If you can’t figure out that making money and generating profits are the same thing, then I’m not interested in any answer you could provide.What do you need to know about your 2 totally different questions?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you can’t figure out that making money and generating profits are the same thing, then I’m not interested in any answer you could provide.What do you need to know about your 2 totally different questions?
All electricity that is converted into kinetic energy and potential energy.
You are funny.What percentage does not get converted into heat? Post a study or a link.
If you can’t figure out that making money and generating profits are the same thing, then I’m not interested in any answer you could provide.
That’s nice.If you can't see that the first question didn't mention money or profit, you
are drinking too much.
You are funny.
Again…. A study was conducted at six solar farms comparing the infrared radiation before and after PV cells were installed. The study found that infrared radiation was less after PV panels were installed. The study found that the incremental cooling occurred during daytime hours when the PV cells were generating electricity. The study found that nighttime temperatures were similar. The study concluded that the cause of the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures was because solar radiation was being converted into electricity.Not as funny as your FLoT denying claims.
But much of the heat that falls on the earth's surface is radiated back into the atmosphere, thus heating the 'surrounding air'. Also, much of the light/heat that falls onto the collectors is also radiated back into the atmosphere. The upside is that solar energy doesn't produce co2.A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do which strikes the surface of the planet. Waste heat from electricity usage radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.
Correct but converting solar radiation into electricity reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet and reduces the back radiation you are talking about. In fact it was the reduced back radiation the satellites measured at six solar farms which led to their conclusion that converting photons into electricity caused the incremental cooling effect at six solar farms.But much of the heat that falls on the earth's surface is radiated back into the atmosphere, thus heating the 'surrounding air'.
I don’t believe CO2 is the problem some people think it is.The upside is that solar energy doesn't produce co2.
That's nice.I don’t believe CO2 is the problem some people think it is.
SometimesThat's nice.
Looks like we are headed/Already there in some states (and increasing) with No more nuclear.abu afak: 50-80% looks very possible to me.
Toddster: Only if we have 50% to 80% nuclear.
Looks like we are headed/Already there in some states (and increasing) with No more nuclear.
`
That's odd because we Haven't seen it spread to the big percent Wind states mentioned recently (Iowa, South Dakota, Oklahoma, etc,) as they've approached and gone over 50% Wind!Without more nuclear and natural gas, we'll see California's rolling blackouts
spreading to more states.
The suggetson/challenge was:
As much as the tax payer would like to subsidize , only to find they're holding the bag on a sisyphean goal that wont really do what they're being told it will"You are welcome to discuss to what degree/percent you think renewables will be viable.
I opted for well written commentary , which you've played the 'shoot the messenger' card against.You didn't say a G-D word.
Do you believe published climate science and the assessment reports of the IPCC to be a "clown show"?As much as the tax payer would like to subsidize , only to find they're holding the bag on a sisyphean goal that wont really do what they're being told it will
I opted for well written commentary , which you've played the 'shoot the messenger' card against.
But if you want MY opinion , Big Green is globalism cloaked in the guise of salvation.
There is no issue that comes close to the mis-info , propaganda , collusion or Congressional clown show
Epic disaster indeed......
~S~