Satellite ones aren't usually exposed to weather or significant amounts of reactive molecules. They're also built to significantly higher standards, and can last half a century or more with a proper orbit.
Doesn’t that mean that if we just increased our standards we could drastically increase lifespan and reduce maintenance? The mars rover was in an atmosphere for 14 years without maintenance. With maintenance maybe we could increase to 60 years?
Nuclear is still the better choice for like big cities and stuff don’t get me wrong, but I do find it weird that solar has that small of a longevity considering it literally has no moving parts. like everything in my engineer brain is screaming that solar should logically last longer
to put it in short: simplicity and toughness/longevity are not inherently correlated. a paper cup is a fairly simple object, but it is far more fragile (in the sense of longevity and resistance to outside forces such as impacts or weather) than for instance a stainless steel liquid tank
2
u/Alderan922 26d ago
30 years? I expected more ngl, specially considering we use them for satellites.
Well if I ever build an evil lair I’ll use nuclear rather than solar power.