Wait....when it is too hot, solar panels do not work efficiently? But...isn't being in the sun their selling point? The left..get it wrong again....

[Crick]

I’m replying to the thread in general

So, were you saying that the output of the solar facilities was trivial or that the output loss due to high temperatures was trivial.

 

[elektra]

Solar PV does work and they work in hot environments, just not as well as in cold environments. Keep in mind that solar cells do not contain billons of transistors, diodes, junctions and layers. Far less locations for current-induced overheating and thermal failures. The efficiency loss due to temperature is more than overcome by the increased insolation in tropical latitudes.

No, Solar PV does not work, that is why it is so heavily subsidized. In order for a product to work, it must be marketable, it must be better than what exists. Solar fails on price and the amount of electricity it produces.

Solar Panels create heat, period. I thought you are worried about the Earth warming?

Much of the design of a Solar Panel is to dissipate that heat, with heat sinks.

Solar panels in the desert are going to produce 25% less energy than a solar panel in michigan, on a sunny cloud free day.

 

[Lesh]

So, were you saying that the output of the solar facilities was trivial or that the output loss due to high temperatures was trivial.

Output loss

 

[Dadoalex]

It got a little hot in Britain......and because it got hot, their solar panels seem to have stopped working as efficiently?

Did anyone know this little factoid about solar power? You know before the smug leftists made fun of you for making fun of solar panels?

Besides having to compensate for the winds dropping away (uh-oh), who knew solar panels go to poop in the heat?


Did you know? I sure didn’t know. And they sure don’t tell you any of THIS in the fancy glossy handouts.




Britain has started burning coal to generate electricity for the first time in a month and a half, after the heatwave made solar panels too hot to work efficiently.
----------------------
For every degree rise in temperature above this level, the efficiency is reduced by 0.5 percentage points.
-------
That’s the gist of this. And “solar” panels need their OWN cooling systems (!) in the desert. GTFO!

Looka here, sun - don't you know solar don't work when it's hot?

hotair.com

IC engines are less efficient at high temps so...
Low efficiency no pollution
vs
Low efficiency high pollution.

Seems an easy choice.

 

[2aguy]

IC engines are less efficient at high temps so...
Low efficiency no pollution
vs
Low efficiency high pollution.

Seems an easy choice.

Solar and wind both create more pollution....you just don't see it because the pollution is created when they are manufactured, and when they are buried in the ground after they are useless....

 

[Lesh]

Solar and wind both create more pollution....you just don't see it because the pollution is created when they are manufactured, and when they are buried in the ground after they are useless....

There’s pollution created when any energy source is manufactured

 

[Dadoalex]

Solar and wind both create more pollution....you just don't see it because the pollution is created when they are manufactured, and when they are buried in the ground after they are useless....

But cars are built pollution free?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[2aguy]

There’s pollution created when any energy source is manufactured

Yes.....that means solar makes as much pollution, is less reliable, provides less energy, and is more expensive than coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear.....

You are not really helping your case....

 

[2aguy]

But cars are built pollution free?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nope....but electric cars are built with more pollution than gas powered cars....

Notice...the following source and link are from Politico, one of the propaganda arms of the democrat party.....and even they can't put lipstick on the electric car pig....

What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.

That might sound counterintuitive: After all, won’t replacing a 30-year old, smoke-belching Oldsmobile with a new electric vehicle reduce air pollution? Yes, of course. But that’s also where many electric vehicle proponents’ arguments run off the road: they fail to consider just how clean and efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle subsidies and mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a newgas car. And new internal combustion engines are really clean. Today’s vehicles emit only about 1% of the pollution than they did in the 1960s, and new innovations continue to improve those engines’ efficiency and cleanliness.

And as for that electric car: The energy doesn’t come from nowhere. Cars are charged from the nation’s electrical grid, which means that they’re only as “clean” as America’s mix of power sources.

Are electric cars worse for the environment?

Crunch the numbers, and it looks like all those subsidies might be counterproductive.

www.politico.com

 

[elektra]

There’s pollution created when any energy source is manufactured

says the fucking idiot,

There is nothing being manufactured that is bigger than a solar power project or a wind turbine project, the biggest things in the world create the most pollution, during manufacturing.

Add that to the land they destroy, and nothing on Earth is more destructive, creating more CO2

 

[Dadoalex]

Nope....but electric cars are built with more pollution than gas powered cars....

Notice...the following source and link are from Politico, one of the propaganda arms of the democrat party.....and even they can't put lipstick on the electric car pig....

What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.

That might sound counterintuitive: After all, won’t replacing a 30-year old, smoke-belching Oldsmobile with a new electric vehicle reduce air pollution? Yes, of course. But that’s also where many electric vehicle proponents’ arguments run off the road: they fail to consider just how clean and efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle subsidies and mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a newgas car. And new internal combustion engines are really clean. Today’s vehicles emit only about 1% of the pollution than they did in the 1960s, and new innovations continue to improve those engines’ efficiency and cleanliness.

And as for that electric car: The energy doesn’t come from nowhere. Cars are charged from the nation’s electrical grid, which means that they’re only as “clean” as America’s mix of power sources.

Are electric cars worse for the environment?

Crunch the numbers, and it looks like all those subsidies might be counterproductive.

www.politico.com

Pay $60k for a gas polluter
or
Pay $60K for a non polluter.

easy choice.

 

[elektra]

IC engines are less efficient at high temps so...
Low efficiency no pollution
vs
Low efficiency high pollution.

Seems an easy choice.

your comment does not make sense. If you are comparing the internal combustion engine with solar, you have left out critical details.

The internal combustion engine is extremely efficient, producing an incredible amount of power.

Solar and wind, by comparison, suck.

 

[elektra]

Pay $60k for a gas polluter
or
Pay $60K for a non polluter.

easy choice.

Electric car? where are you going to get the electricity? Not from solar or wind.

60k, is the subsidized price for electric cars. A shame Electric Cars is an old technology that can not compete in a free market

 

[Dadoalex]

your comment does not make sense. If you are comparing the internal combustion engine with solar, you have left out critical details.

The internal combustion engine is extremely efficient, producing an incredible amount of power.

Solar and wind, by comparison, suck.

Your response is irrelevant to my post.

 

[Dadoalex]

Electric car? where are you going to get the electricity? Not from solar or wind.

60k, is the subsidized price for electric cars. A shame Electric Cars is an old technology that can not compete in a free market

Solar, wind, geothermal, water, nuclear...

I guess the inability to compete is why every US automaker is going EV by 2035.

 

[2aguy]

Pay $60k for a gas polluter
or
Pay $60K for a non polluter.

easy choice.

Yeah.....you left out all of the other factors.......

You can get a gas engine car for a lot less........and you don't have to worry about finding a charging station.....

 

[2aguy]

Solar, wind, geothermal, water, nuclear...

I guess the inability to compete is why every US automaker is going EV by 2035.

No, they are going EV because they are being threatened by the democrat party. The democrats are attacking our energy sector, which effects the auto industry.

 

[Dadoalex]

No, they are going EV because they are being threatened by the democrat party. The democrats are attacking our energy sector, which effects the auto industry.

And you think the auto industry has zero influence in DC?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"As GM goes so goes the nation"

 

[elektra]

Solar, wind, geothermal, water, nuclear...

I guess the inability to compete is why every US automaker is going EV by 2035.

Every US automaker? You mean the only two that are left, General Motors and Ford.

Maybe they are going to EV, because they are controlled by Democrats. Maybe they are being forced by the government and the government officials that now work in those corporations.

By 2035 electric vehicles will be piled high in our Junk Yards. The batteries will be in a hazardous waste disposal site, the biggest in the world.

 

[Dadoalex]

Every US automaker? You mean the only two that are left, General Motors and Ford.

Maybe they are going to EV, because they are controlled by Democrats. Maybe they are being forced by the government and the government officials that now work in those corporations.

By 2035 electric vehicles will be piled high in our Junk Yards. The batteries will be in a hazardous waste disposal site, the biggest in the world.

Oh goodness. Lord knows oils is MUUUUCH better