The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

[Grumblenuts]

None of it is tied up in the metal.

How much added heat depends on what we do with the energy ... if we smelt iron with it, then that energy is tied up in the metal, being slowly released as it oxidies back into rust ..

Did you miss that last part? Or did you see it and not undertstand?

You clearly didn't understand "The thermal energy used to smelt iron ALL escapes to its surroundings as the iron cools to ambient temperature."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You clearly didn't understand "The thermal energy used to smelt iron ALL escapes to its surroundings as the iron cools to ambient temperature."

You're mistaken.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You're mistaken.

You're an idiot. To begin with.. The heat transfer does not depend upon what you do with the energy being converted into electricity.
eta: Unless.. unless.. you want to compare all the wasted heat involved in extracting, refining and transporting fossil fuels just to get them to a power plant. Then add the heat wasted by the plant itself due to its own inefficiencies,..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're an idiot. To begin with.. The heat transfer does not depend upon what you do with the energy being converted into electricity.

You're mistaken, I clearly understand.

 

[ding]

Unless the cooler temperature at the farms is causing a local glacial cycle, your claim still fails.

I can't think of anything that would usher in the next glacial cycle better than replacing fossil fuels with solar. That would have to be the dumbest idea ever in the middle of an ice age.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't think of anything that would usher in the next glacial cycle better than replacing fossil fuels with solar. That would have to be the dumbest idea ever in the middle of an ice age.

Changing your original stupid claim?

Excellent!

 

[ding]

Changing your original stupid claim?

Excellent!

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle other than widespread use of solar power. So, no. Not changing my original claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle other than widespread use of solar power. So, no. Not changing my original claim.

Retaining more energy, instead of reflecting it back to space, is going to
usher in a new glacial cycle how exactly?

 

[ding]

Retaining more energy, instead of reflecting it back to space, is going to
usher in a new glacial cycle how exactly?

You've already conceded that converting photons into electricity is why incrementally cooler temperatures were measured at six solar farms.

Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power. So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat. It's the same in both cases. Which is not true for solar radiation. There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels. So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've already conceded that converting photons into electricity is why incrementally cooler temperatures were measured at six solar farms.

Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power. So switching from fossil fuels to solar power doesn't affect waste heat. It's the same in both cases. Which is not true for solar radiation. There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power that doesn't occur with fossil fuels. So relative to fossil fuels, solar power will result in an incremental cooling which is exactly what was measured at six solar farms.

Incrementally there is no difference in waste heat from electricity generated by fossil fuels compared to electricity generated from solar power.

Waste heat from solar? So much for that next glacial cycle.

There is a reduction in the number of photons that can produce heat from striking the surface of the planet with solar power

The waste heat in the city offsets the cooling at the panel. As you've already admitted.
Except for that pesky lower albedo. Solar still warms the planet more than the ground it occupies.

 

[ding]

The waste heat in the city offsets the cooling at the panel. As you've already admitted.
Except for that pesky lower albedo. Solar still warms the planet more than the ground it occupies.

Apparently the concept of incremental is beyond your ability to understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apparently the concept of incremental is beyond your ability to understand.

Energy is conserved. Turning it into electricity doesn't destroy it.

Sorry that the FLoT is beyond your unserstanding.

 

[ding]

Energy is conserved. Turning it into electricity doesn't destroy it.

Sorry that the FLoT is beyond your unserstanding.

It's ok that you can't comprehend that incrementally there is no change in waste heat in replacing fossil fuels with solar. No one expects you to be able to understand everything.

 

[ReinyDays]

The thermal energy used to smelt iron ALL escapes to its surroundings as the iron cools to ambient temperature. None of it is tied up in the metal. And I suspect you meant to say you could violate the 2nd law.

How does that square with redox reactions? ... energy is added to iron to change (reduce) its oxidation state, the energy that strips off the oxygen atoms from the iron oxide (rust) molecules ... this is basic chemistry ... I guess you never took that class ...

You should say "almost all escapes to its surroundings" ...

The (room temperature) metal slowly returns the energy back to the environment as it returns to the oxidized state as an oxide (rust) ... this is why we have to protect exposed iron, the 2nd Law is driving the energy out of the reduced iron by oxidizing it ... from where energy is plentiful, to where energy is lacking ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's ok that you can't comprehend that incrementally there is no change in waste heat in replacing fossil fuels with solar. No one expects you to be able to understand everything.

As soon as you change your original stupid claim, we can examine your new one.

 

[ding]

As soon as you change your original stupid claim, we can examine your new one.

I accept your surrender.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I accept your surrender.

So that a yes? You're changing your original stupid claim?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Energy is conserved. Turning it into electricity doesn't destroy it.

Sorry that the FLoT is beyond your unserstanding.

While discussing switching from coal to solar the net heat produced by solar panels was logically introduced. Never net "Energy."

Also nothing to do with Fe3 being won from or reduced to Fe2 (rust) where any and all the power input required is presumably being supplied either by solar panels fueled for free directly by the Sun -or- by power plants burning comparatively hard won fossil fuels, coal in particular here. All that occurs before or after the fact, in other words. The question is limited to primary generators of electric power, not its use.

While attempting to contrast the watts per square meter impacts upon global warming of solar vs. coal electric power generators, an obviously ridiculous thing to try in any case, everything beyond the net heat input and output is logically irrelevant distraction. But, ya know, go ahead.. I'm game. How much heat does your average coal powered electric plant add to the environment in watts per square meter? Enough to keep us out of ice age trouble? Insane minds everywhere are just dying to know!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While discussing switching from coal to solar the net heat produced by solar panels was logically introduced.

Why is that logical?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why is that logical?

I just threw that in there gratuitously. I wouldn't say it follows directly, but it's a common enough topic in such discussions.

How hot do solar panels get and how does it affect my system?

Solar panels are hotter than the air temperature around them, this heat reduces their efficiency but the overall performance of your solar system will remain at enough capacity to power your home.

www.solarreviews.com

IIRC, NASA was initially interested because neighbors had actually complained of excess heat drifting over from some solar farms. Unsurprisingly, the panels being dark do get hot. E.g., a black roof tends to get hot while a whitish one remains cool.