"Also, some of the materials used to make them, such as silicon, are becoming scarcer and thus more expensive."
!?
The Earth's crust is 28% silicon by mass. It's literally the second most abundant element. I'm not a professional, but isn't most of the cost of solar outside the panels now anyway - installation, cabling, inverters, permitting, storage for use during peak hours, etc?
HAHA! oh my. what a trash article this is. I read it and the whole thing. Every paragraph has a gem of nonsense, maybe it's AI tuned to the key of breathless doomer ignorance. OP, feel shame for reposting this.
Setting aside the veracity of the article for a moment ...
... a key factor in industrial-scale silicon production (microchips, PV, or otherwise) is the purity of the raw material. It may well be that high grade silica is fundamentally scarce, or that access to it may be restricted or limited by other factors. Sand theft is an issue that's emerged as a concern, largely as it's a huge industrial input, particularly in concrete, and the most suitable sands are found in riverbeds, rather than either deserts or beaches, both of which are far more abundant. Discussed five years ago on HN here:
There are abundant materials whose useful stock or rates of production are limited by other factors. Nitrogen fertiliser is a canonical example: the raw element is abundant in air (70% of the atmosphere), but its fixation is extremely energy intensive, relying most keenly on natural gas supplies and prices. Ammonia and ammonia-based product costs (fertilisers, cleaning supplies, explosives) tend to fluctuate strongly with natural gas prices, despite the underlying abundance of nitrogen itself.
Ignoring for a moment the cost of inverters and storage...
With the cost of big-ass 400W solar panels as low as they are now, in the pallet load or container load, much of the cost is actually the labor and the mounting.
$150 per panel x 22 on a pallet = $3300
For a ground mounted PV system, you can easily spend far more than 3300 on the foundation work, concrete, steel erection and frame than the raw solar panel costs now. Randomly chosen 40kW theoretical would be $15000 in panels plus LTL truck cargo, the rest of the costs for a working system would be much more than 15k.
It's also possible for a roof mounting system to cost more than the panels in materials and labor and time.
Which is why I am a fan of this simple idea, just put them flat on the dirt. Stick a fence around it to stop deer, and see what happens. One company is trying it[0]. I am not sure if water drainage, plant growth, whatever might be a problem, but for the cost of installation, seems worth exploring.
This system appears based on tin, not lead, so that's a plus for not generating as much toxic waste. However the lifetime report - 10% efficieny loss over 1000 hour - is why people vastly prefer monocrystalline silicon cells, whose lifetime is easily 200X as long (more like 1000X, but other components of the PV module than the silicon will degrade more on the 200,000 hours timeline).
You'd have to replace these once a year or so to retain >90% of the initial power output, versus mono-Si which lasts for 25 years+.
Not based on this exact paper, but Oxford PV is claiming to have perovskite solar cells that will last 25 years now (and is commercially selling tandem silicon-perovskite cells based on this).
I'd like to request some comment replies from anybody who keeps up the downvoting on this one.
I've found that every time I post something complaining about a "science journalist", or a "tech journalist", not having a basic understanding of the stuff they write about, or not doing meaningful research, I reliably get downvotes.
Sorry, if you are reporting on a "science" beat, I do expect you to recognize the word "furan", because you either took organic chemistry or have paid some attention to the world around you. You don't have to be able to sketch it, but come on.
"Also, some of the materials used to make them, such as silicon, are becoming scarcer and thus more expensive."
!?
The Earth's crust is 28% silicon by mass. It's literally the second most abundant element. I'm not a professional, but isn't most of the cost of solar outside the panels now anyway - installation, cabling, inverters, permitting, storage for use during peak hours, etc?
HAHA! oh my. what a trash article this is. I read it and the whole thing. Every paragraph has a gem of nonsense, maybe it's AI tuned to the key of breathless doomer ignorance. OP, feel shame for reposting this.
Setting aside the veracity of the article for a moment ...
... a key factor in industrial-scale silicon production (microchips, PV, or otherwise) is the purity of the raw material. It may well be that high grade silica is fundamentally scarce, or that access to it may be restricted or limited by other factors. Sand theft is an issue that's emerged as a concern, largely as it's a huge industrial input, particularly in concrete, and the most suitable sands are found in riverbeds, rather than either deserts or beaches, both of which are far more abundant. Discussed five years ago on HN here:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21758301>
There are abundant materials whose useful stock or rates of production are limited by other factors. Nitrogen fertiliser is a canonical example: the raw element is abundant in air (70% of the atmosphere), but its fixation is extremely energy intensive, relying most keenly on natural gas supplies and prices. Ammonia and ammonia-based product costs (fertilisers, cleaning supplies, explosives) tend to fluctuate strongly with natural gas prices, despite the underlying abundance of nitrogen itself.
I don't refute this point, but the alternative materials would have to be more available than high-grade silicon for it to matter.
1 reply →
Ignoring for a moment the cost of inverters and storage...
With the cost of big-ass 400W solar panels as low as they are now, in the pallet load or container load, much of the cost is actually the labor and the mounting.
$150 per panel x 22 on a pallet = $3300
For a ground mounted PV system, you can easily spend far more than 3300 on the foundation work, concrete, steel erection and frame than the raw solar panel costs now. Randomly chosen 40kW theoretical would be $15000 in panels plus LTL truck cargo, the rest of the costs for a working system would be much more than 15k.
It's also possible for a roof mounting system to cost more than the panels in materials and labor and time.
Which is why I am a fan of this simple idea, just put them flat on the dirt. Stick a fence around it to stop deer, and see what happens. One company is trying it[0]. I am not sure if water drainage, plant growth, whatever might be a problem, but for the cost of installation, seems worth exploring.
[0] https://electrek.co/2022/12/12/texas-solar-farm-flat-on-the-...
11 replies →
> It's also possible for a roof mounting system to cost more than the panels in materials and labor and time.
Probably. The fix would be for the panels to be an intrinsic part of the roof, meaning they don't have to be separately installed.
You guys do realize you can't just scoop rocks into a grinder and make chips, right? You need high quality sources of refinable materials...
Paper https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.20...
> a type of agricultural waste known as furan
Important note, it's not waste, it's manufactured from waste.
Much better article here.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/02/17/organic-inorganic-per...
This system appears based on tin, not lead, so that's a plus for not generating as much toxic waste. However the lifetime report - 10% efficieny loss over 1000 hour - is why people vastly prefer monocrystalline silicon cells, whose lifetime is easily 200X as long (more like 1000X, but other components of the PV module than the silicon will degrade more on the 200,000 hours timeline).
You'd have to replace these once a year or so to retain >90% of the initial power output, versus mono-Si which lasts for 25 years+.
Not based on this exact paper, but Oxford PV is claiming to have perovskite solar cells that will last 25 years now (and is commercially selling tandem silicon-perovskite cells based on this).
https://undecidedmf.com/how-record-breaking-perovskites-are-...
Submit that as a recommended alternative link to mods by email at hn@ycombinator.com
Nonsense.
Why is it nonsense?
Your assessment may be correct, but it's not informative.
It’ll always be waste-ish because of the lead, no?
> comes from a type of agricultural waste known as furan
Where do they get these people?
I'd like to request some comment replies from anybody who keeps up the downvoting on this one.
I've found that every time I post something complaining about a "science journalist", or a "tech journalist", not having a basic understanding of the stuff they write about, or not doing meaningful research, I reliably get downvotes.
Sorry, if you are reporting on a "science" beat, I do expect you to recognize the word "furan", because you either took organic chemistry or have paid some attention to the world around you. You don't have to be able to sketch it, but come on.
[dead]