird thing is that in this scenario these panels are still applicable for replacement probably because the the solar panels of today compared to then are about ~40% more efficient. So compared to a new replacement it's at around 60% efficiency. A major site plans profit off of 30 years and plans to replace glass at that time, so while it may still be somewhat useful long term it's probably more profitable to replace them.
They already are, at least for the smaller ones. You can go to your citie's parks and recreation department to get some. All those solar panels that power various signs and lights have been collected and replaced for years. I picked up a few years ago in Lexington, KY, for next to nothing, and they worked just fine for the lights that I wanted to power, despite only outputting less than 50% of their original power.
Not sure where you would find the full size ones like these pictured.
It's a stupid argument against solar power, but it is a legitimate argument against cheap and poorly-constructed solar panels that do not have the same longevity as the ones built in the 90s.
The great thing about nuclear power is that the real cost only comes after the power has been generated. How do you store the spent fuel cells and what do you do with the reactor when it can't be used anymore. Just before that happens you spin the plant into its own company. When that company goes bankrupt the state needs to cover the cost, as it isn't an option to just leave it out in the open.
There's a typo in the title. If you go back to the original source (in french), they actually retain 79,5 % of their original efficiency, so even better than the article's title would have you believe.
I doubt they put out much power at all compared to modern panels. Solar back then was a pipe dream, we didn't have the battery technology to store the energy and the panels had a lower voltage and could supply less current.
I have a 100w foldable panel for camping that at >= 20% efficiency is probably double what the 90s panels could do.
I thought that solar panels that old performed much worse or stopped working. Especially considering where the tech was in the 1990s.
"performed much worse" is compared to today's manufactured panels. As an example, a 100w panel in 1992 was likely around 12% efficient. This means "of all the light energy hitting the full panel under perfect light and temperature conditions", 12% of that energy is converted to electricity and would produce 100w. Compare this to a middle-of-the-road panel you'd buy for your house today the efficiency is 21%. Both the old and the new panel's efficiency will go down over the years.
What the article is talking about is how much of the original efficiency is retained over the years in real world tests. Lets say we have a 1992 100w panel from my example above at 12% efficiency. That means under the best possible conditions it would generate 100w. Because of age, the article notes that efficiency has degrade to produce 79.5% of its original rating. Meaning this 1992 100w panel today would generate 79.5w. That's still pretty darn good and useful!
