>>518807212
> that the thing
You never had 100% efficient at any time. It will never be 100% efficient, ever. You'd be breaking the thermodynamics with a perfected energy extraction.
You're the boomer thinking you can slap solar panels on your home and let it rot with your house for 30 years and think you came out ahead when no one buys your shitty house despite you paying 5x the cost of the house over 30 years.
>>518807374
I don't know if you could even register high enough on any IQ test to be measured.
So it's 30 years, but now it's 40-50 years?
Let's assume you're right. You don't think efficiency will improve over 40-50 years that would warrant replacing the panels to better utilize the acreages since we have "low housing supply?"
So, I ask again. At what point does it make any financial sense to do solar? I'll call bullshit on your 0.4-0.8% per year. That sounds like they're being maintained and that's what you that said didn't need to occur.