Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

[Leo123]

I don't have a problem with fish. I have a problem with envirowhackos who want to rip out perfectly good hydroelectric dams that have fish ladders because they "feel" that will improve fish populations. That is illogical and a knee jerk reaction. Fish hatcheries have been augmenting fish populations for a hundred years. In addition, these dams provide irrigation for crops and navigable waters for delivery of goods not to mention the recreation and flood control that they provide.

I remember when a certain frog was endangered. You had environmentalists marching through the ponds, streams and creeks in their rubber boots basically ruining the frog's environment as they looked for the frog.

 

[Concerned American]

No, the energy is free. You buy coal and natural gas, you don't buy sunlight. Every type of powerplant requires constant maintenance and there is the cost of the pollution too.

Grand Coulee dam has been providing non-polluting power to 11 western states for over 80 years and paid back more than what it has cost in just electrical generation and that is not even the dam's mission which is irrigation. In addition, it provides flood control and allows for a controlled flow for navigation. I would say, that is truly FREE.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, and other energy sources (such as petroleum, nat gas) are more easily stored and have more energy potential.

Moving the goalposts? Irrelevant since you're wrong. Electricity can be used to create natural gas, separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, pump water into a reservoir for later hydroelectric generation, etc.

 

[ding]

It means just what is says, there are cooler temperatures being emitted UPWARD. The heat from long wave radiation is therefore heating the solar array while shading the ground. That doesn't seem to be any kind of significant cooling of the Earth's surface. Just look at the OP's map. If that is correct, solar panel limitation of upward long waves would be negligible.

That is not the conclusion of the authors nor common sense nor the FLoT. The conclusion of the authors is that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that doesn't heat the surface of the planet and that's why daytime temperatures are cooler than before the solar farms were installed.

 

[Leo123]

No, the energy is free. You buy coal and natural gas, you don't buy sunlight. Every type of powerplant requires constant maintenance and there is the cost of the pollution too.

I would say the Sun is there in the sky but, you need technology to harness and use it. Petroleum is just sitting there in the ground, you need technology to harness and use it as well but, you don't need banks of batteries to store it.

 

[westwall]

No, the energy is free. You buy coal and natural gas, you don't buy sunlight. Every type of powerplant requires constant maintenance and there is the cost of the pollution too.

You have to buy the panel that converts the photons into electrical current. You have to buy the converter that turns the electricity into a useable mode, and you have to buy the control panel that runs it all. Full up cost for a system that will run your average house, DURING THE DAY, is 18,000 dollars. More if you want to actually read at night.

 

[Leo123]

Moving the goalposts? Irrelevant since you're wrong. Electricity can be used to create natural gas, separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, pump water into a reservoir for later hydroelectric generation, etc.

Hydrogen is not a natural gas. Like electricity, hydrogen needs infrastructure to be a viable energy source. Right now, the world runs on petroleum and the infrastructure is in place. This woulda, shoulda, coulda, 'free energy' is nothing but a load of crap. We are not remotely ready to completely change our main source of energy in the world.

 

[Leo123]

You have to buy the panel that converts the photons into electrical current. You have to buy the converter that turns the electricity into a useable mode, and you have to buy the control panel that runs it all. Full up cost for a system that will run your average house, DURING THE DAY, is 18,000 dollars. More if you want to actually read at night.

Also, there is no way you're going to add 30 or 40 kw to match grid capability. You'd have to have a huge solar array to do that.

 

[ding]

It means just what is says, there are cooler temperatures being emitted UPWARD.

Incorrect. It means that less heat is being radiated upward by the earth after solar panels were installed compared to before solar panels were installed. The reason less heat is being radiated upward by the earth after solar panels were installed compared to before solar panels were installed is because the solar panels converted heat that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity. It's literally due to the conservation of energy.

 

[Concerned American]

As emergency hurricane preparedness I have a 2.3KW generator. That will run my refrigerator, a small efficent 5K BTU emergency AC window unit for the bedroom and a few lights. It will not run the major appliances like the washer, stove, dryer, central air or any kind of heat. It is strain just to run the microwave by itself.

My home is 3K sq. ft. and my emergency generator is 22KW. It keeps my home running as if the power was still on. Multiple refrigerators, a freezer, microwave, electric stove and oven, microwave, DW, W & D, electric water heater lights and a 3-station split heat/AC system.
My neighbor has a professionally installed solar system with at least 200 sq ft of solar collection and they are constantly complaining that they are depleting their batteries to run a 1800 sq. ft. home in the winter time in eastern WA. Solar is not worth the headaches even discounting the initial costs and the once a decade replacement of equipment.

 

[Leo123]

Incorrect. It means that less heat is being radiated upward by the earth after solar panels were installed compared to before solar panels were installed. The reason less heat is being radiated upward by the earth after solar panels were installed compared to before solar panels were installed is because the solar panels converted heat that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity. It's literally due to the conservation of energy.

Long wave radiation does not produce electricity. I believe I already told you that.

 

[westwall]

Also, there is no way you're going to add 30 or 40 kw to match grid capability. You'd have to have a huge solar array to do that.

Exactly. I have a solar system. It is useful, but with no grid we are at 15% capability.

 

[Leo123]

My home is 3K sq. ft. and my emergency generator is 22KW. It keeps my home running as if the power was still on. Multiple refrigerators, a freezer, microwave, electric stove and oven, microwave, DW, W & D, electric water heater lights and a 3-station split heat/AC system.
My neighbor has a professionally installed solar system with at least 200 sq ft of solar collection and they are constantly complaining that they are depleting their batteries to run a 1800 sq. ft. home in the winter time in eastern WA. Solar is not worth the headaches even discounting the initial costs and the once a decade replacement of equipment.

I don't believe you can run all that at once though. That being said, except for the electric dryer, I can run most of my home on my 6kw. An electric dryer can take 1.5kw to 5kw all by itself.

 

[ding]

The heat from long wave radiation is therefore heating the solar array while shading the ground.

Incorrect. The upward long wave radiation - which is a fancy way of saying heat - is radiated from the earth into the atmosphere but since some of the solar radiation (heat) from the sun was converted into electricity the earth didn't absorb as much heat as it would have if no solar panels had been installed and that's why the upward long wave radiation (or heat) radiated from the earth after installing solar panels is less than the upward long wave radiation (or heat) radiated from the earth before solar panels were installed.

 

[ding]

That doesn't seem to be any kind of significant cooling of the Earth's surface.

That all depends entirely upon how widespread solar is used. It's just math.

 

[ding]

We need nuclear. Fusion would be great but fission for now.

I agree. See? I'm not a monster.

 

[Leo123]

Incorrect. The upward long wave radiation - which is a fancy way of saying heat - is radiated from the earth into the atmosphere but since some of the solar radiation (heat) from the sun was converted into electricity the earth didn't absorb as much heat as it would have if no solar panels had been installed and that's why the upward long wave radiation (or heat) radiated from the earth after installing solar panels is less than the upward long wave radiation (or heat) radiated from the earth before solar panels were installed.

But I just told you long wave radiation does not produce electricity and yellow and red radiation is less effective. So, not all the spectrum is producing electricity. That was my point and you ignored it twice now.

 

[ding]

No, it isn't. I just laid out the costs. Add to that the fact that you have to constantly clean the panels and you have a constant maintenance cost to fund as well.

I'm actually surprised how long their life span has been.

 

[ding]

But I just told you long wave radiation does not produce electricity and yellow and red radiation is less effective. So, not all the spectrum is producing electricity. That was my point and you ignored it twice now.

You are lost in this conversation. You are arguing semantics. Do you really believe you can capture the energy from the sun without it having any effect whatsoever? Do you even First Law of Thermodynamics?

 

[Leo123]

I'm actually surprised how long their life span has been.

Yes, solar panels do have a long life span however they are constantly putting out less power. Sooner or later they will need to be changed out. Preferably technology will make them more efficient though.