Question About Mass Solar Use

[DustyInfinity]

Let's say efficient solar technology was available to cover most buildings in the US and to handle most of our energy needs. My question is would this have any environmental impact other than reduced CO2. You are converting a huge surface area into an energy absorbing surface. Would that be safe? Would there be any effect of absorbing that much solar energy? It would be similar with wind power. Let's say you cover huge areas with wind mills. Wouldn't that have some effect on the environment and weather patterns? I'm not a techie, but it seems harnessing natural energy would have some effect on the environment besides reduced CO2.

 

[Toronado3800]

Let's say efficient solar technology was available to cover most buildings in the US and to handle most of our energy needs. My question is would this have any environmental impact other than reduced CO2. You are converting a huge surface area into an energy absorbing surface. Would that be safe? Would there be any effect of absorbing that much solar energy? It would be similar with wind power. Let's say you cover huge areas with wind mills. Wouldn't that have some effect on the environment and weather patterns? I'm not a techie, but it seems harnessing natural energy would have some effect on the environment besides reduced CO2.

Are you asking if acres of solar panels would collect heat?

If that's a concern we should deal with concrete, suburban and urban heat islands are a thing, watch where Acer palmatums can grow.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Heat is a great example. Would massive pockets of increased surface heat have much impact? It seems like changing how sunlight strikes vast areas of surface could have consequences.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Let's say efficient solar technology was available to cover most buildings in the US and to handle most of our energy needs. My question is would this have any environmental impact other than reduced CO2. You are converting a huge surface area into an energy absorbing surface. Would that be safe? Would there be any effect of absorbing that much solar energy? It would be similar with wind power. Let's say you cover huge areas with wind mills. Wouldn't that have some effect on the environment and weather patterns? I'm not a techie, but it seems harnessing natural energy would have some effect on the environment besides reduced CO2.

You raise a valid question. On the surface it appears the environmental impact of installing 100,000 square miles of solar panels ( estimate of how big of solar field required to power the US) would be minimal considering it is a fraction of the amount of concrete and asphalt already spread across the country.

Of course you couldn’t simply build one giant 100 miles x 100 mile solar field. The arrays would have to be spread around the country just as power sources are spread now. We would also have to supply the necessary batteries to store the energy as well as massively upgrade the power grid to handle the distribution.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Heat is a great example. Would massive pockets of increased surface heat have much impact? It seems like changing how sunlight strikes vast areas of surface could have consequences.

You mean like every city on earth with buildings, asphalt and concrete? I can’t imagine how solar panels would have a much different effect than concrete or asphalt.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's say efficient solar technology was available to cover most buildings in the US and to handle most of our energy needs. My question is would this have any environmental impact other than reduced CO2. You are converting a huge surface area into an energy absorbing surface. Would that be safe? Would there be any effect of absorbing that much solar energy? It would be similar with wind power. Let's say you cover huge areas with wind mills. Wouldn't that have some effect on the environment and weather patterns? I'm not a techie, but it seems harnessing natural energy would have some effect on the environment besides reduced CO2.

Solar is not an alternative "to handle all our needs".. It's a supplement energy source, not an alternative to anything.. Solar doesn't have a huge impact on the environment.. There is some because of limited lifetime and the materials used take a LOT of mining.. But WIND -- does have immediate enviro impacts.. Birds and bats are greatly affected since it reduces their viable habitat.. The sound pressure waves literally burst the hearts of bats flying too near.. And the structures in the wind field attract rodents and small prey which create a hazard for raptures and larger birds..

Wind is nearly useless to "replace anything".. It's can't be scheduled. Can't write a guaranteed contract for how much you're get next Tues.. It SUCKS as a grid generator..

Where the IMMENSE THREAT to the environment lies is when solar and wind FAIL to be reliable and yet the "eco frauds" that won't give up on it propose MASSIVE BATTERY FARMS to filter and store energy.. This would be a literal enviro armaggedon because of the scale required to potentially STORE enough solar during daylight hours to use at night. Or patch the holes in the times when the wind doesn't blow..

Going down THAT road would piss off almost all ACTUAL environmentalists. Just from the toxic waste recycling of BILLIONS OF TONS of batteries with limited lifetimes...

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's say efficient solar technology was available to cover most buildings in the US and to handle most of our energy needs. My question is would this have any environmental impact other than reduced CO2. You are converting a huge surface area into an energy absorbing surface. Would that be safe? Would there be any effect of absorbing that much solar energy? It would be similar with wind power. Let's say you cover huge areas with wind mills. Wouldn't that have some effect on the environment and weather patterns? I'm not a techie, but it seems harnessing natural energy would have some effect on the environment besides reduced CO2.

You raise a valid question. On the surface it appears the environmental impact of installing 100,000 square miles of solar panels ( estimate of how big of solar field required to power the US) would be minimal considering it is a fraction of the amount of concrete and asphalt already spread across the country.

Of course you couldn’t simply build one giant 100 miles x 100 mile solar field. The arrays would have to be spread around the country just as power sources are spread now. We would also have to supply the necessary batteries to store the energy as well as massively upgrade the power grid to handle the distribution.

That number is almost always bogus.. Because it's based on the PLACARDED number of watts for a solar panel. But they are NOT SUPPLYING energy for but 8 or 9 hours a day.. And not all days. So "what it would take to power America" is actually THREE TIMES THAT SIZE... Because the net production from a 30KW solar installation is about 10KW... AND it's only available during the day..

In that wet dream fantasy of STORING daytime energy for the other 16 hours in a day --- You'd have to multiply that number AGAIN by a factor of at least two to generate enough SURPLUS during peak solar daytime to store.

But none of that is ever gonna happen.,. Because that much energy storage with BATTERIES would be an enviro disaster...

 

[fncceo]

Let's say efficient solar technology was available to cover most buildings in the US and to handle most of our energy needs.

Except of course .... well, you know ...

 

[james bond]

I'm for solar and Elon Musk's Tesla is promoting their solar tiles, panels and powerwalls where I live. I'm not for wind turbines anywhere near where people live.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Indeed the batteries alone... most states have car battery recycling laws for a reason,
solar panels have a shelf life and are toxic. together put em on and outside everyones new green deal mud & dung huts , or do it on a larger Power plant scale you might just develop an ongoing giant generational toxic waste problem ....either way .

wanting a clean environment is something we should all want
air water and soil ....its all local ...thats whats important ...i'm highly skeptical that MAN is actually responsible for any changes in the earths climate .im even more skeptical you can influence it with taxes and regulations

the United States should get a medal for how clean the air is today

 

[DustyInfinity]

Let's say efficient solar technology was available to cover most buildings in the US and to handle most of our energy needs. My question is would this have any environmental impact other than reduced CO2. You are converting a huge surface area into an energy absorbing surface. Would that be safe? Would there be any effect of absorbing that much solar energy? It would be similar with wind power. Let's say you cover huge areas with wind mills. Wouldn't that have some effect on the environment and weather patterns? I'm not a techie, but it seems harnessing natural energy would have some effect on the environment besides reduced CO2.

Solar is not an alternative "to handle all our needs".. It's a supplement energy source, not an alternative to anything.. Solar doesn't have a huge impact on the environment.. There is some because of limited lifetime and the materials used take a LOT of mining.. But WIND -- does have immediate enviro impacts.. Birds and bats are greatly affected since it reduces their viable habitat.. The sound pressure waves literally burst the hearts of bats flying too near.. And the structures in the wind field attract rodents and small prey which create a hazard for raptures and larger birds..

Wind is nearly useless to "replace anything".. It's can't be scheduled. Can't write a guaranteed contract for how much you're get next Tues.. It SUCKS as a grid generator..

Where the IMMENSE THREAT to the environment lies is when solar and wind FAIL to be reliable and yet the "eco frauds" that won't give up on it propose MASSIVE BATTERY FARMS to filter and store energy.. This would be a literal enviro armaggedon because of the scale required to potentially STORE enough solar during daylight hours to use at night. Or patch the holes in the times when the wind doesn't blow..

Going down THAT road would piss off almost all ACTUAL environmentalists. Just from the toxic waste recycling of BILLIONS OF TONS of batteries with limited lifetimes...

Sorry, I didn't mean to say it was currently possible. I pose it as a what if. What if they found a way to make solar energy viable in the future? It just seemed harnessing natural energy could have side effects because you are routing vast amounts of energy from a prior pattern to a new use in powering mankind's gadgets. I don't know much about physical laws governing energy, but it made me wonder if such a major change could have an environmental impact besides CO2.

 

[evenflow1969]

Heat is a great example. Would massive pockets of increased surface heat have much impact? It seems like changing how sunlight strikes vast areas of surface could have consequences.

You mean like every city on earth with buildings, asphalt and concrete? I can’t imagine how solar panels would have a much different effect than concrete or asphalt.

That energy is currently absorbed by what ever it hits. It would likely have an actual cooling effect as some energy is lost in the conversion to electricity. Not likely to have the effect equal to heat storing ashalt and concrete. As far as needing an upgrade in the grid goes as energy usage increases the grid will need updated anyway and should have been upgraded years ago do to aging and the fact that much of the grid is still above ground.; Areas with above ground wire transfer are much more likely to suffer out ages during inclimate weather. The old grid is also more suseptable to solar flares and vandalism. The amount of money and efficiency loss do to our inability to maintain these lines is already tremendous. If we were serious about long term efficiency in terms of delivery and cost these investments should have been made long ago. Unfortunately in this age of people that grew up with microwave ovens we no longer think about what is good in the long run and are into more immediate gratification. We see the same thing in roads and bridges. We a currently bandaiding those structures and in the near future the cost of fixing the issues are going to becaome a great deal more expensive than they would have been had we been doing what we should have the whole time. Kicking the can down the road has serious consequences in both safety and over all costs associated with maintaining the infrastucture we have. I ran acroos a young lady a few years ago standing in front of a fairly new car with a blown motor. She did not keep the oil up nor did she maintain coolant. A few bucks in coolant and oil that car is still going down the road. Now she has big fucking problems. We are in the same situation with our ifrastucture the sad thing is our officials know this and would rather blame each other for fucking it up than fix it. I know more than a few county engineers planning their retirement on when infrastructure is going to go to complete hell because they can not get the policy makers to fund what needs to be done. Not only are we going to have a price tag large enough to choke us to fix these items but the people who are qualified to do so will be retired and not interested in doing any thing about it. We all ready have real issues finding qualifies applicants for ths job. County engineers rarely ever get ran against as we do not have enough qualified people to do the job at present. This wil get much worse in the near future.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Heat is a great example. Would massive pockets of increased surface heat have much impact? It seems like changing how sunlight strikes vast areas of surface could have consequences.

You mean like every city on earth with buildings, asphalt and concrete? I can’t imagine how solar panels would have a much different effect than concrete or asphalt.

That energy is currently absorbed by what ever it hits. It would likely have an actual cooling effect as some energy is lost in the conversion to electricity. Not likely to have the effect equal to heat storing ashalt and concrete. As far as needing an upgrade in the grid goes as energy usage increases the grid will need updated anyway and should have been upgraded years ago do to aging and the fact that much of the grid is still above ground.; Areas with above ground wire transfer are much more likely to suffer out ages during inclimate weather. The old grid is also more suseptable to solar flares and vandalism. The amount of money and efficiency loss do to our inability to maintain these lines is already tremendous. If we were serious about long term efficiency in terms of delivery and cost these investments should have been made long ago. Unfortunately in this age of people that grew up with microwave ovens we no longer think about what is good in the long run and are into more immediate gratification. We see the same thing in roads and bridges. We a currently bandaiding those structures and in the near future the cost of fixing the issues are going to becaome a great deal more expensive than they would have been had we been doing what we should have the whole time. Kicking the can down the road has serious consequences in both safety and over all costs associated with maintaining the infrastucture we have. I ran acroos a young lady a few years ago standing in front of a fairly new car with a blown motor. She did not keep the oil up nor did she maintain coolant. A few bucks in coolant and oil that car is still going down the road. Now she has big fucking problems. We are in the same situation with our ifrastucture the sad thing is our officials know this and would rather blame each other for fucking it up than fix it. I know more than a few county engineers planning their retirement on when infrastructure is going to go to complete hell because they can not get the policy makers to fund what needs to be done. Not only are we going to have a price tag large enough to choke us to fix these items but the people who are qualified to do so will be retired and not interested in doing any thing about it. We all ready have real issues finding qualifies applicants for ths job. County engineers rarely ever get ran against as we do not have enough qualified people to do the job at present. This wil get much worse in the near future.

Can I make a small suggestion? Use paragraphs, especially in long post. It makes it much easier to read your post. Thank you.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Let's say efficient solar technology was available to cover most buildings in the US and to handle most of our energy needs. My question is would this have any environmental impact other than reduced CO2. You are converting a huge surface area into an energy absorbing surface. Would that be safe? Would there be any effect of absorbing that much solar energy? It would be similar with wind power. Let's say you cover huge areas with wind mills. Wouldn't that have some effect on the environment and weather patterns? I'm not a techie, but it seems harnessing natural energy would have some effect on the environment besides reduced CO2.

Because of the Unearned Power the Rulers' Sons Have, Everybody Is Pressured Into Conceding Something of Their Lies

We would have plague after plague. The deceptively named "pollution" is actually antiseptic. Epidemics die out once they get to smoggy urban areas. The last great killer from Gaia came with the Spanish Influenza, which ran its full course of 50 million dead because auto-emission by-products had not yet reached the level necessary to stop it. Never meet the enemies of Western Civilization by unquestionable acceptance of their aggressively pejorative terminology, as with pollution, imperialism, racism, and all what richgirl-snob degenerates like hillary call "deplorable."

The difference between pollution and deadly "Clean Air" is like the difference between driving down a road that has a few bumpy pebbles on it and driving down one with mindless mobs on both sides of it throwing rocks at you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's say efficient solar technology was available to cover most buildings in the US and to handle most of our energy needs. My question is would this have any environmental impact other than reduced CO2. You are converting a huge surface area into an energy absorbing surface. Would that be safe? Would there be any effect of absorbing that much solar energy? It would be similar with wind power. Let's say you cover huge areas with wind mills. Wouldn't that have some effect on the environment and weather patterns? I'm not a techie, but it seems harnessing natural energy would have some effect on the environment besides reduced CO2.

Solar is not an alternative "to handle all our needs".. It's a supplement energy source, not an alternative to anything.. Solar doesn't have a huge impact on the environment.. There is some because of limited lifetime and the materials used take a LOT of mining.. But WIND -- does have immediate enviro impacts.. Birds and bats are greatly affected since it reduces their viable habitat.. The sound pressure waves literally burst the hearts of bats flying too near.. And the structures in the wind field attract rodents and small prey which create a hazard for raptures and larger birds..

Wind is nearly useless to "replace anything".. It's can't be scheduled. Can't write a guaranteed contract for how much you're get next Tues.. It SUCKS as a grid generator..

Where the IMMENSE THREAT to the environment lies is when solar and wind FAIL to be reliable and yet the "eco frauds" that won't give up on it propose MASSIVE BATTERY FARMS to filter and store energy.. This would be a literal enviro armaggedon because of the scale required to potentially STORE enough solar during daylight hours to use at night. Or patch the holes in the times when the wind doesn't blow..

Going down THAT road would piss off almost all ACTUAL environmentalists. Just from the toxic waste recycling of BILLIONS OF TONS of batteries with limited lifetimes...

Sorry, I didn't mean to say it was currently possible. I pose it as a what if. What if they found a way to make solar energy viable in the future? It just seemed harnessing natural energy could have side effects because you are routing vast amounts of energy from a prior pattern to a new use in powering mankind's gadgets. I don't know much about physical laws governing energy, but it made me wonder if such a major change could have an environmental impact besides CO2.

Being from the science/engineering world --- I LOVE "what ifs"... But only if the folks PROMISING miracles will happen, like all the folks over-hyping wind and solar, have some CLUE as to HOW this "miracle" might occur..

Solar conversion is a mature technology.. Companies that tried to add the last ounce of efficacy to them are now bankrupt and the market is driven simply by manufacturing efficiency and cost. There is a known Physic limit to the efficiency of the technology and we're pretty much there NOW..

That's not to say you can't change the materials and get better performance. For instance, we've known for decades now that you can swap out the Silicon based materials for Gallium Arsenide materials and get a 25% improvement in efficiency.. (Hang with me here) --- BUT mining that much Arsenic and having a toxic material spread out on every rooftop would make every tornado disaster or broken panel a "toxic clean-up"... That's how engineering works. You can fly some Gallium Arsenide panels on a Mars Rover, but you cannot ethically suggest we do that on Earth..

Even THEN -- you can't fix the other inherent problems with trying to promote solar to an alternative from a supplement..

It makes no sense to build out massive solar in Northern latitudes where snow and sun angle are a problem.

It makes no sense to have to have a "night-time" generation to take over from solar.. You're paying for TWO generators when you only need one.

It makes no sense to encourage massive "fixed" installations on homes and buildings where the panels do not TRACK the sun angle and aren't as efficient as what you're paying for them.. In fact, MANY home installations don't come NEAR the 30% of rated power that you get out of commercial solar farms..

And just "say no" to idiotic concepts of putting them down as highway surfaces or building MASSIVE battery farms...

So -- it is what it is.. The calculations are that solar as a supplement can supply about 15% of daily demand if you live in a GOOD solar state.. But ONLY for about 8 or 9 hours a day.. Otherwise, you're paying for an extra Nat Gas plant or Nuclear plant to keep the hospitals and supermarkets alive at night.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you wanted to do something sane about CO2, we know how to do that TODAY.. It's nuclear generation.. And you can power a home for a year with less nuclear material than the size of a AA battery.. That's a waste stream we should be able to handle. Because toxic metals in batteries have a longer toxic half-life than nuclear materials. In fact, battery toxic waste lives pretty much forever...

In fact, the "godfather of Global Warming" Jame Hansen joined with other Climate scientists and noted environmentalists to write a statement advocating nuclear power as the pathway to zero CO2 emissions. About it he said "If you think that wind and solar alone are going to solve this (GWarming) crisis --- you probably still believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny."

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?

MANY noted environmentalists understand that we could shutter the coal plants, tear down the hydro dams that environmentalists now oppose and free the salmon, and JUNK wind as it deserves and convert a significant portion of our transportation energy to electricity AND get close to zero CO2 emissions ---- IF we took advantage of the newer, safer, cheaper nuclear generation designs that have evolved...

 

[Picaro]

People should really look into the costs of generating electricity a lot more. Even if the power plants were totally free, your bill would fall some 20%, maybe 30%; the biggest capital costs are in the building and maintaining transmission lines and their efficiency. Don't know of any buildings with enough surface area to cover all its electricity use, either, and most regions of the country have weather issues that make it impossible to run entirely on solar. New battery technology is the only thing that makes solar viable at all.

Nuclear is the best option, by far, but of course nobody wants the U.S. government to oversee any built here, they and the contractors are too corrupt; we would need French or German contractors to do the building; otherwise they will cost 10 times over budget and will only work half the time if built by Americans and their bidding farces.

And of course if you keep adding millions to your population every year via criminal illegal immigration as well as legal immigration, you're shooting yourselves in the foot and going nowhere. If we had not allowed that farce, we would have a population now of around 180 million, instead of 340 million, a majority of whom can't afford anything, much less solar panels.

 

[konradv]

The long-term answer is fusion power, IMO.
Much cleaner than nuclear
Wouldn't have the the waste control problems of nuclear or solar Wouldn't require the huge allocations of land like solar or wind turbines
The side benefit of large amounts of hydrogen for use in vehicles

I think what's needed is the kind of focus we had when we went to the moon to work out the technical problems and we'd have near limitless clean and cheap energy.

ITER - the way to new energy

 

[Blues Man]

Heat is a great example. Would massive pockets of increased surface heat have much impact? It seems like changing how sunlight strikes vast areas of surface could have consequences.

Would a solar panel absorb more heat than a shingled roof?

 

[DustyInfinity]

Heat is a great example. Would massive pockets of increased surface heat have much impact? It seems like changing how sunlight strikes vast areas of surface could have consequences.

Would a solar panel absorb more heat than a shingled roof?

That's a good question. It sounds like one of our resident engineers said that solar panels might actually reduce heat in the conversion into electricity. Not only does the left want to put panels on every building, they would probably have to set up huge solar farms as well. Again, none of this is currently possible, and someone pointed out the cloud cover at our latitude is not even a good place to try this stuff. Still, what happens when you use vast amounts of solar energy to power the entire planet? The asphalt example was perfect. Cities are a certain amount of degrees warmer than their surroundings. Now image a project that would cover much more surface area than asphalt. If it has a cooling effect, would this affect weather patterns? Whether cooling or warming, the question would be how much of an effect would be created? Just curious.