Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is relative to other generating sources that don't convert solar radiation (heat) into electricity. You know... the sources solar is replacing.

So then argue that. Because solar hasn't replaced anything.
Solar doesn't net cool the planet. Obviously.
You should say, burning fossil fuels warms the planet and we need that warming to prevent the
glaciers from advancing.

It would sound less stupid than your current claim.

 

[ding]

Do you really believe moving energy from the panel to my house results in less energy?

I think you should make your case. I already explained this in post #918. It's an incremental analysis. Waste heat is exactly the same no matter the generating source but only solar reduces incoming solar radiation.

 

[ding]

So then argue that. Because solar hasn't replaced anything.
Solar doesn't net cool the planet. Obviously.
You should say, burning fossil fuels warms the planet and we need that warming to prevent the
glaciers from advancing.

It would sound less stupid than your current claim.

My argument is clear. It's your argument that no one knows. You haven't made a case for anything.

 

[Flash]

There are a number of us who don't take anything CC says at face value.

You know what gets me?

Theses wackos saying that we should all have L-I vehicles and charge them with solar power.

Lets take CC's 3KW solar system.

There are different Tesla battery packs. To charge them takes anywhere from 80-120 KWh.

So how long is going take him to do a charge on a 100KWh battery pack with a 3KW input?

A hellva long time and he better not be using the solar power for anything else in the meantime or if the sun goes behind a cloud or heaven forbid it gets dark.

 

[ding]

You can't look at half the equation....without me laughing at you.

Says the guy who can't actually state what he believes or why he believes it.

Here's an example of what that might look like.

1. Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
2. Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.
3. The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show your math. Make your case. Try actually saying something for once. Prove to us how all that electricity generated from the sun had no other consequences.

Show your math. Make your case.

Your diagram shows about 12% of the solar energy hitting the surface gets reflected.
186.2 hits,163.3 absorbed, 22.9 reflected.
If a solar panel has an albedo of 0.04, 4% is reflected, instead of 12%.
So now 7.45 is reflected.

Now you can use your vast knowledge of conservation of energy to explain how an extra
15.45 watts per square meter results in net cooling. Go!!!

 

[ding]

Show your math. Make your case.

Your diagram shows about 12% of the solar energy hitting the surface gets reflected.
186.2 hits,163.3 absorbed, 22.9 reflected.
If a solar panel has an albedo of 0.04, 4% is reflected, instead of 12%.
So now 7.45 is reflected.

Now you can use your vast knowledge of conservation of energy to explain how an extra
15.45 watts per square meter results in net cooling. Go!!!

Still not getting your point. What's your point? Why were solar farms cooler?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.

That's true.
Because the solar panels add more. WIth their lower albedo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think you should make your case. I already explained this in post #918. It's an incremental analysis. Waste heat is exactly the same no matter the generating source but only solar reduces incoming solar radiation.

If you want to argue solar warms less than coal, do that.

If you want to argue solar cools, I'll continue laughing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

but only solar reduces incoming solar radiation.

And for the 100th time, solar does not reduce incoming solar radiation.
Solar panels absorb more (reflects less) of the incoming solar and then moves (that larger number)
around the surface.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Says the guy who can't actually state what he believes or why he believes it.

Here's an example of what that might look like.

1. Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
2. Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.
3. The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.

1. Satellite didn't measure upwards long wave radiation over the city using the electricity before and after solar panels were installed, so they don't prove that solar panels net cool the planet.

 

[ding]

That's true.
Because the solar panels add more. WIth their lower albedo.

Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity. Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere. Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere.

Again, why were the solar farms 2C cooler during the day?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still not getting your point. What's your point? Why were solar farms cooler?

Because they moved some heat to the city. As your own source said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity. Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere. Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere.

Again, why were the solar farms 2C cooler during the day?

Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity. Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere.

The lower albedo means the heat did not bounce back into space.

Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere.

Yes. It heated the city, later.

 

[ding]

If you want to argue solar warms less than coal, do that.

If you want to argue solar cools, I'll continue laughing.

Of course solar will result in a net cooling. It's replacing fossil fuels which don't generate their electricity by siphoning off solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet.

 

[ding]

And for the 100th time, solar does not reduce incoming solar radiation.
Solar panels absorb more (reflects less) of the incoming solar and then moves (that larger number)
around the surface.

Effectively it does. Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that did not heat the surface of the planet. This is common freaking sense.

 

[ding]

1. Satellite didn't measure upwards long wave radiation over the city using the electricity before and after solar panels were installed, so they don't prove that solar panels net cool the planet.

That's the dumbest thing you have written yet. It's like you aren't even trying. You should have just written aliens.

 

[ding]

Because they moved some heat to the city. As your own source said.

Addressed in #918. Still waiting for you to make your case. Why was the solar farm 2C cooler?

 

[ding]

Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity. Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere.

Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere.

Yes, I agree. Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity. Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere. Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere. No matter what the source of electrical generation.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course solar will result in a net cooling. It's replacing fossil fuels which don't generate their electricity by siphoning off solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet.

Your argument is over stating the energy absorption of solar cells, and missing the main point of global warming.

The amount of solar energy converted to electricity by solar cells is very small, about 20%.
So solar cells do not do much for global cooling.
And the earth would be cooled off much more if the solar radiation simply left the earth, by reflection or radiation.

Plants are about the same efficiency as far as solar energy absorption, but plants cool the earth much more than solar panels.
That is because plants absorb CO2, and CO2 is the man moderator for whether the earth cools or warms.
Why?
Because the vast majority of the solar energy that hits the earth, has to leave, or else the earth would be like Venus, with the surface the temperature of molten lead.
And the % of solar heat retained depend on the CO2 concentration at the very outer layer of the boundary to space, because at that layer, CO2 converts photonic radiation into vibratory heat. And vibratory heat can not leave the Earth. It can not conduct or convect into space. Only photonic radiation can.
Why only CO2? Because other greenhouse gases, like water vapor, condense out at much lower altitudes, leaving the job to CO2 alone.

So normally plants regulate the Earth's temperature, by absorbing or releasing CO2.