I appreciate the sentiment here, but it is a little too individualistic. Time and time again, social movements have succeeded through mutual aid and solidarity. Just focusing on your own life is great, but you need to consider the fact that, ahem, we live in a society. Even if everyone in your community suddenly lived like you describe, there would still be the looming threats of climate change and biodiversity collapse, not to mention the exploitation of workers overseas (which very well may be producing the rare metals in your DIY solar panels).
I digress. Living a solarpunk life can take many forms. "The role of the revolutionist" is manifold. Its silly to suggest that a person's life can be a model of an alternative, when we are so intertwined and connected with other human beings and environments. Direct action and organizing against state tyranny, fossil capitalism, environmental racism and other damaging systems is solarpunk. Especially if you are doing those things and still have time to grow a garden.
Again, going vegan is great. But just because you "assert your beliefs" at the dinner table doesn't mean you are somehow doing revolutionary work. Movements have the power to change things, not individuals. Lets be real.
agreed, it is a fantastic website. I wish there were more like it.
I ordered their paperback magazine, which can be printed on demand. Looking forward to reading it
Yep this makes sense to me, I agree. Especially if those vast areas are far from large manufacturing facilities of these efficient panels (likely), less complex and DIY panels produced on site would reduce transportation costs. It would just be a matter of locating materials in those regions.
"Environmental cost" is a very vague concept. If we only consider carbon emissions, more efficient panels might be better. But factoring in the waste generated over time, the lifecycle impacts of the panels (mining, manufacturing, disposal, etc.) I think there needs to be more analysis. Not saying it will outweigh, I just think its worth a hard look.
In terms of decreasing demand, that's a consumer-side factor, so it has no connection to actual panel production.
George Cove, a forgotten solar power pioneer, may have built a highly efficient photovoltaic panel 40 years before Bell Labs engineers invented silicon cells. If proven to work, his design could lead to less complex and more sustainable solar panels.
Solar panels have always bothered me because they require such intense manufacturing and usage of scarce resources. TLDR of article: "Many people will argue that if low-tech solar panels are less efficient, we would need more solar panels to produce the same power output. Consequently, the resources saved by low-tech production methods would be compensated by the extra resources to build more solar panels. However, efficiency is only crucial when we take energy demand for granted, sacrificing some efficiency may gain us a lot in sustainability."
I can get behind techno-anarchism...