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

[ding]

And more heat being radiated by light bulbs, microwaves, toasters, TVs, coffee makers.
Anything that used the electricity.

You have to do all the math, not just half of it. That's what liberals do.

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. Electricity usage and what waste heat there is stays the same regardless of the generating source. But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar panels induce a cooling effect because photons which would have otherwise struck the surface of the planet were converted into electricity. That's my claim.

Right. Because when you ignore 100 watts of waste heat, 100 watts of solar electricity is very cooling.
Not to mention the extra watts absorbed by the lower albedo panel that you ignored.

 

[ding]

Right. Because when you ignore 100 watts of waste heat, 100 watts of solar electricity is very cooling.
Not to mention the extra watts absorbed by the lower albedo panel that you ignored.

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. Electricity usage and what waste heat there is stays the same regardless of the generating source. But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yet cooler temperatures were measured above six solar farms.

Did the extra absorbed heat go anywhere?
I showed you the math before and you ignored it.
How efficient are these cooling panels you love so much?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The decreased albedo led to photons being converted into electricity not more heat being radiated by PV cells.

Not all of the decrease is converted.

 

[ding]

Did the extra absorbed heat go anywhere?
I showed you the math before and you ignored it.
How efficient are these cooling panels you love so much?

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. Electricity usage and what waste heat there is stays the same regardless of the generating source. But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar.

Again, making that your claim would sound less stupid.
It's still stupid, when taking albedo into account, but not as obviously wrong as your FLoT error.

 

[ding]

Not all of the decrease is converted.

There's not much mass to solar panels. Their ability to absorb solar radiation is limited by their mass. And when they give it back they cool down quickly because there's not much mass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said adiabatic processes cause solar panels to cool the planet.

If I didn't "ignore adiabatic processes", how would your claim be strengthened?

 

[ding]

Again, making that your claim would sound less stupid.
It's still stupid, when taking albedo into account, but not as obviously wrong as your FLoT error.

You are the one who went down the rabbit hole of waste heat because you couldn't argue cooler temperatures weren't measured above six solar farms because they were.

 

[ding]

View attachment 694391

If I didn't "ignore adiabatic processes", how would your claim be strengthened?

You tell me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. Electricity usage and what waste heat there is stays the same regardless of the generating source. But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.

Electricity usage and what waste heat there is stays the same regardless of the generating source.

How much waste heat is there from 100 watts of solar electricity?

But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different

Obviously. Other sources don't drop albedo from 0.3 to 0.05

 

[ding]

How much waste heat is there from 100 watts of solar electricity?

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. Electricity usage and what waste heat there is stays the same regardless of the generating source. But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would depend upon how much solar radiation gets converted into electricity.

That changes the magnitude, but not the fact. So local or planet wide?

 

[ding]

Obviously. Other sources don't drop albedo from 0.3 to 0.05

Or convert photons - which would have otherwise cause the surface of the planet to warm - into electricity.

 

[ding]

That changes the magnitude, but not the fact. So local or planet wide?

Again... that would depend upon how much solar radiation gets converted into electricity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The decreased albedo led to photons being converted into electricity not more heat being radiated by PV cells.

Some is converted, but more is retained. At the panel and at point of use.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The decreased albedo led to photons being converted into electricity not more heat being radiated by PV cells.

A lot more radiated by the users.

 

[ding]

Some is converted, but more is retained. At the panel and at point of use.

Cooler daytime and nighttime temperatures above six solar farms say otherwise.

 

[ding]

A lot more radiated by the users.

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. Electricity usage and what waste heat there is stays the same regardless of the generating source. But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.