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!

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
The claim has always and will always be... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms. Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.

The claim has always and will always be... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat.

That wasn't your claim here.......

 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
For solar farm daytime temperatures to be incrementally cooler the net albedo of the solar panels (after subtracting the solar radiation converted to electricity) must be effectively higher than bare earth, not lower.

Net albedo? Is that like your heat powered solar panels (something you made up)?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
99,618
Reaction score
15,152
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
The claim has always and will always be... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat.

That wasn't your claim here.......

I've already addressed this in post #1151. Here it is again.

I was discussing the front end (electricity generation). I wasn't discussing the back end (electricity usage). Energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity. Energy is conserved on the back end (electricity usage) through waste heat that is the exact same for the fossil fuel case and the solar power case. But because energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity converting from fossil fuels to solar will reduce the effective solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by the amount of solar radiation that was converted into electricity thus satisfying the conservation of energy.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Incorrect. Your numbers are made up. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.

Incorrect. Your numbers are made up.

If you can find some data on solar panels with a higher albedo than bare soil, I'd love to see it.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
I'm saying... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.

I'm saying... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat.

Yes, I see your new claim.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
99,618
Reaction score
15,152
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Net albedo? Is that like your heat powered solar panels (something you made up)?
You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which does not warm the surface of the planet. I even explained it... the net albedo of the solar panels (after subtracting the solar radiation converted to electricity)
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
I've already addressed this in post #1151. Here it is again.

I was discussing the front end (electricity generation). I wasn't discussing the back end (electricity usage). Energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity. Energy is conserved on the back end (electricity usage) through waste heat that is the exact same for the fossil fuel case and the solar power case. But because energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity converting from fossil fuels to solar will reduce the effective solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by the amount of solar radiation that was converted into electricity thus satisfying the conservation of energy.

I've already addressed this in post #1151.

Yes, I see your new claim in post #1151 has fewer errors than your claim in post #296.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
99,618
Reaction score
15,152
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Incorrect. Your numbers are made up.

If you can find some data on solar panels with a higher albedo than bare soil, I'd love to see it.
You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet. It's the only way to explain why they measured cooler temperatures at six solar farms. Your albedo argument is dead.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which does not warm the surface of the planet. I even explained it... the net albedo of the solar panels (after subtracting the solar radiation converted to electricity)

You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which does not warm the surface of the planet.

Why do you keep saying the waste heat doesn't heat the planet?

I even explained it... the net albedo

Yes, I saw your invented term "net albedo"......hilarious!
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
99,618
Reaction score
15,152
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
I've already addressed this in post #1151.

Yes, I see your new claim in post #1151 has fewer errors than your claim in post #296.
Post #296 was discussing the conservation of energy which explains why converting solar radiation into electricity resulted in cooler measured temperatures at six solar farms.

If you keep this up Meister will thread ban us both. My answers haven't changed. You are the one who is keeping this going.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet. It's the only way to explain why they measured cooler temperatures at six solar farms. Your albedo argument is dead.

You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet.

If I pump heat from point A to Point B, I'm not cooling the planet.

Why do you keeping claiming cooling?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Post #296 was discussing the conservation of energy which explains why converting solar radiation into electricity resulted in cooler measured temperatures at six solar farms.

If you keep this up Meister will thread bad us both. My answers haven't changed. You are the one who is keeping this going.

Post #296 was discussing the conservation of energy which explains why converting solar radiation into electricity resulted in cooler measured temperatures at six solar farms.

Post #296 ignored conservation of energy.

My answers haven't changed.

I know, no matter how hard I try, I can't fix your stupid.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
99,618
Reaction score
15,152
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Why do you keep saying the waste heat doesn't heat the planet?
I didn't say that. I said incrementally there is no change in waste heat from electricity regardless of how it was generated but the same cannot be said about the reduction in solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet. This is only an artifact of solar. So incrementally changing from fossil fuels to solar will result in a cooling effect relative to using fossil fuels.
Yes, I saw your invented term "net albedo"......hilarious!
The solar radiation that was converted into electricity has to be accounted for. The cooler daytime temperatures measured at six solar farms does that. You cannot count the full abedo as warming the surface of the planet when some of it is responsible for generating electricity.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
99,618
Reaction score
15,152
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Post #296 ignored conservation of energy.
Incorrect. It discussed that for energy to be conserved any solar radiation converted into electricity must reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by a corresponding amount. Which is why they measured cooler daytime temperatures at six solar farms. Because energy was being conserved.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
99,618
Reaction score
15,152
Points
2,220
Location
Houston

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
I didn't say that. I said incrementally there is no change in waste heat from electricity regardless of how it was generated but the same cannot be said about the reduction in solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet. This is only an artifact of solar. So incrementally changing from fossil fuels to solar will result in a cooling effect relative to using fossil fuels.

The solar radiation that was converted into electricity has to be accounted for. The cooler daytime temperatures measured at six solar farms does that. You cannot count the full abedo as warming the surface of the planet when some of it is responsible for generating electricity.

I didn't say that.


You did say that. Everytime you said ,

"You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet"

The solar radiation that was converted into electricity has to be accounted for.

It is. As waste heat after use.

You cannot count the full abedo as warming the surface of the planet when some of it is responsible for generating electricity.

850 was absorbed by the soil.
950 is absorbed by the panel, 190 is moved to the city.

How much of the 950 doesn't heat the planet?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
99,618
Reaction score
15,152
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
If I pump heat from point A to Point B, I'm not cooling the planet.

Why do you keeping claiming cooling?
I've explained this at least a dozen times. My answer isn't going to change.

Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms. Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Incorrect. It discussed that for energy to be conserved any solar radiation converted into electricity must reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by a corresponding amount. Which is why they measured cooler daytime temperatures at six solar farms. Because energy was being conserved.

It discussed that for energy to be conserved any solar radiation converted into electricity must reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by a corresponding amount.

If energy is conserved why do you keep saying "reduction in solar radiation"?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,386
Reaction score
22,678
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
I've explained this at least a dozen times. My answer isn't going to change.

Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms. Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.

Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat.

Yes, keep changing the subject. Your original claim was embarrassing.

So how much does my freezer cool the planet?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
99,618
Reaction score
15,152
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
You did say that. Everytime you said ,

"You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet"

It is. As waste heat after use.

850 was absorbed by the soil.
950 is absorbed by the panel, 190 is moved to the city.

How much of the 950 doesn't heat the planet?
I've addressed this at least a dozen times.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$253.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top