The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

[ding]

If you move 100 watts from the farm to a home, net heat is unchanged.

Again... That's an incorrect way of looking at it. Whatever heat you believe is released from using electricity from solar power would be released from using electricity from fossil fuels, but only electricity generated from solar power reduces the longwave radiation. So trying to argue that conservation of energy is responsible for returning the heat not reflected back into space and therefore does not lead to an incremental cooling is a false comparison because relative to the case of generating electricity from fossil fuels there is an incremental decrease in longwave radiation but there is no change or difference in the heat released from using electricity because it's the same in both cases.

 

[ding]

If you move 100 watts from the farm to a home, net heat is unchanged.

Maybe what you are missing is that solar is being used to replace fossil fuels so the cooling effect is relative to fossil fuels being replace by solar. That or you do get it and are being intentionally obtuse. It matters not to me which it is because I'm not going to let it stand either way. So if you are being intentionally obtuse just know I am having more fun than you and it's easier for me to do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They used time lapsed thermal infrared radiance measured by space-borne radiometers before and after solar farm constructions for six solar farms.

View attachment 609973

View attachment 609974

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

Yup. Do you have any papers that back up your claim?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

but only electricity generated from solar power reduces the longwave radiation.

There is no net reduction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe what you are missing is that solar is being used to replace fossil fuels so the cooling effect is relative to fossil fuels being replace by solar.

How much of that cooling is offset by the much lower albedo of the solar panels?

 

[ding]

Yup. Do you have any papers that back up your claim?

https://www.researchgate.net/public...farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

 

[ding]

There is no net reduction.

This says otherwise.

Satellites measured reduced upward longwave radiation in 6 solar farms. With such reduction in upward longwave radiation being consistent with previous in-situ measurements.

Land Surface Temperature (LST) is derived from thermal infrared radiance measured using space-borne radiometers. Compared to adjacent regions without changes before and after solar farm constructions, the solar farm sites have reduced outgoing radiances in three MODIS infrared window channels. Such reduction in upward longwave radiation is consistent with previous in-situ measurements. The MYD11A2 results show constant emissivities before and after solar farm constructions because its land type classification algorithm is not aware of the presence of solar farms. The estimated daytime and nighttime LST reduction due to solar farm deployment are ~1-4K and ~0.2-0.9K, respectively.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

 

[ding]

How much of that cooling is offset by the much lower albedo of the solar panels?

Here's the net.

Satellites measured reduced upward longwave radiation in 6 solar farms. With such reduction in upward longwave radiation being consistent with previous in-situ measurements.

Land Surface Temperature (LST) is derived from thermal infrared radiance measured using space-borne radiometers. Compared to adjacent regions without changes before and after solar farm constructions, the solar farm sites have reduced outgoing radiances in three MODIS infrared window channels. Such reduction in upward longwave radiation is consistent with previous in-situ measurements. The MYD11A2 results show constant emissivities before and after solar farm constructions because its land type classification algorithm is not aware of the presence of solar farms. The estimated daytime and nighttime LST reduction due to solar farm deployment are ~1-4K and ~0.2-0.9K, respectively.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

 

[justoffal]

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study​

Feb 7, 2022

Solar makes more financial sense than coal​

The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....

Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:

Electrek’s Take​

Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand. But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study..

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study

Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.

electrek.co

Looked carefully through the entire article...
Did not find any actuarial sign offs....so this is an opinion piece that I would absolutely not trust the math on.
When you do a Study you are supposed to do...you know...an actual study?
Right off the bat I noticed they totally ignored the degeneration cycle and replacement cost of the panels....
Soooooo Immediately we have a money issue that has been either ignored or sorted out because it hurts the headlines.

JO

 

[justoffal]

I'm sure they are growing....

But, unlike petroleum for example, there is no exploration where you look for the oil, there is no drilling operation to extract the oil, there is no transport drivers to transport the crude OR pipeline crews to build pipelines to transport the crude, refining operations, etc...

The sun comes up, it shines on the panels, energy is generated and that is that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that solar/wind/hydro is better in terms of costs and pollution. I don't know what happens to the seismologists, roughnecks, and truck drivers though. I doubt there is a 1:1 ratio of jobs in manufacturing panels, turbines, etc... let alone the re-training costs.

I hope I'm wrong...but I don't see it.

It's better in terms of pollution only if you don't look at the manufacturing of the product. The degeneration rate of the individual photovoltaic element even the really good ones is about 5% annually....soo a 100 megawatt installation after one year downgrades to 95 megawatts and so on .... and it looks like the progression isn't exactly liner....the percentage gets bigger towards end of life for the installation.

I run a 2 meg installation along the turbines...it's about 4 years old now.... peaks out at 1.47 in full direct sunlight sooooo let's see that's .735 of the original output or 1-.735 = 26.5% divided by 4 is about 6.6 % per year of carbonization of the photovoltaic elements.

 

[candycorn]

It's better in terms of pollution only if you don't look at the manufacturing of the product. The degeneration rate of the individual photovoltaic element even the really good ones is about 5% annually....soo a 100 megawatt installation after one year downgrades to 95 megawatts and so on .... and it looks like the progression isn't exactly liner....the percentage gets bigger towards end of life for the installation.

I run a 2 meg installation along the turbines...it's about 4 years old now.... peaks out at 1.47 in full direct sunlight sooooo let's see that's .735 of the original output or 1-.735 = 26.5% divided by 4 is about 6.6 % per year of carbonization of the photovoltaic elements.

And once you make the turbine or the solar panel....you don't really have to keep manufacturing them at the same pace... Solar panels just sort of sit there. Turbines are pretty durable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

That doesn't back up your ice age claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This says otherwise.

Satellites measured reduced upward longwave radiation in 6 solar farms. With such reduction in upward longwave radiation being consistent with previous in-situ measurements.

Land Surface Temperature (LST) is derived from thermal infrared radiance measured using space-borne radiometers. Compared to adjacent regions without changes before and after solar farm constructions, the solar farm sites have reduced outgoing radiances in three MODIS infrared window channels. Such reduction in upward longwave radiation is consistent with previous in-situ measurements. The MYD11A2 results show constant emissivities before and after solar farm constructions because its land type classification algorithm is not aware of the presence of solar farms. The estimated daytime and nighttime LST reduction due to solar farm deployment are ~1-4K and ~0.2-0.9K, respectively.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

You didn't post the increased radiation at point of use.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's the net.

Satellites measured reduced upward longwave radiation in 6 solar farms. With such reduction in upward longwave radiation being consistent with previous in-situ measurements.

Land Surface Temperature (LST) is derived from thermal infrared radiance measured using space-borne radiometers. Compared to adjacent regions without changes before and after solar farm constructions, the solar farm sites have reduced outgoing radiances in three MODIS infrared window channels. Such reduction in upward longwave radiation is consistent with previous in-situ measurements. The MYD11A2 results show constant emissivities before and after solar farm constructions because its land type classification algorithm is not aware of the presence of solar farms. The estimated daytime and nighttime LST reduction due to solar farm deployment are ~1-4K and ~0.2-0.9K, respectively.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

The 0.25 decrease in albedo is larger than the 19% of the solar power turned into electricity.

And no net decrease in radiation.

You just can't win no matter how much you flounder around.

 

[ding]

That doesn't back up your ice age claim.

You must have gotten lost. I suggest you follow this line back to see where you took a wrong turn.

 

[ding]

You didn't post the increased radiation at point of use.

That's because it's irrelevant to the cooling affect induced by solar farms, dummy.

 

[ding]

The 0.25 decrease in albedo is larger than the 19% of the solar power turned into electricity.

And no net decrease in radiation.

You just can't win no matter how much you flounder around.

The reduced upward longwave radiation of solar farms measured by satellites says otherwise, dummy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The reduced upward longwave radiation of solar farms measured by satellites says otherwise, dummy.

View attachment 610176

I see conservation of energy is still beyond you.

 

[ding]

I see conservation of energy is still beyond you.

You should write a paper explaining why they never needed to do this study in the first place.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should write a paper explaining why they never needed to do this study in the first place.

Slight regional cooling at the panels, slight regional warming at point of use.
If that's your evidence for a new ice age from solar power, you came up short again.