What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

Leo123

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
17,961
Reaction score
11,100
Points
1,265
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.
Lower albedo is just less reflective and converts UV to heat. It does not 'capture' anything unless we are talking about the interior of a car where UVs are converted to longer waves that cannot escape the window glass and temperatures rise abnormally.
 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
97,840
Reaction score
14,477
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
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.
It's not my argument. It's been measured. There's a paper written on it.

 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
97,840
Reaction score
14,477
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
That 'paper' does not support your claims.
Sure it does. It's their claim.

1655947390951.png
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
23,726
Reaction score
7,467
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Sure it does. It's their claim.

View attachment 661090

While that is true, that is also the same drop in energy we get from any place where large scale photosynthesis is going on.
Photosynthesis captures about the same amount of solar energy as photovoltaic panels.

But neither of these are anywhere near to the scale of global warming.
That is because 80% of the solar energy hitting plants or photovoltaic cells is not absorbed by either plants or photovoltaic cells.
And most of the solar energy does not even hit plants or photovoltaic cells.
So then it is just CO2 in the upper atmosphere that throttles up or down, how much solar energy is radiated back out into space.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
77,834
Reaction score
21,740
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
by siphoning off solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet.

Why doesn't every watt "siphoned off" eventually warm the surface of the planet?
Explain why conservation of energy doesn't apply.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
77,834
Reaction score
21,740
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.

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

Not heating the surface at the solar farm isn't the same as never ever heating the surface anywhere.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
77,834
Reaction score
21,740
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Addressed in #918. Still waiting for you to make your case. Why was the solar farm 2C cooler?

If you want to make the other argument, do it.
Arguing that solar panels cool the planet is just wrong.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
77,834
Reaction score
21,740
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere. Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere.

Heat which was used later. Elsewhere. Which then heated the atmosphere.
More than the earlier cooling.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
77,834
Reaction score
21,740
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
That 'paper' does not support your claims.

Here's another one that doesn't support his claims......

Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that, though much smaller, is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas, according to a new study.

For this study, the team defined the heat island effect as the difference in ambient air temperature around the solar power plant compared to that of the surrounding wild desert landscape. Findings demonstrated that temperatures around a solar power plant were 5.4-7.2 °F (3-4 °C) warmer than nearby wildlands.


 

westwall

LET'S GO BRANDON!
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
80,114
Reaction score
37,389
Points
2,290
Location
Nevada
$18K today, OK, what was it yesterday? What will it be tomorrow?



More, and more again. You are choosing to ignore the front end cost which in most cases is so high that the alternative power sources fall apart long before they pay for themselves.

I put my system together 30 years ago, and I maintain it very carefully so it paid for itself over 10 years ago.

I didn't build it to save energy costs, I built it to HAVE energy when the grid went down, which, back when I built it, happened every year.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
97,840
Reaction score
14,477
Points
2,220
Location
Houston

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
97,840
Reaction score
14,477
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Pointing out your first stage thinking makes you angry.

Good times. :lol:
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
97,840
Reaction score
14,477
Points
2,220
Location
Houston

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
97,840
Reaction score
14,477
Points
2,220
Location
Houston

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
97,840
Reaction score
14,477
Points
2,220
Location
Houston

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
97,840
Reaction score
14,477
Points
2,220
Location
Houston

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
97,840
Reaction score
14,477
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Here's another one that doesn't support his claims......

Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that, though much smaller, is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas, according to a new study.

For this study, the team defined the heat island effect as the difference in ambient air temperature around the solar power plant compared to that of the surrounding wild desert landscape. Findings demonstrated that temperatures around a solar power plant were 5.4-7.2 °F (3-4 °C) warmer than nearby wildlands.


Which has been thoroughly debunked.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$115.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top