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

[ding]

We found temperatures over a PV plant were regularly 3-4 °C warmer than wildlands at night, which is in direct contrast to other studies based on models

Old study. Poor measurement techniques. It's been debunked. No one believes that anymore except you and todd.

 

[elektra]

Not a game. Conservation of energy. Any solar radiation converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. It's just math.

and it is fact and proven, the temperature around solar panels is hotter than normal.

and, who cares if the planet heats up with solar radiation, it is suppose to, it is what gives us life,

you should share the math with us,

Common Core math by ding-bat, go ahead, show us.

 

[ding]

and it is fact and proven, the temperature around solar panels is hotter than normal.

and, who cares if the planet heats up with solar radiation, it is suppose to, it is what gives us life,

you should share the math with us,

Common Core math by ding-bat, go ahead, show us.

Incorrect. Read the paper, dummy. Satellite measurements debunked that. Again... any solar radiation that is converted into electricity cannot warm the surface of the planet too. It's called conservation of energy.

 

[elektra]

Old study. Poor measurement techniques. It's been debunked. No one believes that anymore except you and todd.

right, dismiss that which you can not debate,

Now I got two links to your one, this link confirms that facts of the previous link with an actual observed heat island created by solar panels.

Death Valley’s “hottest month ever” was likely a product of nearby solar panels and RV’s

The environment around the weather station used to measure the official temperature changed dramatically in the past few years. There’s this headline circulation in the news, thanks to the As…

wattsupwiththat.com

The monthly average temperature at DVNP Visitor center, surrounded by parking lots, solar panels, RV, AC units, and asphalt is: 108.1 degrees

The monthly average temperature at a state-of -the-art climate monitoring station, surrounded by mostly natural desert, sited purposely by NOAA 1 mile away from the town, to get accurate readings is: 106.6 degrees

That’s a 1.5 degree difference in the monthly average, and not a record-breaker. The old record for the monthly average was 107.4 degrees according the NWS official quoted in the AP article.

But, the climate faithful will call it “climate change”, and ignore such inconvenient facts. Would the new claimed record exist without the man-made influences in the measurement environment at Furnace Creek? There’s doubt.

 

[ding]

right, dismiss that which you can not debate,

Now I got two links to your one, this link confirms that facts of the previous link with an actual observed heat island created by solar panels.

Death Valley’s “hottest month ever” was likely a product of nearby solar panels and RV’s

The environment around the weather station used to measure the official temperature changed dramatically in the past few years. There’s this headline circulation in the news, thanks to the As…

wattsupwiththat.com

The monthly average temperature at DVNP Visitor center, surrounded by parking lots, solar panels, RV, AC units, and asphalt is: 108.1 degrees

The monthly average temperature at a state-of -the-art climate monitoring station, surrounded by mostly natural desert, sited purposely by NOAA 1 mile away from the town, to get accurate readings is: 106.6 degrees

That’s a 1.5 degree difference in the monthly average, and not a record-breaker. The old record for the monthly average was 107.4 degrees according the NWS official quoted in the AP article.

But, the climate faithful will call it “climate change”, and ignore such inconvenient facts. Would the new claimed record exist without the man-made influences in the measurement environment at Furnace Creek? There’s doubt.

My position is based on the FLoT. Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. It can't do both. Debate that. You are basing your position on an out of date study that has been since been debunked.

 

[elektra]

Incorrect. Read the paper, dummy. Satellite measurements debunked that. Again... any solar radiation that is converted into electricity cannot warm the surface of the planet too. It's called conservation of energy.

Satellite measurements? They dont meaure heat do they, like a thermometer? Satellites are a poor way to measure local temperatures. That is why NOAA uses ground based monitoring stations.

Why would anybody use old satellite date, which your study does, when there is ground based thermometers recorded the temperature? Most likely because they get the result they want with satellite data inputed to the computer model.

Any solar radiation converted to electricity? What about the solar radiation being reflected back into the atmosphere off the solar panels. Are the Solar panels going to be hot to the touch? Does that heat, heat the atmosphere. Of course it does.

Solar panels do not absorb anything close to all the radiation they are bombarded with.

Anyway you make your argument, if fails.

see ya, I am off to my hot car that absorbed all that evil solar radiation, preventing the earth from getting hot.


hahahahahahahaha

 

[ding]

Satellite measurements? They dont meaure heat do they, like a thermometer? Satellites are a poor way to measure local temperatures. That is why NOAA uses ground based monitoring stations.

Why would anybody use old satellite date, which your study does, when there is ground based thermometers recorded the temperature? Most likely because they get the result they want with satellite data inputed to the computer model.

Any solar radiation converted to electricity? What about the solar radiation being reflected back into the atmosphere off the solar panels. Are the Solar panels going to be hot to the touch? Does that heat, heat the atmosphere. Of course it does.

Solar panels do not absorb anything close to all the radiation they are bombarded with.

Anyway you make your argument, if fails.

see ya, I am off to my hot car that absorbed all that evil solar radiation, preventing the earth from getting hot.


hahahahahahahaha

Do you even know how solar panels work? What they actually capture?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again... any solar radiation that is converted into electricity cannot warm the surface of the planet too.

Every time I use some groovy solar electricity, it warms the surface of the planet too.

 

[elektra]

My position is based on the FLoT. Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. It can't do both. Debate that. You are basing your position on an out of date study that has been since been debunked.

The study has not been proven wrong. Maybe by you, but who gives a shit what your opinion is.

The failing of your argument is, Solar panels do not absorb all the radiation and convert it into electricity, not even a percentage. The panels get hot and emit heat all night or until they cool.

Further, it is another known fact the efficiency of solar panels drop dramatically when operating in heat. So again, no significant amout of solar radiation is absorbed and converted into electricity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not a game. Conservation of energy. Any solar radiation converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. It's just math.

If you move 100 watts from a panel to the city, How many fewer watts have heated the planet?

 

[Flash]

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

LOL!

You stupid uneducated Moon Bat.

That is like saying you would save on your electric bill if you put in solar. However, that would not include the installation, maintenance cost and the fact that you don't get shit when the sun ain't shinning.

Solar may be your stupid Moon Bat's wet dream but it is terrible technology that doesn't even pass the snicker test.

Ask the idiot Europeans how there stupid plan to go green is working out. They were going to shut down all the fossil fuel and nuclear plants and buy some natural gas from the Russians until they go all renewables. They don't have the fucking renewables and never will. Wind and solar will never come close to generating the power needed for First World countries. Maybe enough for the spear chuckers in deepest darkest Africa but not in the real world.

Ain't working out very well.

 

[jc456]

DUH!
Yes the first solar panel/panels were produced by fossil fuel plants but Gradually more of the Energy to make them will come from.. solar plants themselves.
DUH!
One Fossil fuel plant can turn out enough energy for panels to build 50? Solar plants in a year, each eventually producing the energy themselves.
Yes they also need some Chems, and I believe coke.

You are not debatable due to IQ deficit.
`
`

Explain how you can make them without oil?

 

[jc456]

Not a game. Conservation of energy. Any solar radiation converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. It's just math.

Ding, you’re gonna lose this, radiation has to bounce off and absorb and be reradiate. Or are you suggesting that if solar panels are installed on the roof there’s a net loss of heat since the asphalt roof will be cool because the panel covers it and the radiation is less than the roof?

 

[ding]

Every time I use some groovy solar electricity, it warms the surface of the planet too.

Not adiabatic processes, dummy.

But for isothermal processes it's no different than groovy fossil fuel electricity which doesn't cause a cooling effect due to converting solar radiation into electricity. Do you even incremental analysis?

 

[ding]

no significant amout of solar radiation is absorbed and converted into electricity.

Every single kWh generated from solar is responsible for an equivalent reduction in solar radiation striking the surface of the planet.

 

[ding]

If you move 100 watts from a panel to the city, How many fewer watts have heated the planet?

How much incremental waste heat is created from switching from fossil fuels to solar power? The answer is none. So incrementally there is no difference between the two cases when it comes to waste heat but the same cannot be said for reducing solar radiation. So relative to fossil fuels, solar will result in an incremental cooling effect.

 

[ding]

Ding, you’re gonna lose this, radiation has to bounce off and absorb and be reradiate. Or are you suggesting that if solar panels are installed on the roof there’s a net loss of heat since the asphalt roof will be cool because the panel covers it and the radiation is less than the roof?

Cooler daytime temps at six solar farms (which is when photons are being converted into electricity) after installing solar panels says I don't.

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

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

Actually it would save a whole lot more.
We would be paying out almost zero welfare to anyone - because most of America's poor would be dead.
Pol Pot is that you?

 

[jc456]

Cooler daytime temps at six solar farms (which is when photons are being converted into electricity) after installing solar panels says I don't.

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

Ask Pablo: Do Solar Panels Contribute to the Heat Island Effect?

Image credit: Bernd Sieker, used under Creative Commons license. Dear Pablo: Does installing commercial rooftop solar PV (with the dark-colored PV cells) negate the effect of painting that same roof white to alleviate the "heat island" effect in

www.treehugger.com

 

[ding]

Ask Pablo: Do Solar Panels Contribute to the Heat Island Effect?

Image credit: Bernd Sieker, used under Creative Commons license. Dear Pablo: Does installing commercial rooftop solar PV (with the dark-colored PV cells) negate the effect of painting that same roof white to alleviate the "heat island" effect in

www.treehugger.com

I've seen that one before too. Treehugger Pablo is wrong.

Impact of solar panels on global climate

Regardless of the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels on global climate, other energy sources will become more important in the future because fossil fuels could run out by the early twenty-second century given the present rate of consumption. This implies that sooner or later humanity will...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels.