Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

[ding]

There's no back radiation from it.

No back radiation from your air conditioner warming your neighborhood?
If you say so. How does that help your claim?

Why won't you admit that you believe ALL electricity that is used heats the planet?

Entropy increases. You're an engineer, you should understand.

So in the case where all electricity is generated from solar, that case would have a net reduction in the earth's heat budget.

If only you had posted 3 sources that agreed with your claim.
I mean, come on, you have to see the humor in the fact that they all disagreed with you.

My claim is that solar panels will have a cooling effect on the planet because any solar radiation which is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the planet. It's already been proven through measurement.

I understand entropy. I don't believe you do.

My claim is self evident. We are generating electricity today from non-solar sources. Those sources do not capture solar radiation. So if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My claim is that solar panels will have a cooling effect on the planet because any solar radiation which is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the planet. It's already been proven through measurement.

I understand entropy. I don't believe you do.

My claim is self evident. We are generating electricity today from non-solar sources. Those sources do not capture solar radiation. So if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.

My claim is that solar panels will have a cooling effect on the planet because any solar radiation which is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the planet. It's already been proven through measurement.

At best, net, as 2 of your 3 sources said, it's a wash.

I understand entropy. I don't believe you do.

In that case, you should be able to list your household electrical uses that
don't heat up your surroundings. There must be dozens you could list, as an engineer.
Explain further how your air conditioning system doesn't heat your surroundings.

if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.

Capture? How much of this captured solar radiation ends up as heat?

 

[ding]

My claim is that solar panels will have a cooling effect on the planet because any solar radiation which is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the planet. It's already been proven through measurement.

At best, net, as 2 of your 3 sources said, it's a wash.

I understand entropy. I don't believe you do.

In that case, you should be able to list your household electrical uses that
don't heat up your surroundings. There must be dozens you could list, as an engineer.
Explain further how your air conditioning system doesn't heat your surroundings.

if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.

Capture? How much of this captured solar radiation ends up as heat?

What part of all kinetic and potential energy devices that use electricity don't you understand?

Besides aren't all devices the same regardless of whether or not you are using an energy source that converts solar radiation into electricity and one that doesn't? Isn't that the same in both cases? Are you so dense to see the only difference between the two scenarios is one absorbs solar radiation and the other doesn't? This is really basic stuff.

 

[myself]

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.

How much can you be wrong. Unfortunately, I think I'm going to find out. For any solar radiation that is converted into electricity, that electricity will in turn heat something else. Ever put your hand on an electric motor that has been running a while? They can get pretty hot. Ever run an electric heater that has an extension connected to it? That extension chord can get pretty hot. Some apartment places don't like you using them. Because they could cause a fire. Next, you are hallucinating. Have none of the graphs showing human caused global warming meant anything to you? Temperatures are rising, rapidly. It is the activities of humans that is to blame.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What part of all kinetic and potential energy devices that use electricity don't you understand?

Besides aren't all devices the same regardless of whether or not you are using an energy source that converts solar radiation into electricity and one that doesn't? Isn't that the same in both cases? Are you so dense to see the only difference between the two scenarios is one absorbs solar radiation and the other doesn't? This is really basic stuff.

What part of all kinetic and potential energy devices that use electricity don't you understand?

The part where you think they don't emit heat.

Tell me, from an engineering viewpoint, how your air conditioner uses electricity and
releases no heat....like you claimed before.

 

[myself]

How much power is needed in MW to run the entire country?

In 2020 we produced about 4000 KW hours of electricity

To get all that from solar we would have to install enough solar panels to produce more than 16000 KW hours.

So how much of that will your little solar array in AZ produce and how are you going to scale that up to meet the expeonentially increased demand if we move to a 100% fossil fuel free electric society?

Will you ever quit with your denier nonsense? Solar panels work. That's the only thing that matters. You want me to run around and look up how much energy the U.S. uses at any particular point? And then translate that into how many solar panels would be needed? Take your crap, make a fudgesicle out of it and lick it. The experts say it can be done. And what area of solar panels it would take. That's good enough for me.

 

[myself]

Large solar power grids, currently, is a pipe dream. Ridiculously unrealistic.
What IS realistic, is each individual home has it's own system.
Currently it is far too expensive with high cost to maintain. But that would lower significantly if mass produced.

With a large solar grid like one in the picture I will give you would be bad for one main reason. It could be cloudy in that area of the country. Solar panels would have to be spread all around. With our power grid distributing power from areas where there is lots of sun to those where it may be cloudy. They don't have to be in the desert. Along paved roads would be a good place. (Along with the rooftops of course) Because there is enough pavement on the paved roads in the U.S. to cover the state of West Virginia in pavement.

I have to admit that I don't know exactly how well solar panels work. You would have to ask somebody who has been using them for decades. Such as Ed Begley Jr. But the real point of all this is that human caused global warming is real. Something must be done about it. As of about 40 years ago. Converting to completely solar wouldn't be easy. It may not be cheap. But it is necessary.

 

[ding]

What part of all kinetic and potential energy devices that use electricity don't you understand?

The part where you think they don't emit heat.

Tell me, from an engineering viewpoint, how your air conditioner uses electricity and
releases no heat....like you claimed before.

That's kinetic energy. The only losses are due to thermodynamic processes not being 100% efficient. The lion share of energy is used to run a compressor. The rest is lost as heat. Not the heat exchanged from the room but the heat lost in the motor and compressor which is probably on the order of 10% of the total energy consumed. But whether or not the energy source is solar or fossil fuels the small amount of heat lost is the same in both cases. This means that the scenario that converted solar radiation into energy would reduce the solar radiation received by the earth's surface compared to the no solar panel scenario.

 

[ding]

How much can you be wrong. Unfortunately, I think I'm going to find out. For any solar radiation that is converted into electricity, that electricity will in turn heat something else. Ever put your hand on an electric motor that has been running a while? They can get pretty hot. Ever run an electric heater that has an extension connected to it? That extension chord can get pretty hot. Some apartment places don't like you using them. Because they could cause a fire. Next, you are hallucinating. Have none of the graphs showing human caused global warming meant anything to you? Temperatures are rising, rapidly. It is the activities of humans that is to blame.

Wrong. Electricity used for doing kinetic and potential energy work do not produce heat other than what is lost due to friction. The majority (90% or so) is converted into kinetic energy or potential energy. But regardless of the energy that you think is lost that same energy would have been lost regardless of the source of electricity, So the scenario which uses solar will have a cooling effect relative to the scenario using fossil fuels. In other words whatever energy that is returned to the atmosphere (which isn't heating the earth's surface) can be ignored because it is the same on both cases. You guys would have never passed an engineering class.

 

[ding]

How much can you be wrong. Unfortunately, I think I'm going to find out. For any solar radiation that is converted into electricity, that electricity will in turn heat something else. Ever put your hand on an electric motor that has been running a while? They can get pretty hot. Ever run an electric heater that has an extension connected to it? That extension chord can get pretty hot. Some apartment places don't like you using them. Because they could cause a fire. Next, you are hallucinating. Have none of the graphs showing human caused global warming meant anything to you? Temperatures are rising, rapidly. It is the activities of humans that is to blame.

We are still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles. The warming you are seeing is due to natural variations in the sun not CO2.

There's even a peer reviewed paper on it. See?

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[ding]

I think you people need to accept the fact that the earth has been in an ice age for the last 2.7 million years. Man won't be changing that.

 

[ding]

I don't understand why people want the planet to be colder when we are in the middle of an ice age. Makes no sense at all.

 

[ding]

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The lion share of energy is used to run a compressor. The rest is lost as heat.

Your air conditioner loses energy as heat?

Sounds like the solar panel cools the area it's in and the electricity heats
the area your air conditioner is in.

How is that cooling the Earth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

You still have no sources that back up your claim?

I mean besides your 3 sources that disagreed with your claim.....

 

[ding]

Your air conditioner loses energy as heat?

Sounds like the solar panel cools the area it's in and the electricity heats
the area your air conditioner is in.

How is that cooling the Earth?

Any solar radiation that is used to produce energy is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. If you reduce the solar radiation the planet receives it will result in a net cooling effect.

 

[ding]

You still have no sources that back up your claim?

I mean besides your 3 sources that disagreed with your claim.....

That seems like a standard response of the global warming crowd but the conservation of energy requires any solar radiation that is converted into electricity will result in less solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet. It's a simple conservation of energy balance.

 

[ding]

It's probably worth repeating for the 12th time.... We are generating electricity today from non-solar sources. Those sources do not capture solar radiation. So if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.

 

[ding]

You still have no sources that back up your claim?

I mean besides your 3 sources that disagreed with your claim.....

By that logic I couldn't use IPCC's data to reach a different conclusion than the IPCC yet I do that too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That seems like a standard response of the global warming crowd but the conservation of energy requires any solar radiation that is converted into electricity will result in less solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet. It's a simple conservation of energy balance.

That seems like a standard response of the global warming crowd

To point out that your sources didn't back your claim? LOL!

the conservation of energy requires any solar radiation that is converted into electricity will result in less solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet.

Right. Less heat from less sunlight hitting the surface, more heat from the electricity generated.
At best, nets out. At worst, the darker solar panels absorb more sunlight.