Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

[Old Rocks]

Gee i thought you were the wind and solar sage of the n=message board and yet you don't know what capacity factor is?

What is capacity factor and how do solar and wind energy compare? – Sunmetrix

The capacity factor is the ratio of energy generated over a time period (typically a year) divided by the installed capacity.

sunmetrix.com

if we install 10 solar panels rated at 250 watts each, we will have a capacity of 2500 watts, or 2.5 kW. However, determining the actual output from these panels is much more challenging

To illustrate how location impacts capacity factor, consider a 10 kW system installed in Phoenix (AZ) vs. Seattle (WA). With a Solar Score of 84, Phoenix has a very high solar energy potential. Using Sunmetrix Discover for Phoenix, we can see that this system would generate about 20,500 kWh of electricity during the year. If it were to run non-stop, 24/7 at peak capacity of 10 kW, it would have generated 24 x 365 x 10 = 87,600 kWh. Dividing 20,500 by 87,600 gives us a capacity factor of about 23%. With a Solar Score of 43, Seattle is an entirely different story. Here, a 10 kW system would generate about 14,000 kWh during the year. Consequently, the capacity factor of the solar energy system here is much lower than that of Phoenix at about 16%.

Whooeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I thought Mrs. Elektra was a dumb ass. Yes, solar only meets the rated wattage in direct sunlight. And when you are installing it, you install enough for your needs by calculating how much wattage you will get in a given day. So latitude and climate play a factor. Of course a 400 watt panel does not deliver 400 watts 24/7. That wattage allows you to calculate how much it will generate per day, and, by that, per year. And one more point. You don't need a railroad or pipeline to bring in fuel. It falls out of the sky and is free. And the are not destroying watersheds and aquifers to get that free fuel. However, the proof of the superiority of solar is that the utilities are adapting solar and wind, and shutting down coal plants purely on an economic basis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the planet.

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar panels.

Please, repeat the third grade. You missed some pretty basic physics.

 

[elektra]

Then do so, because your word is worthless, you are a proven liar.

right, we prove you dont know shit and you claim the opposite,

 

[elektra]

However, the proof of the superiority of solar is that the utilities are adapting solar and wind, and shutting down coal plants purely on an economic basis.

You are a proven liar Old Crock, where are your links, you have stated repeatedly that statements like the one you just made require links or it is all bullshit, so where are your links you lousy filthy liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

However, the proof of the superiority of solar is that the utilities are adapting solar and wind, and shutting down coal plants purely on an economic basis.

Obviously.
That's why power in Germany gets cheaper and cheaper........DURR

 

[myself]

Then tell me why do people use installed capacity instead of actual output.

And you're wrong. rated capacity and ACTUAL OUTPUT are 2 entirely different things.

So when you say that your little square of solar panels could power the entire country you don't know what your talking about.

Stop talking nonsense. The only thing that matters is how much electricity comes out of a solar panel in direct sunlight. Also, that square on the map is around 140 miles per side. Elon Musk says it could be done with a square only 100 miles per side. (Though obviously they wouldn't have to be all in one spot) He is a much more intelligent person than you are. So I will believe him over you. In a nanosecond. Earlier I asked you to stop talking nonsense. But I came up with a better idea. Stop leaving any replies in my thread at all.

 

[myself]

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the planet.

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar panels.

If they are on the surface of the earth, the sun is heating them. Next, with human caused global warming accelerating, I don't think you need to worry about a new ice age.

 

[ding]

If they are on the surface of the earth, the sun is heating them. Next, with human caused global warming accelerating, I don't think you need to worry about a new ice age.

Nope. Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.

We are in an ice age. It began 2.7 million years ago. We are in an interglacial cycle of the ice age.

 

[ding]

Please, repeat the third grade. You missed some pretty basic physics.

Nope. You are the one who doesn't understand this.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.

How much less does that electricity heat the Earth when it is used? 100% less?

 

[ding]

How much less does that electricity heat the Earth when it is used? 100% less?

Enough to be measured.

Impact of solar panels on global climate

This study considers how large-scale application of solar panels will affect climate. Electricity generation leads to regional cooling but this is countered by the power's use, affecting global circulation patterns with changes in regional rainfall.

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Giant desert solar farms might have unintended climate consequences | Trellis

Turning deserts into solar energy farms could raise temperatures across the globe and cause devastating droughts in the Amazon.

www.greenbiz.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.

How much less does that electricity heat the Earth when it is used? 100% less?

Enough to be measured.

Impact of solar panels on global climate

This study considers how large-scale application of solar panels will affect climate. Electricity generation leads to regional cooling but this is countered by the power's use, affecting global circulation patterns with changes in regional rainfall.

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Giant desert solar farms might have unintended climate consequences | Trellis

Turning deserts into solar energy farms could raise temperatures across the globe and cause devastating droughts in the Amazon.

www.greenbiz.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/

Thanks for the links.....

First link.....We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect.

Second link.....While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15 percent) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate.

Third link.....In urban areas, the effects were a little different. In the first simulation, the model predicted a very small amount of cooling, with temperature falling approximately 0.26 degrees Celsius. In the second simulation, the one in which global thermostat regulation is significantly increased, the large amount of power consumed actually produced an urban heat island effect, in which human energy use releases heat into the environment and causes the regional temperature to warm up. In this scenario, the warming from the heat island effect essentially compensated for the cooling caused by the solar panels.


They don't help your claim. Try again?

 

[ding]

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.

How much less does that electricity heat the Earth when it is used? 100% less?




Thanks for the links.....

First link.....We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect.

Second link.....While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15 percent) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate.

Third link.....In urban areas, the effects were a little different. In the first simulation, the model predicted a very small amount of cooling, with temperature falling approximately 0.26 degrees Celsius. In the second simulation, the one in which global thermostat regulation is significantly increased, the large amount of power consumed actually produced an urban heat island effect, in which human energy use releases heat into the environment and causes the regional temperature to warm up. In this scenario, the warming from the heat island effect essentially compensated for the cooling caused by the solar panels.


They don't help your claim. Try again?

That's an assumption they are making because they are biased. There's no evidence or discussion on it.

They are basically saying that all electrical usage will warm the earth but that isn't in anyone's planetary heat budget.

But if you want to fall for it that's on you.

 

[ding]

all other energy sources that are used to generate electricity do not capture solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet. So from a budget standpoint that supposed energy conservation is already added to the system without reducing solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet. Secondly, whatever energy you might think is being conserved through the use of electricity will not heat the surface of the planet. And lastly, much of the energy that you believe is conserved is being conserved by doing mechanical work (kinetic or potential) and will not heat the surface of the earth.

 

[myself]

Nope. Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.

We are in an ice age. It began 2.7 million years ago. We are in an interglacial cycle of the ice age.

In some other post, somebody was telling me that solar panels actually help create global warming. Because sitting in the sun, they heat up. Though I still don't think they heat them up any more than they heat the ground. I have known times where I was walking on the beach and the sand was so hot it was difficult to walk on. Next, we are in a heating age. Not an ice age. And the activities of humans is responsible for much of that heating.

 

[ding]

In some other post, somebody was telling me that solar panels actually help create global warming. Because sitting in the sun, they heat up. Though I still don't think they heat them up any more than they heat the ground. I have known times where I was walking on the beach and the sand was so hot it was difficult to walk on. Next, we are in a heating age. Not an ice age. And the activities of humans is responsible for much of that heating.

They were wrong. ANY solar radiation that is converted into energy is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the earth. It's called conservation of energy and is the first law of thermodynamics.

We are in an interglacial cycle. Our present temperature is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles. Everything is normal. You are mistaking the natural variations of the earth's climate during an interglacial cycle with CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's an assumption they are making because they are biased. There's no evidence or discussion on it.

They are basically saying that all electrical usage will warm the earth but that isn't in anyone's planetary heat budget.

But if you want to fall for it that's on you.

That's an assumption they are making because they are biased.

You gave me three biased links that disagree with your claim?

They are basically saying that all electrical usage will warm the earth

Only because it does.

But if you want to fall for it that's on you.

Anytime you want to post links that actually help your claim...........

 

[ding]

That's an assumption they are making because they are biased.

You gave me three biased links that disagree with your claim?

They are basically saying that all electrical usage will warm the earth

Only because it does.

But if you want to fall for it that's on you.

Anytime you want to post links that actually help your claim...........

Same study. Same bias. I can't help you if you don't understand the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And lastly, much of the energy that you believe is conserved is being conserved by doing mechanical work (kinetic or potential) and will not heat the surface of the earth.

You have some examples where work won't heat the earth?

 

[ding]

You have some examples where work won't heat the earth?

Just so we are clear here... you believe our current electric usage heats the earth, right?