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

[Toddsterpatriot]

But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.

You're right. Burning coal or nat gas doesn't decrease the albedo of the Earth's surface like solar does.
How much extra energy does a solar panel prevent from reflecting back to space?
It has to be even more than the electricity it generates, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Keep ignoring that a significant amount of photons - that would have struck the surface of the planet - were captured in PV cells and converted into electricity.

I'm not ignoring that. The energy of those photons is moved to, and heats, the city.

You keep ignoring that a significant amount of photons - that would have struck the surface of the planet and been reflected back to space - are instead absorbed by the darker panel.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Solar panels forest" and its radiative forcing effect: preliminary results from the Arava Desert

The production of electricity from solar radiation should replace power production by burning fossil fuel and help reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2. However, large photovoltaic (PV) fields can also influence the climate in more direct ways. The albedo of solar panels is low to allow...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

 

[elektra]

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

Yet, it is still much hotter around solar panels, well into the night. Yep, they absorb all that heat from the sun, intensify it, and kick it back into the atmosphere. It is proven all the time, with the scientific instrument called the thermometer.

 

[elektra]

Why were measured daytime temps above solar farms cooler? Was the albedo waiting for nighttime?

cause you used a computer model and satellite data to theorize the temperatures, as your link states

 

[abu afak]

50 solar plants a year, each 2 square miles, and how many years of this manufacturing do you need. The solar industry says at least 50 years
5000 square miles of solar plants?
And you claimed just at the Four Corners we can produce all the electricity we need?

Maybe one fossil fuel plant can turn out that kind of energy, maybe. But, in ten years so many solar panels will be failing that you wont be able to replace them all let alone build new ones.

It is not electricity that is a problem, it is not electricity that I stated polysilcon manufacturing is reliant on, I stated Fossil Energy, that would be in the form of carbon in order to increase the heat. Carbon comes from fossil fuels, Oil or Natural Gas, even Tar Sands.

Yes I did claim that.

Energy.gov​

​

"..Could you power the US with solar?​

Solar's abundance and potential throughout the United States is staggering: PV panels on just 22,000 square miles of the nation's total land area – about the size of Lake Michigan – could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States .https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-energy-united-states#:~:text=Solar's abundance and potential throughout,power the entire United States .​

​

Solar Energy in the United States​

Solar Energy in the United States.​

22,000 sq miles is ie, 110 miles by 200 miles
5500 sq miles in each state.... 70x80 miles each.
Yup, Not just Four Corners, but a very small portion of it's vast empty spaces.
and probably even a bit less since this article was written.. as it's more efficient every year.

22K is .0057% of the USA's 3.8 Million sq miles

`

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Boy, what you miss sometimes when you ignore so many.. Trolls arguing with Trolls, LOL! "You're stupid!" "No, I'm stupid!"

Well, oddly enough, I have to agree with ding in this one very specific instance. However, "the FLoT" applies only to closed systems by definition. These obsessive attempts to nail down THE TRUTH! of the matter (ACC/AGW) through (ab)use of the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS! nearly always ignore that very clear caveat, aside from them all sounding like dweeb city. In this case, ding is not really making such an argument. He's just equating apples with apples while dismissing other's attempts to equate oranges with apples.

From the link I posted most recently, it's clear that some local warming does occur around a field of solar panels when the Sun is shining. It's also clear that, being only ~20% efficient, 80% of the available incoming light energy matching the intended frequency range of the panels gets reflected, refracted, or otherwise wasted, similar to having it simply strike the Earth's surface instead. The local heating may not always be insignificant locally, but it sure amounts to nothing to worry about globally.

 

[ding]

How much waste heat is there from 100 watts of solar power sent to the city?

The exact same regardless of which generating source it came from. Not so for solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So incrementally there is no difference for waste heat generated from fossil fuels or solar but there is a difference in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.

It's like you think they are magic photons or something.

 

[Flash]

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

This is something the Moon Bats have not thought out very well.

A little solar collection won't change the heat balance of the earth much. A lot of of solar collection could cause man made climate change. The same with wind.

 

[ding]

You're right. Burning coal or nat gas doesn't decrease the albedo of the Earth's surface like solar does.
How much extra energy does a solar panel prevent from reflecting back to space?
It has to be even more than the electricity it generates, right?

If only you understood why measured temperatures above six solar farms were cooler during daylight hours with solar panels compared to without solar panels. Magic photons?

Because according to those measurements LESS upwards longwave radiation occurred with solar panels converting photons into electricity; not more.

So to answer your question, there was less infrared radiation due to solar panels converting photons into electricity. The reduction in infrared radiation is equivalent to the energy captured by photons being converted into electricity.

 

[ding]

I'm not ignoring that. The energy of those photons is moved to, and heats, the city.

You keep ignoring that a significant amount of photons - that would have struck the surface of the planet and been reflected back to space - are instead absorbed by the darker panel.

No. I am not ignoring that the albedo of the PV cells. The albedo of the PV cells capture photons and converts them onto electricity so that they never excites the atoms of the surface they are striking to produce the heat you think the PV cells are responsible for. Only an idiot would ignore that measured daytime temperatures above six solar farms were cooler with panels than without.

And you absolutely are ignoring that waste heat is in all cases, so incrementally changing from fossil fuels to solar will have a cooling effect relative to fossil fuels because the waste heat is the same in both cases but solar radiation warming the surface of the planet is not because photons were converted into electricity before they could excite the atoms of the surface to create heat.

 

[ding]

Yet, it is still much hotter around solar panels, well into the night. Yep, they absorb all that heat from the sun, intensify it, and kick it back into the atmosphere. It is proven all the time, with the scientific instrument called the thermometer.

Incorrect.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Differences-of-MODIS-retrieved-surface-longwave-properties-averaged-over-four-years_fig3_356860141

 

[ding]

cause you used a computer model and satellite data to theorize the temperatures, as your link states

Satellites measured temperatures above six solar farms.

 

[Flash]

The exact same regardless of which generating source it came from. Not so for solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So incrementally there is no difference for waste heat generated from fossil fuels or solar but there is a difference in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.

It's like you think they are magic photons or something.

Humans on earth generate about 600 million terrajoules of energy each year. It increases each year as population grows.

I don't think there has ever been a real study on how much effect on climate it would be to take that much energy from solar and wind.

Some calculations have the total amount generated from humans at 1/10,000ths of the solar radiation from the sun so that doesn't seem like much. However, there is a difference effect on climate between the effect of solar on land and on the ocean. All the solar collection will be on land and that could have unintended consequences.

 

[elektra]

Satellites measured temperatures above six solar farms.

no, satellites measured radiation being reflected off the earth, long wave and short wave. That data was then used in a computer model.

It would not of taken months, millions of dollars, a dozen scientists, a dozen other scientists research, if satellites simply measured temperature. If satellites measured temperature, as you imagine, NOAA would not be placing ground temperature stations across the world. If satellites measured temperature, anyone could just call, and ask.

millions of dollars, months of research, a dozen scientists, a research paper, all to tell us the temperature?

 

[ding]

no, satellites measured radiation being reflected off the earth, long wave and short wave. That data was then used in a computer model.

It would not of taken months, millions of dollars, a dozen scientists, a dozen other scientists research, if satellites simply measured temperature. If satellites measured temperature, as you imagine, NOAA would not be placing ground temperature stations across the world. If satellites measured temperature, anyone could just call, and ask.

millions of dollars, months of research, a dozen scientists, a research paper, all to tell us the temperature?

This says otherwise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The exact same regardless of which generating source it came from. Not so for solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So incrementally there is no difference for waste heat generated from fossil fuels or solar but there is a difference in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.

It's like you think they are magic photons or something.

The exact same regardless of which generating source it came from.

You should definitely amend your original silly claim.

there is a difference in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.

Obviously. An albedo of 0.3 for the surface versus 0.05 for the panel.
Much more warming of the planet.

It's like you think they are magic photons or something.

Doesn't take magic for a darker panel to absorb more photons.

Did you ever find if you move 100 watts from a panel to the city, how many fewer watts have heated the planet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If only you understood why measured temperatures above six solar farms were cooler during daylight hours with solar panels compared to without solar panels. Magic photons?

Because according to those measurements LESS upwards longwave radiation occurred with solar panels converting photons into electricity; not more.

So to answer your question, there was less infrared radiation due to solar panels converting photons into electricity. The reduction in infrared radiation is equivalent to the energy captured by photons being converted into electricity.

If only you understood why measured temperatures above six solar farms were cooler during daylight hours with solar panels compared to without solar panels. Magic photons?

Here's your chance. Show how adiabatic processes cause solar panels to cool the planet.

there was less infrared radiation due to solar panels converting photons into electricity.

Less IR at the panels and more in the city. First Law.

The reduction in infrared radiation is equivalent to the energy captured by photons being converted into electricity.

What happens to the captured energy when using the electricity creates more photons?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. I am not ignoring that the albedo of the PV cells. The albedo of the PV cells capture photons and converts them onto electricity so that they never excites the atoms of the surface they are striking to produce the heat you think the PV cells are responsible for. Only an idiot would ignore that measured daytime temperatures above six solar farms were cooler with panels than without.

And you absolutely are ignoring that waste heat is in all cases, so incrementally changing from fossil fuels to solar will have a cooling effect relative to fossil fuels because the waste heat is the same in both cases but solar radiation warming the surface of the planet is not because photons were converted into electricity before they could excite the atoms of the surface to create heat.

No. I am not ignoring that the albedo of the PV cells.

What's the panel albedo versus the surface albedo?

changing from fossil fuels to solar will have a cooling effect relative to fossil fuels

That should be your claim, while ignoring albedo.

solar radiation warming the surface of the planet is not because

Because reflecting 5% of incoming solar heats the surface more than reflecting 30%.

 

[ding]

What's the panel albedo versus the surface albedo?

Doesn't matter because it's the conversion of photons into electricity that's responsible for the cooling effect. Night time temperatures were only slightly less which indicates that the solar panels shading the surface resulted in less infrared radiation. Solar panels will lose heat much faster than the surface of the planet because there's not much mass there.