Agrivoltaics, saving farms

[Hafar1014]

The cost of gas is the most important cost in farming.

 

[ReinyDays]

All you have to do to move forward is to say you accept the planet is net warming by 0.6 W/m^2 and that the planet - on average - absorbs about 240 W/m².

Can you do that instead of throwing a temper tantrum and trying to skip steps?

Okay ... go on ...

 

[ding]

Okay ... go on ...

What percentage of solar radiation striking solar panels is in the visible light spectrum.
The answer is 40 to 44%.

What percentage of visible light striking solar panels is converted into electricity?
The answer is 15 to 20%.

So per square meter solar panels effectively reduce the 240 W/m² striking it by:
240 W/m² x 0.44 x 0.2 = 21.12 W/m²

What is the total land surface of the planet?
The answer is 149 million square kilometers or 1.49x10^14 m²

What is the solar radiation striking the total land surface of the planet?
The answer is 240 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 3.5760x10^16 W

What is the reduction needed to make the planet net cooling?
The answer is 0.7 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 1.0430x10^14 W

How many square meters of solar panels are needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling?
The answer is 1.0430x10^14 W / 21.12 W/m² = 4.9384x10^12 m²

What percentage of the total land surface of the planet would need to be covered by solar panels to change the planet from net warming to net cooling?

The answer is 4.9384x10^12 m² / 1.49x10^14 m²= 0.0331 or 3.31% of the total land surface of the planet.

 

[ReinyDays]

What percentage of solar radiation striking solar panels is in the visible light spectrum.
The answer is 40 to 44%.

What percentage of visible light striking solar panels is converted into electricity?
The answer is 15 to 20%.

So per square meter solar panels effectively reduce the 240 W/m² striking it by:
240 W/m² x 0.44 x 0.2 = 21.12 W/m²

... and 240 W/m^2 x 0.40 x 0.15 = 14.4 W/m^2 ... a 33% margin of error ...

What is the total land surface of the planet?
The answer is 149 million square kilometers or 1.49x10^14 m²

What is the solar radiation striking the total land surface of the planet?
The answer is 240 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 3.5760x10^16 W

There's a cosine factor here ... not all square meters of Earth's surface receive full sunlight ...

The laugher here is you give solar panels full production at night ...

What is the reduction needed to make the planet net cooling?
The answer is 0.7 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 1.0430x10^14 W

How many square meters of solar panels are needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling?
The answer is 1.0430x10^14 W / 21.12 W/m² = 4.9384x10^12 m²

What percentage of the total land surface of the planet would need to be covered by solar panels to change the planet from net warming to net cooling?

The answer is 4.9384x10^12 m² / 1.49x10^14 m²= 0.0331 or 3.31% of the total land surface of the planet.

If you're only covering 3.3% of the land, and I already agreed temperatures would be less at the site ... so why do you think this will cool the entire planet ... say ten miles away ... or one mile up ...

I calculated the temperature of the panel ... exporting the energy drops surface temperature by 5ºC under ideal conditions ... but I haven't bothered making T'Patriot's correction ... which makes perfect sense because all the solar panels I've seen have all been very hot to the touch under full production loads ...

=====

Here's an amazing coincidence ... the fourth root of (240 W/m^2 divided by SB's constant) gives Earth's blackbody temperature if she didn't have an atmosphere ... that's the danger of debating EMH, you take on it's war against the greenhouse effect ...

C'mon ding, you're better than that ...

 

[ding]

... and 240 W/m^2 x 0.40 x 0.15 = 14.4 W/m^2 ... a 33% margin of error ...



There's a cosine factor here ... not all square meters of Earth's surface receive full sunlight ...

The laugher here is you give solar panels full production at night ...



If you're only covering 3.3% of the land, and I already agreed temperatures would be less at the site ... so why do you think this will cool the entire planet ... say ten miles away ... or one mile up ...

I calculated the temperature of the panel ... exporting the energy drops surface temperature by 5ºC under ideal conditions ... but I haven't bothered making T'Patriot's correction ... which makes perfect sense because all the solar panels I've seen have all been very hot to the touch under full production loads ...

=====

Here's an amazing coincidence ... the fourth root of (240 W/m^2 divided by SB's constant) gives Earth's blackbody temperature if she didn't have an atmosphere ... that's the danger of debating EMH, you take on it's war against the greenhouse effect ...

C'mon ding, you're better than that ...

You're cracking me up. You want to believe doing anything on a global basis has no effect on the surroundings be my guest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What percentage of solar radiation striking solar panels is in the visible light spectrum.
The answer is 40 to 44%.

What percentage of visible light striking solar panels is converted into electricity?
The answer is 15 to 20%.

So per square meter solar panels effectively reduce the 240 W/m² striking it by:
240 W/m² x 0.44 x 0.2 = 21.12 W/m²

What is the total land surface of the planet?
The answer is 149 million square kilometers or 1.49x10^14 m²

What is the solar radiation striking the total land surface of the planet?
The answer is 240 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 3.5760x10^16 W

What is the reduction needed to make the planet net cooling?
The answer is 0.7 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 1.0430x10^14 W

How many square meters of solar panels are needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling?
The answer is 1.0430x10^14 W / 21.12 W/m² = 4.9384x10^12 m²

What percentage of the total land surface of the planet would need to be covered by solar panels to change the planet from net warming to net cooling?

The answer is 4.9384x10^12 m² / 1.49x10^14 m²= 0.0331 or 3.31% of the total land surface of the planet.

What percentage of the total land surface of the planet would need to be covered by solar panels to change the planet from net warming to net cooling?

Why do you keep insisting the solar panels lead to cooling?

 

[ReinyDays]

You're cracking me up. You want to believe doing anything on a global basis has no effect on the surroundings be my guest.

Did you understand T'Patriot's post about albedo? ... you're using the average for Earth, not the value for solar panels ... do you understand this is exactly the same as the Urban Heat Island Effect? ... that negates all the cooling effect I found ...

Top performance by solar panels at night is the joke ... "200 W/m^2 all night long" ...

 

[ding]

Did you understand T'Patriot's post about albedo? ... you're using the average for Earth, not the value for solar panels ... do you understand this is exactly the same as the Urban Heat Island Effect? ... that negates all the cooling effect I found ...

Top performance by solar panels at night is the joke ... "200 W/m^2 all night long" ...

Sure but there's a small matter of satellites measuring lower daytime temperatures above 116 solar farms while they were converting photons into electricity but the nighttime temperatures were the same while they were not. Go figure.

 

[ding]

Top performance by solar panels at night is the joke ... "200 W/m^2 all night long" ...

No shit. But the real joke is you thinking that's what I was arguing.

 

[ding]

Did you understand T'Patriot's post about albedo?... do you understand this is exactly the same as the Urban Heat Island Effect?

I understand that that is taken into account in the satellite measurements. Maybe if you had actually read the papers you would have known that satelllites measured cooler daytime temperatures with night time temperatures showing no differences. How do you explain that using albedo?

 

[ReinyDays]

I understand that that is taken into account in the satellite measurements. Maybe if you had actually read the papers you would have known that satelllites measured cooler daytime temperatures with night time temperatures showing no differences. How do you explain that using albedo?

Go read you paper again and tell us what bandwidth they used as a proxy for temperature ... next you can explain why NOAA doesn't use it at all? ...

Now will you discuss this 240 W/m^2 value? ... where did that come from, and show you math ... just a reminder, the published value is 1,361.2 W/m^2 ... and these are ten-year averages ... so it includes nighttime ... or at least actual scientists are including nighttime ... you include stratospheric warming to your surface temperatures ... ridiculous ..

You give full production even on moonless winters nights ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... your understanding of thermodynamics is questionable, your understanding of Atmospheric Science is non-existent ...

Scatterometer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Go read you paper again and tell us what bandwidth they used as a proxy for temperature ... next you can explain why NOAA doesn't use it at all? ...

Now will you discuss this 240 W/m^2 value ... where did that come from, and show you math ... just a reminder, the published value is 1,361.2 W/m^2 ... and these are ten-year averages ... so it includes nighttime ... or at least actual scientists including nighttime ... are you actually including stratospheric warming to your surface temperatures? ... ridiculous ..

You give full production even on moonless winters nights ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... your understanding of thermodynamics is questionable, your understanding of Atmospheric Science is non-existent ...

Scatterometer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No. It does not give full production at night. You are a moron if that's what you think. This is why I locked you into to the 240 W/m^2 and the net warming of 0.6 W/m^2 which are from NASA's energy budget. I'm literally using NASA's energy budget. If you have a problem with that then supply your own energy budget.

Satellites measured cooler daytime temperature above solar farms and no temperature differences above solar farms at night. Why do you think that was?

 

[ReinyDays]

Are you seriously going through every thread to argue with me ... that's sad ...

No. It does not give full production at night. You are a moron if that's what you think. This is why I locked you into to the 240 W/m^2 and the net warming of 0.6 W/m^2 which are from NASA's energy budget. I'm literally using NASA's energy budget. If you have a problem with that then supply your own energy budget.

Satellites measured cooler daytime temperature above solar farms and no temperature differences above solar farms at night. Why do you think that was?

Your citation is from Leob 2009 ... not NASA ... now you're lying ...

C'mon, stupid, where did NASA come up 240 W/m^2 ...

"The total solar irradiance (TSI), or the so-called solar constant, is the integrated solar energy arriving at Earth. But it is not a constant. It changes by ~0.1% in an 11-year solar cycle. Prior to the measurements obtained by the SORCE, the TSIvalue was estimated at 1366 Wm-2. One of the major SORCE contributions was to establish a more accurate value at 1361 Wm-2, which leads to 340 W m-2 for the globally averaged solar input to Earth. The current TSI value from the TSIS-1 is 1361.6 ± 0.3 Wm-2 for the 2019 solar minimum." --- NASA --- "Solar Irradiance Science" --- Emphasis mine

 

[ding]

Are you seriously going through every thread to argue with me ... that's sad ...

No. I post in primarily two forums. If you don't want to hear from me, don't post in those two forums. And if you do, don't say stupid stuff. It's like a magnet for me.

 

[ding]

Your citation is from Leob 2009 ... not NASA ... now you're lying ...

C'mon, stupid, where did NASA come up 240 W/m^2 ...

"The total solar irradiance (TSI), or the so-called solar constant, is the integrated solar energy arriving at Earth. But it is not a constant. It changes by ~0.1% in an 11-year solar cycle. Prior to the measurements obtained by the SORCE, the TSIvalue was estimated at 1366 Wm-2. One of the major SORCE contributions was to establish a more accurate value at 1361 Wm-2, which leads to 340 W m-2 for the globally averaged solar input to Earth. The current TSI value from the TSIS-1 is 1361.6 ± 0.3 Wm-2 for the 2019 solar minimum." --- NASA --- "Solar Irradiance Science" --- Emphasis mine

I'm happy enough to do my calculations for any energy budget you would like to supply. Just tell me what average W/m^2 the earth's surface absorbs you would like me to use and what net warming in W/m^2 you would like me to use. Unless of course you don't believe the planet is warming at all. Then you would have to supply the net cooling in W/m^2.

Fair enough?

 

[ding]

ReinyDays

Satellites measured cooler daytime temperature above solar farms and no temperature differences above solar farms at night. What's your eplanation for this?

 

[ding]

One of the major SORCE contributions was to establish a more accurate value at 1361 Wm-2, which leads to 340 W m-2 for the globally averaged solar input to Earth.

Using 340 W/m^2 what do you believe the net warming is?

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm happy enough to do my calculations for any energy budget you would like to supply. Just tell me what average W/m^2 the earth's surface absorbs you would like me to use and what net warming in W/m^2 you would like me to use. Unless of course you don't believe the planet is warming at all. Then you would have to supply the net cooling in W/m^2.

Fair enough?

I'm using solar irradiation ... and I can come up with the same answers you are ... so I know exactly, with mathematical precision, where you're making mistakes ...

I'm not going to explore why Loeb 2009 is using terrestrial irradiation ... but solar panels receive solar radiation ... or 960 W/m^2 after applying average albedo to the Solar Constant ... so a square meter panel gains 960 joules of energy in one second ... here I stripped out the electrical energy, 200 joules in one second ... leaving behind only 760 joules of energy each second to become kinetic energy that's re-radiated back out towards space ... you said this would cause a local cooling effect ... and I agreed ... and that's a lot, might form a sheet vortex and the hypercanes that follow ... if you believe in that stuff ...

The problem is the albedo of a solar panel is closer to 2% ... so our solar panel receives 1,330 W/m^2 ... export 200 W/m^2 and we're left with 1,130 W/m^2 to be re-radiated back towards space ... hotter than the environment ...

The simple demonstration is touching a solar panel on a bright sunny day, when the panel is at full production ... is it cooler ... or is it hotter ... I can admit my mistake, and understand this world better, can you? ... c'mon now, admit solar panels are hot to the touch, that you made a mistake ... same mistake I made ...

Notice all your numbers are precisely one fourth mine ... I'm using square meters in cross section, you're using square meters in surface area ... we don't lay our panel flat to the ground, we angle them towards the Sun ... again, I'm not criticizing Loeb 2009, but neither of the papers you cited discuss solar panels ... you got your information screwed up somehow ...

T^4 = S ( 1 - a ) / 4 o e

Oh sorry ... algebra ... I take it you're immune? ...

 

[ding]

The problem is the albedo of a solar panel is closer to 2% ... so our solar panel receives 1,330 W/m^2 ... export 200 W/m^2 and we're left with 1,130 W/m^2 to be re-radiated back towards space ... hotter than the environment ...

And yet measured daytime temperatures were cooler above solar farms than the surrounding area.

And night time temperatures were unchanged.

These measured values take into account EVERYTHING.

My calculation is based upon the efficiency on solar panels in converting photons from the visible light spectrum. What do believe their efficiency is? I'm using the earth's accepted energy budget in my calculation. If you believe the efficiency of solar panels is different or the difference in the solar energy absorbed by the surface of the earth is different, then just do the calculations the same way I did.

 

[ding]

T^4 = S ( 1 - a ) / 4 o e

Oh sorry ... algebra ... I take it you're immune? ...

I'm not immune to algebra. Algabra isn't need in an energy balance calculation for the planet. What you are describing has nothing to do with that. You are quibbling over inputs. I'm saying put in any inputs you want and show the energy balance to change the planet from net warming to net cooling like I did. It's not that complicated. No algebra necessary.