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!
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.
Gee i thought you were the wind and solar sage of the n=message board and yet you don't know what capacity factor is? https://sunmetrix.com/what-is-capacity-factor-and-how-does-solar-energy-compare/ if we install 10 solar panels rated at 250 watts each, we will have a capacity of 2500 watts...
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.
Gee i thought you were the wind and solar sage of the n=message board and yet you don't know what capacity factor is? https://sunmetrix.com/what-is-capacity-factor-and-how-does-solar-energy-compare/ if we install 10 solar panels rated at 250 watts each, we will have a capacity of 2500 watts...
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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"?
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.
