Wind Power, is Germany waking up to no lights on?

[ding]

Converting visible light into electricity doesn't result in "a net reduction of visible light photons warming the planet".

When replacing a generating source that doesn't convert visible light photons into electricity it sure does. Especially one that produces twice the waste heat of solar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When replacing a generating source that doesn't convert visible light photons into electricity it sure does. Especially one that produces twice the waste heat of solar.

"Converting photons" doesn't cool the planet.

 

[ding]

"Converting photons" doesn't cool the planet.

1. 40 to 44% of solar radiation striking solar panels is in the visible light spectrum.
2. 15 to 20% of visible light striking solar panels is converted into electricity.
3. Per square meter solar panels effectively reduce the 240 W/m² striking it by: 240 W/m² x 0.44 x 0.2 = 21.12 W/m²

Do enough of that and it adds up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. 40 to 44% of solar radiation striking solar panels is in the visible light spectrum.
2. 15 to 20% of visible light striking solar panels is converted into electricity.
3. Per square meter solar panels effectively reduce the 240 W/m² striking it by: 240 W/m² x 0.44 x 0.2 = 21.12 W/m²

Do enough of that and it adds up.

It adds up to moving heat from one spot to another.
It doesn't add up to cooling the planet.

 

[ding]

It doesn't add up to cooling the planet.

1. The land surface of the planet is 149 million square kilometers or 1.49x10^14 m²
2. The solar radiation striking the land surface of the planet is 240 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 3.5760x10^16 W
3. The reduction needed to make the planet net cooling is 0.7 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 1.0430x10^14 W
4. So the number of square meters of solar panels needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling is 1.0430x10^14 W / 21.12 W/m² = 4.9384x10^12 m²
5. The percentage of land surface needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling is 4.9384x10^12 m² / 1.49x10^14 m²= 0.0331 or 3.31%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. The land surface of the planet is 149 million square kilometers or 1.49x10^14 m²
2. The solar radiation striking the land surface of the planet is 240 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 3.5760x10^16 W
3. The reduction needed to make the planet net cooling is 0.7 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 1.0430x10^14 W
4. So the number of square meters of solar panels needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling is 1.0430x10^14 W / 21.12 W/m² = 4.9384x10^12 m²
5. The percentage of land surface needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling is 4.9384x10^12 m² / 1.49x10^14 m²= 0.0331 or 3.31%.

The reduction needed to make the planet net cooling is 0.7 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 1.0430x10^14 W

You aren't reducing the amount of energy hitting or warming the planet.

 

[ding]

It adds up to moving heat from one spot to another.

Not when solar is replacing fossil fuels. As we replace fossil fuels with solar we are replacing generating sources not usage. So replacing a source which doesn't convert visible light photons into electricity with a source that does there is a net reduction of visible light photons warming the planet while electricity usage stays the same.

 

[ding]

The reduction needed to make the planet net cooling is 0.7 W/m² x 1.49x10^14 m² = 1.0430x10^14 W

You aren't reducing the amount of energy hitting or warming the planet.

Satellite measured temperatures at 116 solar farms says it is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not when solar is replacing fossil fuels. As we replace fossil fuels with solar we are replacing generating sources not usage. So replacing a source which doesn't convert visible light photons into electricity with a source that does there is a net reduction of visible light photons warming the planet while electricity usage stays the same.

So replacing a source which doesn't convert visible light photons into electricity with a source that does there is a net reduction of visible light photons warming the planet

There is no "net reduction of visible light photons warming the planet" with solar panels.

By covering a patch of ground with an albedo of 0.30 with a panel with an albedo of 0.05-0.10
you are actually increasing the amount of visible light photons warming the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Satellite measured temperatures at 116 solar farms says it is.

Where did the energy go?
Why isn't it conserved?

 

[ding]

You aren't reducing the amount of energy hitting or warming the planet.

If 1000 W of solar powered electricity is used to power an electrical device, does it have the same waste heat as 1000 W of electricity that was generated from fossil fuels?

 

[ding]

Where did the energy go?
Why isn't it conserved?

Why do you keep ignoring the incremental analysis of replacing fossil fuels with solar?

 

[ding]

So replacing a source which doesn't convert visible light photons into electricity with a source that does there is a net reduction of visible light photons warming the planet

There is no "net reduction of visible light photons warming the planet" with solar panels.

By covering a patch of ground with an albedo of 0.30 with a panel with an albedo of 0.05-0.10
you are actually increasing the amount of visible light photons warming the planet.

You are as dense as EMH.

 

[ding]

There is no "net reduction of visible light photons warming the planet" with solar panels.

Satellite measured temperatures at 116 solar farms disagrees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you keep ignoring the incremental analysis of replacing fossil fuels with solar?

Because that's an entirely different claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Satellite measured temperatures at 116 solar farms disagrees.

The energy from those photons was destroyed?

Or was the energy just moved?

 

[ding]

Because that's an entirely different claim.

It's literally what we have been discussing. So, no. Not a different claim. So, why do you keep ignoring the incremental analysis of replacing fossil fuels with solar?

 

[ding]

The energy from those photons was destroyed?

Or was the energy just moved?

If 1000 W of solar powered electricity is used to power an electrical device, does it have the same waste heat as 1000 W of electricity that was generated from fossil fuels?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's literally what we have been discussing. So, no. Not a different claim. So, why do you keep ignoring the incremental analysis of replacing fossil fuels with solar?

It's literally what we have been discussing. So, no. Not a different claim.

Totally different claim.

You said, "there is a net reduction of visible light photons warming the planet" when we use solar panels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If 1000 W of solar powered electricity is used to power an electrical device, does it have the same waste heat as 1000 W of electricity that was generated from fossil fuels?

When you move 1000 W of solar powered electricity from the panel to the electrical device,
how much does the planet cool because of that movement?