Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

[Toddsterpatriot]

The incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms says otherwise.

Shipping heat to the city doesn't change 950 > 850

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms says otherwise.

Ignoring the added heat in the city doesn't say otherwise.

 

[ding]

Your original claim was, electricity doesn't heat the planet.

Is that still your claim?

My claim was... Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

Shipping heat to the city doesn't change 950 > 850

Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

Ignoring the added heat in the city doesn't say otherwise.

No waste heat is being added. Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

 

[ding]

Only because it's heating the surface in the city.

Now about that math.........

Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My claim was... Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

My claim was... Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar.

Your original claim didn't mention waste heat, from solar or fossil fuels.
Or that solar panels have a lower albedo.

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

Why do you keep repeating this error?
The solar energy converted to electricity heats the planet just as much as
it heats the surface without a panel.

 

[ding]

Why do you keep repeating this error?
The solar energy converted to electricity heats the planet just as much as
it heats the surface without a panel.

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the planet. Proof of this can be found by the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures that were MEASURED above six solar farms.

Your original claim didn't mention waste heat, from solar or fossil fuels.
Or that solar panels have a lower albedo.

Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the planet. Proof of this can be found by the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures that were MEASURED above six solar farms.

Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the planet.

It warms the planet at the point of use. You know, conservation of energy. I can post a link.

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

The solar radiation warming the planet is higher with solar. 950>850

 

[ding]

It warms the planet at the point of use. You know, conservation of energy. I can post a link.

The incrementally COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms proves that the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet is not the same when solar panels are present because solar panels are converting solar radiation into electricity during the DAYTIME which is when solar panels convert solar radiation into electricity which is consistent with the conservation of energy. Any solar radiation converted into electricity cannot generate electricity AND warm the surface of the planet without violating the law of conservation.

The solar radiation warming the planet is higher with solar. 950>850

Incorrect. COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms says otherwise. As for waste heat - which seems to be what you are relying upon - waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The incrementally COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms proves that the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet is not the same when solar panels are present because solar panels are converting solar radiation into electricity during the DAYTIME which is when solar panels convert solar radiation into electricity which is consistent with the conservation of energy. Any solar radiation converted into electricity cannot generate electricity AND warm the surface of the planet without violating the law of conservation.


Incorrect. COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms says otherwise. As for waste heat - which seems to be what you are relying upon - waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

Any solar radiation converted into electricity cannot generate electricity AND warm the surface of the planet without violating the law of conservation.

When did electricity stop heating the planet?

 

[ding]

Any solar radiation converted into electricity cannot generate electricity AND warm the surface of the planet without violating the law of conservation.

When did electricity stop heating the planet?

Converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.

Electricity didn't stop heating the planet.

 

[ding]

Electricity didn't stop heating the planet.

18 tW of continuous heat but relative to fossil fuels solar panels will cause a net cooling effect because solar effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. According to the law of conservation solar radiation cannot heat the surface of the planet and be converted into electricity.

Proof that solar power effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet can be found in the incrementally COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms.

 

[ding]

Toddsterpatriot I think your problem in understanding this concept stems from your reluctance to agree that it's logical that solar farms would reduce the heat above solar farms during the daytime because solar is converting heat into electricity during the daytime. You keep wanting to harp on the FLoT on the back-end (electricity use) but refuse to accept the FLoT on the front end (electricity generation).

It would be so much easier if you would just accept that solar farms cause a cooling effect during daytime hours as a working fact of science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

18 tW of continuous heat but relative to fossil fuels solar panels will cause a net cooling effect because solar effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. According to the law of conservation solar radiation cannot heat the surface of the planet and be converted into electricity.

Proof that solar power effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet can be found in the incrementally COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms.

According to the law of conservation solar radiation cannot heat the surface of the planet and be converted into electricity.

But it doesn't say that. And you have the order wrong.
First, the radiation is converted into electricity, then, when the electricity is used, it produces heat.

solar power effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet

At the panel. The heat is moved to point of use.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot I think your problem in understanding this concept stems from your reluctance to agree that it's logical that solar farms would reduce the heat above solar farms during the daytime because solar is converting heat into electricity during the daytime. You keep wanting to harp on the FLoT on the back-end (electricity use) but refuse to accept the FLoT on the front end (electricity generation).

It would be so much easier if you would just accept that solar farms cause a cooling effect during daytime hours as a working fact of science.

I think your problem in understanding this concept stems from your reluctance to agree that it's logical that solar farms would reduce the heat above solar farms during the daytime because solar is converting heat into electricity during the daytime.

I already explained that 760 is less than 850. Did you miss that math?

Also, it's NOT converting heat into electricity.

 

[ding]

But it doesn't say that. And you have the order wrong.
First, the radiation is converted into electricity, then, when the electricity is used, it produces heat.

Whatever energy that was converted into electricity can't also have been used to heat the surface of the planet. Right?

 

[ding]

At the panel. The heat is moved to point of use.

Let's do this one step at a time.

Whatever energy that was converted into electricity can't also have been used to heat the surface of the planet. Right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whatever energy that was converted into electricity can't also have been used to heat the surface of the planet. Right?

When I use electricity, heat is produced.

Happens to you as well, right?