# Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!



## myself (Sep 11, 2021)

Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2021)

How much?


----------



## fncceo (Sep 11, 2021)

myself said:


> That is both day and night.



How do you store the power that people need when the sun isn't available?

Batteries?  That's a LOT of batteries, particularly when you consider we may soon be at war with the country that has most of the materials required to make them.

Additionally, our entire power grid works on AC.  Batteries only store DC.  You lose considerable power when you convert from one to the other, and then back again because most of our devices ultimately work on DC.


----------



## excalibur (Sep 11, 2021)

I don't see a link.

Stored? Storage solutions can't possibly power for more than an hour.

You cannot run a power grid off solar.


----------



## myself (Sep 11, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much?



  How much what.


----------



## myself (Sep 11, 2021)

fncceo said:


> How do you store the power that people need when the sun isn't available?
> 
> Batteries?  That's a LOT of batteries, particularly when you consider we may soon be at war with the country that has most of the materials required to make them.
> 
> Additionally, our entire power grid works on AC.  Batteries only store DC.  You lose considerable power when you convert from one to the other, and then back again because most of our devices ultimately work on DC.



  Elon Musk said that in conjunction with rooftop solar panels, the area that would be needed would be smaller.  And the batteries that would store excess energy for nighttime use would be about one mile square.  Of course, transmitting power will cause some loss.  But as for converting electricity from DC to AC, I would have to look it up.  But with electricity being the way it is, right now I would doubt there is any energy loss in the conversion.  Also, AC is pretty efficient.  That's why Tesla went with it.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2021)

Here is the link that is missing








						How much solar would it take to power the U.S.?
					

Critics claim that there simply isn’t enough land in the U.S. to power the country with solar. We dig through the numbers to reveal an answer that might surprise you.




					www.freeingenergy.com


----------



## myself (Sep 11, 2021)

excalibur said:


> I don't see a link.
> 
> Stored? Storage solutions can't possibly power for more than an hour.
> 
> You cannot run a power grid off solar.



  I don't have a link.  But if you're interested, just do what I did.  I typed into my browser, "What area in solar panels would it take to power the U.S."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2021)

myself said:


> How much what.



Money.


----------



## myself (Sep 11, 2021)

elektra said:


> Here is the link that is missing
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Thanks.  One of these days I'm going to have to learn how to do that.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 11, 2021)

excalibur said:


> I don't see a link.
> 
> Stored? Storage solutions can't possibly power for more than an hour.
> 
> You cannot run a power grid off solar.


NO?

Ever heard of Follow the Sun?
The earth receives far more solar energy than we need or consume.
If the political will existed we could power the world on solar.
Ever read Ringworld?  Heard of a Dyson's Sphere?
Imagine the choking at the Energy companies upon hearing all power would now be free.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> NO?
> 
> Ever heard of Follow the Sun?
> The earth receives far more solar energy than we need or consume.
> ...



As soon as you figure out how to make scrith, let us know.


----------



## elektra (Sep 11, 2021)

The author was overly generous, no capacity factor. With a generous capacity factor of 20%, it will require 5 areas this big. That is if we assume everyone is being honest which experience tells me, they are never honest.

Or the entire state of Nevada and half of New Mexico.

Can we give up two states in the south to power our nation. And that is just the solar panels, how large with the banks of batteries be? 

So we lose two states and maybe all of oklahoma for battery storage.


----------



## myself (Sep 11, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Money.



  How much will it cost when we destroy the world with human caused global warming.  Also, I have mentioned here and there how much more cheaply workers in China can make things than we can here in the U.S.  But I think that part of the reason they can do so as cheaply is that the government houses them.  To whatever degree, feeds and cloths them.  As well as educate them, etc.  With that much of their living expenses being taken care of, it's no wonder that they can make things cheaper than us.  So as far as solar panels here in the U.S. goes, it would basically cost as much as the government wanted to pay for them.  If they depend on private capitalist industry to do the job, it will cost up the ass.  And probably then some.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 11, 2021)

myself said:


> Elon Musk said that in conjunction with rooftop solar panels, the area that would be needed would be smaller.  And the batteries that would store excess energy for nighttime use would be about one mile square.  Of course, transmitting power will cause some loss.  But as for converting electricity from DC to AC, I would have to look it up.  But with electricity being the way it is, right now I would doubt there is any energy loss in the conversion.  Also, AC is pretty efficient.  That's why Tesla went with it.



AC IS very efficient, for power transmission.  Which is why our power grid generates AC, not DC

Much less so for running anything digital (which is basically everything we have now from computers to lightbulbs.

Converting from DC power generation to an AC grid is about 80% efficient.  But, then you have to convert your AC from the wall to DC for your appliances, another 80% efficiency.  

As for battery farms, the largest battery farm on the planet, built by Tesla Inc, in Hornsdale, Australia, has only enough capacity for 70 MW running for 10 minutes and 30 MW with a 3-hour capacity.

30 MW is only enough to power 3,000 homes or considerably fewer industrial sites.

The cost of converting our entire grid to a solar / windand building enough battery capacity to store that power (assuming there is enough Lithium on the planet to do so) would destroy our economy.


----------



## myself (Sep 11, 2021)

elektra said:


> The author was overly generous, no capacity factor. With a generous capacity factor of 20%, it will require 5 areas this big. That is if we assume everyone is being honest which experience tells me, they are never honest.
> 
> Or the entire state of Nevada and half of New Mexico.
> 
> ...



  You posted the link to the website.  Read it.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 11, 2021)

myself said:


> "What area in solar panels would it take to power the U.S."



The problem with asking that question is we don't ask the follow-up question of how do we power the US when there is no sun available?  Which is something we can't currently do.


----------



## lg325 (Sep 11, 2021)

Here in Florida  FPL has solar panels at their transfer stations.   It is a viable  technology.  Some of the large  ranches use it to run their irrigation pumps.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2021)

myself said:


> How much will it cost when we destroy the world with human caused global warming.



What does your imaginary scenario have to do with building trillions of dollars worth of 
more expansive, less reliable energy sources?


----------



## fncceo (Sep 11, 2021)

lg325 said:


> Here in Florida  FPL has solar panels at their transfer stations.   It is a viable  technology.  Some of the large  ranches use it to run their irrigation pumps.



For local uses, it's a very viable technology to AUGMENT a power grid or for non-essential demands.  Solar and wind are very useful when the sun and the wind are obliging us ... they turn into very expensive door stops when the wind and the sun aren't available.


----------



## excalibur (Sep 11, 2021)

fncceo said:


> ... how do we power the US when there is no sun available?




Unicorn farts.


----------



## excalibur (Sep 11, 2021)

*The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.*​​*



*​








						The "New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking | Manhattan Institute
					

Progressive policymakers promote the idea that America is on the verge of a green revolution that will eliminate hydrocarbon use within the near future—but in reality, this is not possible.




					www.manhattan-institute.org


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2021)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


That square is way too large. A 100 by 100 mile square would do. However, no one is going to do that, what will happen is that we will convert a lot of land to agrivoltaics, giving the farmer a second income, and conserving water in the process, as well as increasing his yield. And there will be in increasing adaptation of VPP's incorporating people roofs, mercantile and industrial parking lots, and mall and industrial roofs. The following article does not include the reduction of that area by the VPP's or agrivoltaics.


Is that the final number for miles of solar?​There are a couple of things that reduce these numbers a bit. For one thing, the NREL report on land usage is conservative in that solar panel efficiency has improved since the report was published.

Those numbers were based on 13 to 14 percent efficiency for solar modules. Now, in 2019, just six years later, solar panels on average have efficiency numbers between 15 to 18 percent. In fact, many solar panels are now available at 20 percent efficiency for commercial or utility solar sites.

This alone will reduce the number of solar panels needed and the required land mass to host those solar panels.

Secondly, the entire power load won’t depend entirely on big solar farms. Homeowners installing their own solar panels on rooftops could make up to about 34 percent of this electricity need.

With these things in mind, we can adjust our estimate from 22,000 square miles to just about 10,000 square miles. This is the number Elon Musk talked about at the National Governors Association meeting, referring to the space needed as taking up “a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah.”






						How Many Solar Panels Would be Needed to Power the USA
					

Will every home need solar panels on their roof to generate enough power for the nation? Will we need massive solar farms stretching across large chunks of land? Click here to read more on our blog.




					www.vivintsolar.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2021)

fncceo said:


> How do you store the power that people need when the sun isn't available?
> 
> Batteries?  That's a LOT of batteries, particularly when you consider we may soon be at war with the country that has most of the materials required to make them.
> 
> Additionally, our entire power grid works on AC.  Batteries only store DC.  You lose considerable power when you convert from one to the other, and then back again because most of our devices ultimately work on DC.


Man, are you ever going to get beyond the 1950's? Ever hear of pumped hydro? A half dozen designs to use gravity. And many others are using existing technology.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2021)

fncceo said:


> AC IS very efficient, for power transmission.  Which is why our power grid generates AC, not DC
> 
> Much less so for running anything digital (which is basically everything we have now from computers to lightbulbs.
> 
> ...


Damn fellow, can't you get anything right? The Hornsdale plant has a lot more storage than 70 MW/hrs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2021)

fncceo said:


> AC IS very efficient, for power transmission.  Which is why our power grid generates AC, not DC
> 
> Much less so for running anything digital (which is basically everything we have now from computers to lightbulbs.
> 
> ...


“One big advantage to HVDC is the efficiency of power transmission over long distances,” George Culbertson, vice president of power delivery markets for HDR, told _POWER_. “If the transmission line route is longer than about 300 miles, DC is a better option because AC lines have more line losses than DC for bulk power transfer.”









						Benefits of High-Voltage Direct Current Transmission Systems
					

High-voltage direct current (HVDC) technology offers more efficient bulk power transfer over long distances compared to alternating current (AC) systems.




					www.powermag.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2021)

Solar and wind are the least expensive forms of new generation now. They cost less than fossil fuel generation and far, far less than nuclear. 












						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2021)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042






Try again.  Good heavens you are ignorant.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> Try again.  Good heavens you are ignorant.


LOL  Says one of the most ignorant fellows on this board. Actually, it will take far less than that and, of course, will not be in one place. By the way, you have been predicting a cooling since you have been on this board. So, when is that cooling coming? All we have seen is increasing warming decade by decade. You have been 100% wrong 100% of the time.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Man, are you ever going to get beyond the 1950's? Ever hear of pumped hydro? A half dozen designs to use gravity. And many others are using existing technology.



The largest pumped storage facility in the world is Guangdong (Southern China).  With a total capacity of 50 MILLION cubic meters of fresh water (in two vertically staged reservoirs), it has a total generating capacity of 2400 MegaWatts ... enough to power an industrialized city of 2 million people.   Roughly 1/2 of a percent of the total US need (today).

To generate all US power of today (forget about the future) needs from pumped storage, would require a not only a fresh water storage 200 times that of the Chinese facility,  400 times more capacity than the environmentally disastrous 3 Gorges Dam (27 million cubic meters).

Where would you put a water catchment of that size, recognizing that there has to be several hundred feet of vertical distance between reservoir and the generating station?

What would be the consequences of a failure of recycling turbines that bring the used hydro  from the generating stations back to the reservoir.

What would be the downstream consequences of a dam failure (a damn 400 times larger than any ever built before).

What would be the environmental impact of tying up 10 BILLION cubic meters of fresh water?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> The largest pumped storage facility in the world is Guangdong (Southern China).  With a total capacity of 50 MILLION cubic meters of fresh water (in two vertically staged reservoirs), it has a total generating capacity of 2400 MegaWatts ... enough to power an industrialized city of 2 million people.   Roughly 1/2 of a percent of the total US need (today).
> 
> To generate all US power of today (forget about the future) needs from pumped storage, would require a not only a fresh water storage 200 times that of the Chinese facility,  400 times more capacity than the environmentally disastrous 3 Gorges Dam (27 million cubic meters).
> 
> ...


You have virtually all of the Columbia basin with vertical elevations of up to 1000 ft. You build a large reservoir on top of the hill, and one at the bottom. You fill the top one once, and then only have to add for evaporation. you could easily put 20 of these on the Columbia in just Washington alone. Then there is the Snake. Hell's Canyon could host many more. There is practically the whole of the Pacific coast. 


"When it becomes operational, the Goldendale Energy Storage Project will have the capacity to store the hydro equivalent of 25,506 megawatt hours of electricity, and the ability to generate 1,200 megawatts—enough to power close to a million homes — for 12 to 20 hours."








						Colossal energy storage project in Columbia Gorge will be union-built - nwLaborPress
					

The Goldendale Energy Storage Project would be the area’s biggest project since the Columbia River hydro dams were built.




					nwlaborpress.org


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

Environmentalism has produced more missionaries than any religion that ever came before it.

I'm considering that we deal with missionaries the old-fashioned way ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Environmentalism has produced more missionaries than any religion that ever came before it.
> 
> I'm considering that we deal with missionaries the old-fashioned way ...
> 
> View attachment 538118


In other words, no real answer to real solutions. Typical of dumb fuck "Conservatives". With our present technology with can easily go completely clean energy in a decade. And create a lot of wealth doing that. But people like you shit your pants over the thought of anything other than what you see right now. Such fearful little fellows.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> The largest pumped storage facility in the world is Guangdong (Southern China).  With a total capacity of 50 MILLION cubic meters of fresh water (in two vertically staged reservoirs), it has a total generating capacity of 2400 MegaWatts ... enough to power an industrialized city of 2 million people.   Roughly 1/2 of a percent of the total US need (today).
> 
> To generate all US power of today (forget about the future) needs from pumped storage, would require a not only a fresh water storage 200 times that of the Chinese facility,  400 times more capacity than the environmentally disastrous 3 Gorges Dam (27 million cubic meters).
> 
> ...





Oh don't confuse olfraud with facts.

He doesn't do those.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> With our present technology with can easily go completely clean energy in a decade.



Gerard K. O'Neill wrote a book in 1977 titled "High Frontier", in it, he described how we could, with existing technology, build orbital cities with populations of tens or hundreds of thousands of persons, living in idyllic, organic, utopian splendor, all within a decade.

O'Neill even said the entire venture could be paid for by creating orbital solar power stations that would beam MegaWatts of free energy to earth in microwave beams. 

To the layman (like myself) he made everything sound imminently achievable and I couldn't figure out why, as a nation, we weren't already gearing up to move America's best and brightest (among whom I envisioned myself) into the final frontier where we could all wear color coordinated velour jerseys and bang green alien chicks.

I was obsessed by that book and re-read it so many times that it fell apart.  After my freshman year in college, I managed a summer job at JPL in Pasadena, near my campus.  Everyone there, experts in the field of space and more obsessed with space than any people on Earth, had read the book and considered it optimistically hilarious.

O'Neill clearly overestimated the ability of rocket technology, and seriously underestimated the dangers the stations inhabitants would face from space-based radiation, not to mention the idea of aiming megawatts of microwave energy beams to the outskirts of major world cities.  A global network of death stars.

The moral of this story is ... as any evangelist will tell you ... the utopian future you crave is right around the corner and there for the taking, just as long as you can convince the rest of those bonehead to send in their dollars.

How about this, Instead of destroying our economy, our environment, and our futures on HUGE, unsustainable mega-projects, hang on for a more viable technical solution like Fusion (fusion power is just 30 years away, and will always be so).  Even the littlest of chickens give us a century or two before we are obliterated as a species.  Personally, I'm hoping for at least a few decades of Mad Max apocalyptic fun land before we finally go out. 

I do however, rest easy in the knowledge if someone ever does try to build one of these huge vanity projects, the environmental impact studies alone will doom it to development hell for decades.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> How much what.


----------



## excalibur (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Solar and wind are the least expensive forms of new generation now. They cost less than fossil fuel generation and far, far less than nuclear.
> 
> View attachment 538115
> 
> ...


----------



## excalibur (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn fellow, can't you get anything right? The Hornsdale plant has a lot more storage than 70 MW/hrs.




*Then, if the share of episodic power becomes significant, the potential rises for complete system blackouts. That has happened twice after the wind died down unexpectedly (with some customers out for days in some areas) in the state of South Australia, which derives over 40% of its electricity from wind.

After a total system outage in South Australia in 2018, Tesla, with much media fanfare, installed the world’s single largest lithium battery “farm” on that grid. For context, to keep South Australia lit for one half-day of no wind would require 80 such “world’s biggest” Tesla battery farms, and that’s on a grid that serves just 2.5 million people.*​









						The "New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking | Manhattan Institute
					

Progressive policymakers promote the idea that America is on the verge of a green revolution that will eliminate hydrocarbon use within the near future—but in reality, this is not possible.




					www.manhattan-institute.org


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Gerard K. O'Neill wrote a book in 1977 titled "High Frontier", in it, he described how we could, with existing technology, build orbital cities with populations of tens or hundreds of thousands of persons, living in idyllic, organic, utopian splendor, all within a decade.
> 
> O'Neill even said the entire venture could be paid for by creating orbital solar power stations that would beam MegaWatts of free energy to earth in microwave beams.
> 
> ...






The problem with that intelligent course of action is bad "scientists" can't make mega bucks, and politicians and bureaucrats can't grab more power.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> How much will it cost when we destroy the world with ...


We can't destroy the world.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> How much will it cost when we destroy the world with human caused global warming.  Also, I have mentioned here and there how much more cheaply workers in China can make things than we can here in the U.S.  But I think that part of the reason they can do so as cheaply is that the government houses them.  To whatever degree, feeds and cloths them.  As well as educate them, etc.  With that much of their living expenses being taken care of, it's no wonder that they can make things cheaper than us.  So as far as solar panels here in the U.S. goes, it would basically cost as much as the government wanted to pay for them.  If they depend on private capitalist industry to do the job, it will cost up the ass.  And probably then some.


You have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> With our present technology with can easily go completely clean energy in a decade. And create a lot of wealth doing that.



More expensive, less reliable energy creates wealth?

How much wealth has been created by Germany with their expensive electricity?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> More expensive, less reliable energy creates wealth?
> 
> How much wealth has been created by Germany with their expensive electricity?


LOL  Gotta love idiots that post nonsense. Germany is a net exporter of electrical energy. So their 'expensive' electricity has created wealth for Germany. 

FRANKFURT, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Germany saw its electricity export surplus shrink by 46.2% in 2020 to 18.9 terawatt hours (TWh), raising the prospect that its dependency on neighbours could rise in future as it switches off more coal and nuclear power stations, official data showed.

Power exports by Europe’s biggest economy, which shares borders with nine countries, fell 11.6% to 52.5 TWh last year compared with 59.4 TWh in 2019, the energy regulator, called the Bundesnetzagentur, said in a publication on Saturday.

Meanwhile, electricity imports into Germany in 2020 increased by 38.8% to 33.6 TWh, compared with 24.2 TWh in the prior year.









						German power export surplus shrank 46.2% in 2020
					

Germany saw its electricity export surplus shrink by 46.2% in 2020 to 18.9 terawatt hours (TWh), raising the prospect that its dependency on neighbours could rise in future as it switches off more coal and nuclear power stations, official data showed.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2021)

excalibur said:


> *Then, if the share of episodic power becomes significant, the potential rises for complete system blackouts. That has happened twice after the wind died down unexpectedly (with some customers out for days in some areas) in the state of South Australia, which derives over 40% of its electricity from wind.*​​*After a total system outage in South Australia in 2018, Tesla, with much media fanfare, installed the world’s single largest lithium battery “farm” on that grid. For context, to keep South Australia lit for one half-day of no wind would require 80 such “world’s biggest” Tesla battery farms, and that’s on a grid that serves just 2.5 million people.*​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the results of that battery farm;


You are so full of shit. The purpose of the battery was never meant to replace the base load. It replaces gas peaker plants.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  Gotta love idiots that post nonsense. Germany is a net exporter of electrical energy. So their 'expensive' electricity has created wealth for Germany.
> 
> FRANKFURT, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Germany saw its electricity export surplus shrink by 46.2% in 2020 to 18.9 terawatt hours (TWh), raising the prospect that its dependency on neighbours could rise in future as it switches off more coal and nuclear power stations, official data showed.
> 
> ...


*
Gotta love idiots that post nonsense.*

Don't be so hard on yourself.

*Germany is a net exporter of electrical energy.*

They pay triple what we do for electricity.
Do you feel their exports somehow make their triple payment less painful?

If you pay $300, instead of $100, how much wealth was created for you?


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


Where are you going to store the energy for use at night?


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


Maybe if I covered my whole roof with solar panels I could recharge the battery for my burglar alarm. But then again, that's just more glass for the burglars to break and more equipment for them to steal.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Man, are you ever going to get beyond the 1950's? Ever hear of pumped hydro? A half dozen designs to use gravity. And many others are using existing technology.


The power needed to pump all that water up is more than the power you get back.

There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine you know.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> We can't destroy the world.





Yeah, we can do enough damage that we actually can.  Not blow it into a new asteroid belt, but we can burn the atmosphere, and render the planet sterile.

There isn't enough time left for the solar system to regenerate an atmosphere and the life that would use it.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yeah, we can do enough damage that we actually can.  ....


Nope. We can fuck up our ability to maintain our current circumstances here, but the planet is much, much more than we can "destroy." I see no reason to try, but NO we cannot.


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yeah, we can do enough damage that we actually can.  Not blow it into a new asteroid belt, but we can burn the atmosphere, and render the planet sterile.
> 
> There isn't enough time left for the solar system to regenerate an atmosphere and the life that would use it.


You're going to suffocate to death on marijuana if you don't stop sucking that stupid bong pipe.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> Nope. We can fuck up our ability to maintain our current circumstances here, but the planet is much, much more than we can "destroy." I see no reason to try, but NO we cannot.







If we wanted to burn the atmosphere, we could.  Just build a big enough Nuke.  The Soviets, with their Tzar Bomba got a yield higher than they calculated because the atmosphere started to react with the bomb.  So, yeah, if one of these loons decided they wanted to destroy the planet, they could make a real good effort at it.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> You're going to suffocate to death on marijuana if you don't stop sucking that stupid bong pipe.






I'm a single malt sort of guy.  I'll let you youngsters addle your brain with the mary jane.


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> If we wanted to burn the atmosphere, we could.  Just build a big enough Nuke.  The Soviets, with their Tzar Bomba got a yield higher than they calculated because the atmosphere started to react with the bomb.  So, yeah, if one of these loons decided they wanted to destroy the planet, they could make a real good effort at it.


Loons? That's right. They're loonies. Are you saying the Canada has nukes already aimed on a hair trigger at strategic U.S. cities?


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> I'm a single malt sort of guy.  I'll let you youngsters addle your brain with the mary jane.


You drank too much of it.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> You drank too much of it.






And you clearly know nothing about science.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  Gotta love idiots that post nonsense. Germany is a net exporter of electrical energy. So their 'expensive' electricity has created wealth for Germany.
> 
> Meanwhile, electricity *imports into Germany in 2020 increased by 38.8% to 33.6 TWh, compared with 24.2 TWh in the prior year.*
> 
> ...


You just made the point that Germany is importing electricity. And at that it is increasing!
Old Crock makes a point, then posts proof he is wrong.
Now go ahead and explain your nonsense, you old idiot! Thanks for the laugh


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2021)

What the real expert thinks;


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> The power needed to pump all that water up is more than the power you get back.
> 
> There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine you know.


LOL  You silly ass. Yes, of course you do. But the power to pump the water up is power that would be wasted. The problem with both wind and solar is that it produces power, no matter what the demand or lack thereof. So you use that excess power to pump the water up the hill, and use it flowing back down when you need more power. I feel like I am lecturing a kindergartener.


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  Gotta love idiots that post nonsense. Germany is a net exporter of electrical energy. So their 'expensive' electricity has created wealth for Germany.
> 
> Meanwhile, electricity imports into Germany in 2020 increased by 38.8% to 33.6 TWh, compared with 24.2 TWh in the prior year.
> 
> ...


You just made the point that Germany is importing electricity. And at that it is increasing!
Old Crock makes a point, then posts proof he is wrong.
Now go ahead and explain your nonsense, you old idiot! Thanks for the laugh


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

elektra said:


> The author was overly generous, no capacity factor. With a generous capacity factor of 20%, it will require 5 areas this big. That is if we assume everyone is being honest which experience tells me, they are never honest.
> 
> Or the entire state of Nevada and half of New Mexico.
> 
> ...



  I think you're being overly dishonest.  Do you earn a living from an energy company or some other major polluter in some way?  I am reminded of something Upton Sinclair once said.  He said, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something. when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

  We can go solar.  What the map shows is the total area of solar panels it would take to do so.  But of course they don't have to all be in one place as the map shows.  (Though we do have a LOT of desert areas going to waste) Having solar panels on everybody's roofs would do the trick. They and all the infrastructure should be funded and accomplished by the government on the grounds of national survival.  After all, they do that sort of thing in war. Though we would still need an electric grid.  Because the sun doesn't always shine everywhere.  As far as storing excess energy goes, that can be done in a number of ways. Batteries, capacitors or large perfectly balanced disks spinning at very high speeds.  On a large scale I have hear them talk about using excess energy to heat sodium.  Which in off hours could be used to turn water into steam to turn turbines.

  Also, I think you saw my thread, "Global Warming: Here's the thing."  If human caused global warming wasn't real, but we did something about it anyway, the worst that could happen is that we live more equitably within our environmental system.  But if human caused global warming is real and we did nothing about it, the worst that could happen is the destruction of the earth.  I say it's better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> I think you're being overly dishonest.  Do you earn a living from an energy company or some other major polluter in some way?  I am reminded of something Upton Sinclair once said.  He said, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something. when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
> 
> We can go solar.  What the map shows is the total area of solar panels it would take to do so.  But of course they don't have to all be in one place as the map shows.  (Though we do have a LOT of desert areas going to waste) Having solar panels on everybody's roofs would do the trick. They and all the infrastructure should be funded and accomplished by the government on the grounds of national survival.  After all, they do that sort of thing in war. Though we would still need an electric grid.  Because the sun doesn't always shine everywhere.  As far as storing excess energy goes, that can be done in a number of ways. Batteries, capacitors or large perfectly balanced disks spinning at very high speeds.  On a large scale I have hear them talk about using excess energy to heat sodium.  Which in off hours could be used to turn water into steam to turn turbines.
> 
> Also, I think you saw my thread, "Global Warming: Here's the thing."  If human caused global warming wasn't real, but we did something about it anyway, the worst that could happen is that we live more equitably within our environmental system.  But if human caused global warming is real and we did nothing about it, the worst that could happen is the destruction of the earth.  I say it's better to be safe than sorry.


Desert going to waste? Yes, all those poor creatures, the coyotes, lizards, the turtles, the birds, horny toads and snakes, just there for you to crush the fucking life out of them. 

And the plants, cause you dont stop to walk amongst them, they mean nothing to you as well. 

You claim you are going to save the environment, you are so much stronger, more powerful than god, you will change the climate, and fuck the desert, cause you are too ignorant to appreciate its glory.

Yes, I get you, and all of you rotten scum bag DemoRATS, you will destroy the earth while claiming you saved it. Polluting the hell out of the rivers, the streams, cutting down the forests, toxic hell, and you claim you better than me and everyone else.

Your are scum, pure and simple, nothing more.

_*We are the democrats, we are here to save the world, step aside while we destroy the forests, destroy the deserts, destroy the rivers and lakes and the ocean, step aside while we destroy the world to save the world. 

Now the earth is nice and dead, and so are we, and the democrats will sit back, take their last breath, and blame trump*_


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Do you earn a living from an energy company or some other major polluter in some way?



I see what you're saying ..

*If you don't believe in enviro-Jesus then you must have sold your soul to the enviro-Devil!  Burn, Heretic!*

Got it!


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


You dumb Moon Bat.

Solar electrical power generation is a terrible source of energy.

If you think it is wrong to be using fossil and nuclear energy then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and turn off the electricity in you house and stop driving a vehicle?

I've asked you to do that several times because you always spout all this silly shit but you won't do it.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> AC IS very efficient, for power transmission.  Which is why our power grid generates AC, not DC
> 
> Much less so for running anything digital (which is basically everything we have now from computers to lightbulbs.
> 
> ...



  Battery technology is improving all the time.  And lithium-ion batteries aren't the only kind of battery.  There are a few different kinds of rechargeable batteries out there.  You can even use lead acid batteries for storage.  But the thing is that you don't even need batteries.  There are other means of storing excess energy.  Energy can be used to spin a large perfectly balanced disk.  If it is going fast enough it could provide power for a long time.  Another way I heard of to store excess energy is to use it to heat sodium.  Though that would have to be for large scale solar farms. The heated sodium could then be used to turn water into steam.  Which in turn could power turbines.  Another energy storage is capacitors.  So when it comes to energy storage, that really isn't a problem.

  I did find out something interesting about solar panels though.  Apparently their ability to produce power is tied to some degree to how much power is being drawn from them.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> The problem with asking that question is we don't ask the follow-up question of how do we power the US when there is no sun available?  Which is something we can't currently do.



  There would still need to be an energy grid.  To transmit power from areas where there is a lot of sunlight to areas where it may be cloudy.  And even then, I hear that they have solar panels that can produce electricity from infrared light.  Which passes through clouds.  Though I don't know how efficient they are.


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Battery technology is improving all the time.  And lithium-ion batteries aren't the only kind of battery.  There are a few different kinds of rechargeable batteries out there.  You can even use lead acid batteries for storage.  But the thing is that you don't even need batteries.  There are other means of storing excess energy.  Energy can be used to spin a large perfectly balanced disk.  If it is going fast enough it could provide power for a long time.  Another way I heard of to store excess energy is to use it to heat sodium.  Though that would have to be for large scale solar farms. The heated sodium could then be used to turn water into steam.  Which in turn could power turbines.  Another energy storage is capacitors.  So when it comes to energy storage, that really isn't a problem.
> 
> I did find out something interesting about solar panels though.  Apparently their ability to produce power is tied to some degree to how much power is being drawn from them.


you are a lousy miserable coward, running from the posts that show you are shallow and ill-fit to discuss your own beliefs.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Battery technology is improving all the time. And lithium-ion batteries aren't the only kind of battery.



The thing is ... they aren't.  The most efficient batteries today are Li-ION. Li-Po, and Li-FE-PO4... depending on the application.  All batteries in use today depend on a chemical reaction and we have reached the limits of exotic combinations of ion producing elements.  Not to mention, the environmental damage as Australia, Chile, and China continue to strip mine those rare elements so our iPhones will last an hour longer.

There is nothing even remotely ready for commercial development on the horizon ... let alone a technology ready to hold all the power for the USA in one go.

Solar / Battery technology is only feasible for small scale applications and any of those applications that are critical will always have a mains power backup.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What does your imaginary scenario have to do with building trillions of dollars worth of
> more expansive, less reliable energy sources?



  Human caused global warming is a reality.  Not only that, it is accelerating.  Also, cost is a relative matter.  Bees, ants and termites have societies of sorts.  They have existed for over 100 million years.  Without having to spend a penny.  Another point is that solar panels are very reliable.  Sunlight isn't because of cloudy days.  That is why we would still need an energy grid.  To transmit electricity from places where there is sunlight to areas where it may be cloudy.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> There would still need to be an energy grid.



Our current energy grid is based 100% on AC transmission.  Solar and wind produce DC power most efficiently.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> I see what you're saying ..
> 
> *If you don't believe in enviro-Jesus then you must have sold your soul to the enviro-Devil!  Burn, Heretic!*
> 
> Got it!


  Human caused global warming isn't a cult.  Its existence is based on science.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> You dumb Moon Bat.
> 
> Solar electrical power generation is a terrible source of energy.
> 
> ...



  Go fly a ****.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

elektra said:


> you are a lousy miserable coward, running from the posts that show you are shallow and ill-fit to discuss your own beliefs.



  Piss off.  I didn't run from anything.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Bees, ants and termites have societies of sorts. They have existed for over 100 million years. Without having to spend a penny.



Bees and ants, not being party animals, have precious little on which to spend their money.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Human caused global warming isn't a cult. Its existence is based on science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Bees, ants and termites have societies of sorts.



They don't kill the planet by posting on USMB.

Be more like them.....stop posting, planet-killer.


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Piss off.  I didn't run from anything.


you are a coward and liar, now. 

No response when I call you out on the destruction you have proposed.
No response when I point at the life in the desert you dont give a shit about.

Yes, you posted twice, ignoring my comments. 

You can post anything but garbage, and the garbage you propose kills the earth, kills plants and animals. Industrializes the very remote wilderness that is the west. 

Yes you ran, you lousy lying coward. Very easy to pontificate your high values, while maintaining your ignorance sitting on your couch enjoying all you claim destroys, while you have not the eduction to design, engineer, nor build what you propose.


----------



## Flash (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Go fly a ****.




You little chickenshit Environmental Wackos bitch about fossil fuels but you little turds never live up to your convictions.

If you really believe that silly horseshit you would do the right thing and disconnect from the fossil fuel/nuclear grid.

Go get yourself a solar powered car.  Have fun this winter freezing your Moon Bat ass off.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> You little chickenshit Environmental Wackos bitch about fossil fuels but you little turds never live up to your convictions.
> 
> If you really believe that silly horseshit you would do the right thing and disconnect from the fossil fuel/nuclear grid.
> 
> Go get yourself a solar powered car.  Have fun this winter freezing your Moon Bat ass off.



*"Let the Bastards freeze in the dark"*

-- Admiral Hyman J. Rickover --- founder of the US Nuclear Navy referring to anti-nuclear environmentalists.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> The thing is ... they aren't.  The most efficient batteries today are Li-ION. Li-Po, and Li-FE-PO4... depending on the application.  All batteries in use today depend on a chemical reaction and we have reached the limits of exotic combinations of ion producing elements.  Not to mention, the environmental damage as Australia, Chile, and China continue to strip mine those rare elements so our iPhones will last an hour longer.
> 
> There is nothing even remotely ready for commercial development on the horizon ... let alone a technology ready to hold all the power for the USA in on go.
> 
> Solar / Battery technology is only feasible for small scale applications and any of those applications that are critical will always have a mains power backup.



  I don't know if anybody has ever built a heated sodium storage tank.  For sure sodium is highly corrosive, but it is doable.  You know that they tried to build a nuclear reactor once that was cooled with sodium.  For some strange reason that is beyond me, apparently a uranium fueled nuclear reactor that is cooled with sodium never has to be refueled.  But the reactor of course needed pumps.  Which the sodium was able to make its way past.  So the experiment failed. (Though I know of a way to make it work)  But with sodium heat storage, that problem wouldn't exist.

  We may need good rechargeable batteries for things like phones or cars.  But as I said, for a large scale, we don't even need batteries.  I also mentioned using capacitors.  Or a large perfectly balanced disk that would store the energy by speeding up the disk.  That motion could then be turned into electricity.  Lastly, there is nothing wrong with having backups.  There is a place in my town where they have a building that probably houses a couple train engines for that purpose.  But if things are done right with solar, such things would never be needed.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Our current energy grid is based 100% on AC transmission.  Solar and wind produce DC power most efficiently.



  You already went into that.  There is some energy loss in converting DC into AC.  But it isn't that big of a problem.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> You little chickenshit Environmental Wackos bitch about fossil fuels but you little turds never live up to your convictions.
> 
> If you really believe that silly horseshit you would do the right thing and disconnect from the fossil fuel/nuclear grid.
> 
> Go get yourself a solar powered car.  Have fun this winter freezing your Moon Bat ass off.



  How often do I have to say it for it to sink in for you.  Anything I personally did wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Just like recycling.  Which is a BS propaganda ploy put out by the plastics industry to enable them to keep doing the crap they do.  Change can't be done by one person.  Or a small group of people.  It is something that the society on the whole must do.  (Whether or not they like it)  You know, in Germany they have gone into solar in a big way.  And they don't get as much sunlight as we do.  And they're making it work.  Just like them damn Nazis.  With that always being right and stuff.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

fncceo said:


> *"Let the Bastards freeze in the dark"*
> 
> -- Admiral Hyman J. Rickover --- founder of the US Nuclear Navy referring to anti-nuclear environmentalists.



  Just how long before Chernobyl was that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> You know, in Germany they have gone into solar in a big way. And they don't get as much sunlight as we do. And they're making it work.



How is it "working"?

Besides causing them to pay triple what we do.........


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

excalibur said:


> *The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.*​​*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  How much money does Elon Musk have compared to you.  So what are your ideas compared to his.  There are also ways to store excess energy that I told others about.  Heating sodium in large tanks.  Which could then be used to turn water into steam.  Capacitors could also be used.  They might even be feasible for powering electric cars instead of using batteries.  Energy could also be used to speed up a large perfectly balanced disk.  That energy could then be drawn off to create electricity.


----------



## elektra (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Just how long before Chernobyl was that.


You are a coward, an ignorant mouth, spewing garbage, you cant support, and when called out, you run away from your comments, you are not man, or woman? enough to admit you are wrong.
How does one describe those like you, without demeaning trolls lunatics or imbeciles.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> How much money does Elon Musk have compared to you. So what are your ideas compared to his.



This guy is pretty rich ... perhaps we should be seeking advice from him...


----------



## fncceo (Sep 12, 2021)

Elon Musk's biggest selling product is Elon Musk.


----------



## myself (Sep 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> That square is way too large. A 100 by 100 mile square would do. However, no one is going to do that, what will happen is that we will convert a lot of land to agrivoltaics, giving the farmer a second income, and conserving water in the process, as well as increasing his yield. And there will be in increasing adaptation of VPP's incorporating people roofs, mercantile and industrial parking lots, and mall and industrial roofs. The following article does not include the reduction of that area by the VPP's or agrivoltaics.
> 
> 
> Is that the final number for miles of solar?​There are a couple of things that reduce these numbers a bit. For one thing, the NREL report on land usage is conservative in that solar panel efficiency has improved since the report was published.
> ...



 Elktra posted a link you can click on in post #7 that you should check out.  It is where I got the image I posted.  Next, with "agrivoltaics," I take it you are referring to that stupidity of crowing crops to make fuel.  What a waste.  Neither do I see how it could possibly conserve water or increase yields.  As for VPP's, I don't even know what they are.  Enlighten me.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 12, 2021)

Batteries wear out and are expensive and are polluting to produce and dispose of.  What would work better than batteries is a closed gravity fed hydraulic system.  During the day use the excess electricity to pump water, or some other fluid, like hydraulic fluid, up to a high elevation.  At night, or in bad weather, release it to flow downhill and turn turbines to produce power.   Rinse, wash and repeat.  With a closed system fluid losses would be minimal to non-existent.  It wouldn't be perfect, but it would reduce the need for fossil fueled generators to backup solar or wind fields at low production times.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2021)

myself said:


> Human caused global warming isn't a cult.  Its existence is based on science.






Yeah, it is.


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2021)

Solar destroys the earth and will cost us $67 trillion or more. 

That kind of money does not exist


----------



## there4eyeM (Sep 13, 2021)

The major problem is that such a plan would decentralize control. We can't have that!


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 13, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  You silly ass. Yes, of course you do. But the power to pump the water up is power that would be wasted. The problem with both wind and solar is that it produces power, no matter what the demand or lack thereof. So you use that excess power to pump the water up the hill, and use it flowing back down when you need more power. I feel like I am lecturing a kindergartener.


Wasted right.

And tell me just how many gallons of water would need to be pumped up to provide 12 hours of power ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2021)

Big solar


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Wasted right.
> 
> And tell me just how many gallons of water would need to be pumped up to provide 12 hours of power ?


And just what is it with you that you are incapable of reading articles or listening to videos with a least a little comprehension?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Batteries wear out and are expensive and are polluting to produce and dispose of.  What would work better than batteries is a closed gravity fed hydraulic system.  During the day use the excess electricity to pump water, or some other fluid, like hydraulic fluid, up to a high elevation.  At night, or in bad weather, release it to flow downhill and turn turbines to produce power.   Rinse, wash and repeat.  With a closed system fluid losses would be minimal to non-existent.  It wouldn't be perfect, but it would reduce the need for fossil fueled generators to backup solar or wind fields at low production times.


It is called pumped hydro. Works really great where you have the elevation difference to make it work. However, it does not have the response time of the big batteries. So, working in tandem with the batteries, it is an ideal solution where applicable. Also, pumped hydro has to have the right geology, also, and is not that scalable, whereas the batteries are wonderfully scalable. From the tiny batteries that power hearing aids to hundreds of MW batteries for wind and solar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2021)

myself said:


> Elktra posted a link you can click on in post #7 that you should check out.  It is where I got the image I posted.  Next, with "agrivoltaics," I take it you are referring to that stupidity of crowing crops to make fuel.  What a waste.  Neither do I see how it could possibly conserve water or increase yields.  As for VPP's, I don't even know what they are.  Enlighten me.


Agrivoltaics;


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Elon Musk's biggest selling product is Elon Musk.
> 
> View attachment 538438


LOL  That may well be. He certainly has produced some notable successes. Tesla, Space X. What have you produced other than flap yap?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2021)

elektra said:


> You are a coward, an ignorant mouth, spewing garbage, you cant support, and when called out, you run away from your comments, you are not man, or woman? enough to admit you are wrong.
> How does one describe those like you, without demeaning trolls lunatics or imbeciles.


Oh my, Mrs. Elektra is getting her ass kicked.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yeah, it is.


A cult that includes virtually the whole of the scientific community. LOL Now that is funny.


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Batteries wear out and are expensive and are polluting to produce and dispose of.  What would work better than batteries is a closed gravity fed hydraulic system.  During the day use the excess electricity to pump water, or some other fluid, like hydraulic fluid, up to a high elevation.  At night, or in bad weather, release it to flow downhill and turn turbines to produce power.   Rinse, wash and repeat.  With a closed system fluid losses would be minimal to non-existent.  It wouldn't be perfect, but it would reduce the need for fossil fueled generators to backup solar or wind fields at low production times.



  Batteries aren't perfect.  That's why I brought up other alternatives.  Capacitors, a large perfectly balanced spinning disk and for large systems, heated sodium to create steam.  Pumping water to a higher elevation would work too.  There is only one major drawback to using solar energy.  An EMP pulse would probably fry out every solar panel.  I have heard that one nuclear device exploded about 100 miles above say the East Coast would fry most of the electronics along the entire East Coast.  Solar panels could probably be shielded with a grounded metal screen.  It might make them a little less efficient.  But it would be better than having them easily destroyed.


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

elektra said:


> Solar destroys the earth and will cost us $67 trillion or more.
> 
> That kind of money does not exist



  So you say.  But human caused global warming will surely destroy the earth.  As for what Solar would cost, at one time Egypt was able to build some pretty impressive pyramids.  China was able to build a really impressive Great Wall.  In adjusted wealth, I wonder what either of those civilizations paid to create their great works would compare to what it would cost us to go solar.  Probably nothing nearly as much.  Not even close.  Here is another point on what it would cost us.  People would have to pay very little to nothing to drive their cars.  (If they are electric)  They wouldn't need to pay to heat their homes in winter or cool them in summer.  That would save us quite a lot.


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> The major problem is that such a plan would decentralize control. We can't have that!



  It would at least rip control out of the hands of polluting energy companies.


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Agrivoltaics;



  I hate to be a bummer.  But agrivoltaics is a bad idea.  Because plants need sunlight.  Any light hitting a solar panel would be light that the plants aren't getting.  Now on the other hand, I have heard that there are enough paved roads in the U.S. to where the total area of that pavement would be equal to the size of West Virginia.  If we covered around half of our highways with solar panels, that alone would probably be enough to power the U.S.  For both day and night of course.  We wouldn't need that 140 mile per side square of solar panels out in the desert areas to do it.  As is shown in this graph.


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

elektra said:


> you are a coward and liar, now.
> 
> No response when I call you out on the destruction you have proposed.
> No response when I point at the life in the desert you dont give a shit about.
> ...



  "If" you posted something that I didn't comment on, it was no doubt because what you posted was too stupid to comment on.  Solar panels wouldn't cause any sort of destruction.  Except for helping toward the destruction of human caused global warming.  As for deserts, they aren't worth a damn.  I saw once something along the lines that forest supports around 10,000 more lifeforms than desert areas do.  So what now on that last fact.  Do you want me to look up exact figures to waste more time on?


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2021)

myself said:


> So you say.  But human caused global warming will surely destroy the earth.  As for what Solar would cost, at one time Egypt was able to build some pretty impressive pyramids.  China was able to build a really impressive Great Wall.  In adjusted wealth, I wonder what either of those civilizations paid to create their great works would compare to what it would cost us to go solar.  Probably nothing nearly as much.  Not even close.  Here is another point on what it would cost us.  People would have to pay very little to nothing to drive their cars.  (If they are electric)  They wouldn't need to pay to heat their homes in winter or cool them in summer.  That would save us quite a lot.


you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground

Even the politicians and industry state it will cost $100 trillion.

either way, solar raises the temperature of the earth, kills the land, and all the wildlife, for 22,000 square miles


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How is it "working"?
> 
> Besides causing them to pay triple what we do.........



  I guess it depends on which website you look at.  In my browser I entered this.  "What are German electric bills compared to U.S. electric bills."  At the top of the list was a website that said this.  "German power bills are low compared to US average."  Within the article for that website it says that Germans only pay around $92.00 dollars a month for electricity - compared to the US average of $110.00 dollars.


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2021)

myself said:


> "If" you posted something that I didn't comment on, it was no doubt because what you posted was too stupid to comment on.  Solar panels wouldn't cause any sort of destruction.  Except for helping toward the destruction of human caused global warming.  As for deserts, they aren't worth a damn.  I saw once something along the lines that forest supports around 10,000 more lifeforms than desert areas do.  So what now on that last fact.  Do you want me to look up exact figures to waste more time on?


bullshit, you are a filthy lying scumbag. 

you have not posted one fact yet


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2021)

myself said:


> I guess it depends on which website you look at.  In my browser I entered this.  "What are German electric bills compared to U.S. electric bills."  At the top of the list was a website that said this.  "German power bills are low compared to US average."  Within the article for that website it says that Germans only pay around $92.00 dollars a month for electricity - compared to the US average of $110.00 dollars.


more lies, thank you


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

elektra said:


> you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground
> 
> Even the politicians and industry state it will cost $100 trillion.
> 
> either way, solar raises the temperature of the earth, kills the land, and all the wildlife, for 22,000 square miles



  The last people I would listen to are politicians and industry.  You know, the kinds of people who paid $10,000 dollars for a toilet seat cover for a B-52, $435.00 dollars for a claw hammer, $436.00 for a sledge hammer, $437.00 for a 12 foot measuring tape, etc.  Next, solar panels wouldn't create any more heat from the sun hitting them than it would if it hit the ground.


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

elektra said:


> bullshit, you are a filthy lying scumbag.
> 
> you have not posted one fact yet



  You are too stupid to talk to.  Go away.


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2021)

myself said:


> The last people I would listen to are politicians and industry.  You know, the kinds of people who paid $10,000 dollars for a toilet seat cover for a B-52, $435.00 dollars for a claw hammer, $436.00 for a sledge hammer, $437.00 for a 12 foot measuring tape, etc.  Next, solar panels wouldn't create any more heat from the sun hitting them than it would if it hit the ground.


The last people you will listen to is the solar industry? 

Solar panels will create more heat, scientists study and report it. You really are a stupid individual.


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2021)

myself said:


> You are too stupid to talk to.  Go away.


you are a moron, you cant back up one bit of your opinion

solar panels do not create hot spots, a solar farm does not raise the temperature of the surrounding area? Ha, ha, ha, yes you are a moron

Scientists say solar does raise the temperature.
SanDiegoCounty.gov hotter than surrounding areacontent/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/JVR/PreBoard/Comments/Global Response 2 - Heat Island Final.pdf

The normal operating temperature for PV panels is approximately 20 degrees Celsius (°C) 1 above ambient temperature; therefore, on a typical summer day at 40°C (104 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), the panel temperature would be approximately 60°C (140°F). When accounting for irradiance (a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given time), wind, and PV panel type, it is expected that the peak PV panel temperatures in the summer would be between 
65°C and 70°C (149°F and 158°F), a


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2021)

myself said:


> What are German electric bills compared to U.S. electric bills." At the top of the list was a website that said this. "German power bills are low compared to US average."



Look what I found at your silly link.........

_While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much.









						German power bills are low compared to US average | Energy Transition
					

In 2015, the average German household power bill fell slightly from 85 euros to 84 euros per month. What’s more, that level is relatively low compared to US averages. But Craig Morris says comparisons…




					energytransition.org
				



_


----------



## elektra (Sep 13, 2021)

myself said:


> I guess it depends on which website you look at.  In my browser I entered this.  "What are German electric bills compared to U.S. electric bills."  At the top of the list was a website that said this.  "German power bills are low compared to US average."  Within the article for that website it says that Germans only pay around $92.00 dollars a month for electricity - compared to the US average of $110.00 dollars.


It also says, that germans use 33% less power, and that they are stating that is why germans pay less, while paying more per kilowatt. 

So tell us, are you dumb, or a liar. There is much more in the article than you paraphrased, poorly.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> As soon as you figure out how to make scrith, let us know.


You mean like carbon fibers?

You do know that most of the new tech crap you use to control your life was written in SIFI 60 years ago?

I'm not discussing new tech or sifi but existing tech and the political will to implement it.


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Look what I found at your silly link.........
> 
> _While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much.
> 
> ...



  Yes, it did say that.  But lower down, it said differently, as I mentioned.  Though I think the reason they gave was because Germans use less electricity that people in the U.S. do.  But however you want to slice it, solar panels work.  If they didn't, Germany wouldn't use so many of them.  Like it or not, the energy that comes from solar panels is free.  You have to pay money to buy coal, oil or natural gas.


----------



## myself (Sep 13, 2021)

elektra said:


> you are a moron, you cant back up one bit of your opinion
> 
> solar panels do not create hot spots, a solar farm does not raise the temperature of the surrounding area? Ha, ha, ha, yes you are a moron
> 
> ...



  First of all, you suck.  Next, maybe what they need to do is give the solar panels a little air flow to keep the heat from building up inside them.  Though however hot they get, they won't create as much heat as CO2 is creating.  Also, I saw a thing on TV once about a form of farming they do in Spain.  They showed a desert area that had vast stretches of light colored tarps covering the ground.  This reflected much of the sunlight away.  But let in enough light in to grow crops.  It caused a cooling effect in the area.  Maybe they need to do the same thing with solar panels.  Give their surfaces a bit of a translucent milky white coating to reflect a little of the light away.  While allowing enough light through for the solar panels to do their thing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2021)

elektra said:


> you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground
> 
> Even the politicians and industry state it will cost $100 trillion.
> 
> either way, solar raises the temperature of the earth, kills the land, and all the wildlife, for 22,000 square miles


You are such a lying dumb fuck, Mrs. Elektra. No, even now it would not take 23,000 square miles, only 10,000 square miles. And using solar to cover canals would help cool the panels, and there would be less evaporation from the canals. Agri-voltaics will also contribute to far less need for large solar farms, increase yield on the farms, conserve water, improve the efficiency of the panels, and give the farmers a year round income. Even without these uses, a square 100 miles by 100 miles would  do the job. 

"Secondly, the entire power load won’t depend entirely on big solar farms. Homeowners installing their own solar panels on rooftops could make up to about 34 percent of this electricity need.

With these things in mind, we can adjust our estimate from 22,000 square miles to just about 10,000 square miles. This is the number Elon Musk talked about at the National Governors Association meeting, referring to the space needed as taking up “a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah.”

While having our nation powered by solar might not be as neat and tidy as that, it’s great to know that it’s absolutely possible to reach that renewable energy goal one day, especially with the advent of solar backup batteries to take care of the intermittency of solar."





						How Many Solar Panels Would be Needed to Power the USA
					

Will every home need solar panels on their roof to generate enough power for the nation? Will we need massive solar farms stretching across large chunks of land? Click here to read more on our blog.




					www.vivintsolar.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> You mean like carbon fibers?
> 
> You do know that most of the new tech crap you use to control your life was written in SIFI 60 years ago?
> 
> I'm not discussing new tech or sifi but existing tech and the political will to implement it.



*You mean like carbon fibers?*

_"Sure, it takes near-magical technology: the tensile strength of the scrith floor is about that of an atomic nucleus"
- __Larry Niven_


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You mean like carbon fibers?*
> 
> _"Sure, it takes near-magical technology: the tensile strength of the scrith floor is about that of an atomic nucleus"
> - __Larry Niven_


The improbable we do today, the impossible takes a little longer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2021)

myself said:


> Yes, it did say that.  But lower down, it said differently, as I mentioned.  Though I think the reason they gave was because Germans use less electricity that people in the U.S. do.  But however you want to slice it, solar panels work.  If they didn't, Germany wouldn't use so many of them.  Like it or not, the energy that comes from solar panels is free.  You have to pay money to buy coal, oil or natural gas.



*Yes, it did say that. But lower down, it said differently, as I mentioned. *

It doesn't say differently.

I said they pay triple what we do. Because they do.

*because Germans use less electricity that people in the U.S. do.  *

No kidding. It's so expensive, retired people can't afford power and food.

*Like it or not, the energy that comes from solar panels is free.  *

If only the panels were free........durr.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 14, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> And just what is it with you that you are incapable of reading articles or listening to videos with a least a little comprehension?


For one pumped water is one of the most inefficient power supply schemes ever thought up so why waste time on something that is not only very expensive but also untenable?

We will never be able to power the country with windmills and batteries.


----------



## myself (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Look what I found at your silly link.........
> 
> _While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much.
> 
> ...



  It says in one part that Germans pay twice as much for electricity.  But lower down it says that Americans pay more. Choose your poison.  But for any energy Germany is getting from solar panels, they aren't paying for or burning fossil fuels to get that energy.  I would call that a good thing.


----------



## myself (Sep 14, 2021)

elektra said:


> It also says, that germans use 33% less power, and that they are stating that is why germans pay less, while paying more per kilowatt.
> 
> So tell us, are you dumb, or a liar. There is much more in the article than you paraphrased, poorly.



  Maybe the reason they are using less power is because they are are getting more energy from solar.  Which is, so to speak, off the books.  It also said in that article that Germans on average have more washing machines than Americans do.  But far fewer dryers.  That doesn't make much sense.  Unless they are really into using clotheslines to dry their clothes.


----------



## elektra (Sep 14, 2021)

myself said:


> Maybe the reason they are using less power is because they are are getting more energy from solar.  Which is, so to speak, off the books.  It also said in that article that Germans on average have more washing machines than Americans do.  But far fewer dryers.  That doesn't make much sense.  Unless they are really into using clotheslines to dry their clothes.


Typical European homes are half the size as ours.


----------



## myself (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Yes, it did say that. But lower down, it said differently, as I mentioned. *
> 
> It doesn't say differently.
> 
> ...



  Wrong.  Not triple.  Double is closer to it.  And that is probably why they are going with solar panels.  Because electricity is so expensive.  As for quality of life, the U.S. is basically a third world country when compared to Germany.  
Next, if the U.S. wanted to, it could produce solar panels and any other equipment needed for cost.  You know, like the Egyptians probably built their pyramids.  For cost.  Or how the Chinese built their Great Wall.  For cost.  No profit involved.  And provide those solar panels to the Americas for free.  Along with maintaining them.  Coal companies wouldn't like it.  Oil companies wouldn't like it.  Those who are into nuclear energy wouldn't like it.  But the pocketbooks of the American people would love it.  Trouble is, coal and oil companies have a lot of money to elect the politicians they want.


----------



## myself (Sep 14, 2021)

elektra said:


> Typical European homes are half the size as ours.



  I don't know.  I've never been there.  But I was watching a Michael Moore documentary once.  I think it was "Sicko." Where it promoted universal health care.  In it they showed a doctor in France.  He drove a nice car.  And lived in a nice apartment.  But in their kitchen their refrigerator was only about half the size of the ones we use here in the U.S.  Though I'm sure they could have afforded a larger one.  Maybe they figured they just didn't need one.  Or maybe they just ate out a lot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

myself said:


> It says in one part that Germans pay twice as much for electricity.



Crazy, right?

I mean all that solar power they generate is free. 
They should pay less per MWh than we do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

myself said:


> Maybe the reason they are using less power is because they are are getting more energy from solar.  Which is, so to speak, off the books.  It also said in that article that Germans on average have more washing machines than Americans do.  But far fewer dryers.  That doesn't make much sense.  Unless they are really into using clotheslines to dry their clothes.



*Maybe the reason they are using less power is because they are are getting more energy from solar.*

Solar power is magic? You don't need as much solar to surf the web? DURR

*But far fewer dryers.  That doesn't make much sense.  Unless they are really into using clotheslines to dry their clothes.*

If your power was tripled in price, you'd probably have to use clotheslines.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You mean like carbon fibers?*
> 
> _"Sure, it takes near-magical technology: the tensile strength of the scrith floor is about that of an atomic nucleus"
> - __Larry Niven_


Your meaning eludes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

myself said:


> Wrong.  Not triple.  Double is closer to it.  And that is probably why they are going with solar panels.  Because electricity is so expensive.  As for quality of life, the U.S. is basically a third world country when compared to Germany.
> Next, if the U.S. wanted to, it could produce solar panels and any other equipment needed for cost.  You know, like the Egyptians probably built their pyramids.  For cost.  Or how the Chinese built their Great Wall.  For cost.  No profit involved.  And provide those solar panels to the Americas for free.  Along with maintaining them.  Coal companies wouldn't like it.  Oil companies wouldn't like it.  Those who are into nuclear energy wouldn't like it.  But the pocketbooks of the American people would love it.  Trouble is, coal and oil companies have a lot of money to elect the politicians they want.



*Wrong. Not triple. Double is closer to it. *










__





						Electricity price statistics - Statistics Explained
					

EU statistics on electricity prices for households and non-households analyse their evolution and the differences between countries.




					ec.europa.eu
				




Germany, 0.3006 Euro per KWh. About 35.5 cents

US, 13.85 cents.





__





						Electric Power Monthly - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
					






					www.eia.gov
				




35.5 / 13.85 = 2.56

Closer to triple.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Your meaning eludes.



You mentioned Ringworld. The Ringworld was built of scrith.









						Scrith
					

Scrith forms the walls and floor of the Ringworld. Scrith is milky-gray translucent in color, and is a nearly frictionless material. The relatively thin layer of scrith that forms the floor of the Ringworld blocks the passage of 40% of the Neutrinos that encounter it, equivalent to almost an...




					larryniven.fandom.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Yes, it did say that. But lower down, it said differently, as I mentioned. *
> 
> It doesn't say differently.
> 
> ...


They are far less costly than coal or gas fired generation.  Levelized Cost of Energy and of Storage


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2021)

myself said:


> Wrong.  Not triple.  Double is closer to it.  And that is probably why they are going with solar panels.  Because electricity is so expensive.  As for quality of life, the U.S. is basically a third world country when compared to Germany.
> Next, if the U.S. wanted to, it could produce solar panels and any other equipment needed for cost.  You know, like the Egyptians probably built their pyramids.  For cost.  Or how the Chinese built their Great Wall.  For cost.  No profit involved.  And provide those solar panels to the Americas for free.  Along with maintaining them.  Coal companies wouldn't like it.  Oil companies wouldn't like it.  Those who are into nuclear energy wouldn't like it.  But the pocketbooks of the American people would love it.  Trouble is, coal and oil companies have a lot of money to elect the politicians they want.


Actually there is a way to do this without all of that. Tesla and South Australia are building it right now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> They are far less costly than coal or gas fired generation.  Levelized Cost of Energy and of Storage



Sure they are......that's why Germany pays triple.





But, wait, $29, $41 and $28 looks pretty cheap.
And those work when the wind is calm and after the Sun sets.
And no batteries needed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

myself said:


> Next, if the U.S. wanted to, it could produce solar panels and any other equipment needed for cost. You know, like the Egyptians probably built their pyramids. For cost. Or how the Chinese built their Great Wall. For cost. No profit involved.



Like Chernobyl........no profit, eh comrade?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure they are......that's why Germany pays triple.
> 
> View attachment 539357
> 
> ...


That is the operating cost after the cost of building the plant is depreciated. The cost of wind and solar are include the building cost and the operating cost, as does the real cost for nuclear starting at $129 and as high as $198. And, since we have no nuclear waste storage yet, that cost, and it will be high, has not been included. The $41 for coal does not include the cost of transportation and storage. Include that and it is a low of $65 and a high of $159. On gas, the $28 is the assumed cost for the gas. Building and operating cost is a low of $44 and a high of $73. 

And, of course, the price of coal, gas, and nuclear continue to climb, while the cost of wind and solar continue to decline;












						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2021)

And the difference is continuing, especially in peaker plants. 












						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> That is the operating cost after the cost of building the plant is depreciated. The cost of wind and solar are include the building cost and the operating cost, as does the real cost for nuclear starting at $129 and as high as $198. And, since we have no nuclear waste storage yet, that cost, and it will be high, has not been included. The $41 for coal does not include the cost of transportation and storage. Include that and it is a low of $65 and a high of $159. On gas, the $28 is the assumed cost for the gas. Building and operating cost is a low of $44 and a high of $73.
> 
> And, of course, the price of coal, gas, and nuclear continue to climb, while the cost of wind and solar continue to decline;
> 
> ...



*That is the operating cost after the cost of building the plant is depreciated. *

You're not trying to decommission already built, depreciated nuclear, coal and gas plants?

*The cost of wind and solar are include the building cost and the operating cost*

You're not trying to build, new wind and solar?

*And, of course, the price of coal, gas, and nuclear continue to climb,*

Of course? What have the prices of uranium, coal and gas done over the last 10 years? 20 years?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> And the difference is continuing, especially in peaker plants.
> 
> View attachment 539376
> 
> ...



Lack the dispatch characteristics......no fucking kidding.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That is the operating cost after the cost of building the plant is depreciated. *
> 
> You're not trying to decommission already built, depreciated nuclear, coal and gas plants?
> 
> ...


No, I am not. But a lot of utilities are. 









						2 More Western Utilities Move to Close Coal Plants Early, Shifting to Renewables and Storage
					

Unlike Colorado, Arizona has no clean energy or carbon mandates. Its utilities are ditching their coal plants anyway.




					www.greentechmedia.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> No, I am not. But a lot of utilities are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's awesome!!!

So you expect rates to rise or fall?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That is the operating cost after the cost of building the plant is depreciated. *
> 
> You're not trying to decommission already built, depreciated nuclear, coal and gas plants?
> 
> ...


No, I am not building the wind and solar, but the utilities are;













						Renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020
					






					www.eia.gov


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's awesome!!!
> 
> So you expect rates to rise or fall?


Have they been rising or falling for the last 20 years? I expect the rise to be less steep as we transition to 100% renewables.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That is the operating cost after the cost of building the plant is depreciated. *
> 
> You're not trying to decommission already built, depreciated nuclear, coal and gas plants?
> 
> ...


what has the price of transporting uranium, coal, and gas done over the last two decades? What has the price of transporting wind and sunlight done over the last decade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> No, I am not building the wind and solar, but the utilities are;



No kidding. Gotta meet the stupid mandates. Gotta collect the subsidies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No kidding. Gotta meet the stupid mandates. Gotta collect the subsidies.


No one is going to beat the fossil fuel corporations at that game.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Have they been rising or falling for the last 20 years? I expect the rise to be less steep as we transition to 100% renewables.



*Have they been rising or falling for the last 20 years? *

Rising more in Germany than elsewhere. Must be all the cheap green goodness.

*I expect the rise to be less steep as we transition to 100%*

Like in California?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> No one is going to beat the fossil fuel corporations at that game.



Like what? Deducting business expenses?


----------



## myself (Sep 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crazy, right?
> 
> I mean all that solar power they generate is free.
> They should pay less per MWh than we do.



  I think you're crazy.  Imagine what they would be paying if they didn't get electricity from solar panels.


----------



## myself (Sep 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Maybe the reason they are using less power is because they are are getting more energy from solar.*
> 
> Solar power is magic? You don't need as much solar to surf the web? DURR
> 
> ...



  It takes far more energy to wash clothes than it does to dry them.


----------



## myself (Sep 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Wrong. Not triple. Double is closer to it. *
> 
> View attachment 539338
> 
> ...



  Different sites say different things.  But who has most of the money.  Energy companies.  So who has the ability to put out more disinformation that is to their advantage.  Energy companies.  Just go all solar.  You can't go wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2021)

myself said:


> I think you're crazy.  Imagine what they would be paying if they didn't get electricity from solar panels.



Less.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2021)

myself said:


> Different sites say different things.



They all say Germany has the highest rates in Europe.


----------



## myself (Sep 15, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Actually there is a way to do this without all of that. Tesla and South Australia are building it right now.



  I don't feel like watching your video.  What is this virtual power plant.  And wouldn't a real one be better?  Also, what powers this virtual power plant.  Are you just referring the large battery Mr Musk is building to collect electricity from solar panels?


----------



## myself (Sep 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like Chernobyl........no profit, eh comrade?



  I CAN wait for you to tell me how Chernobyl is similar to the pyramids or the great wall.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2021)

myself said:


> I CAN wait for you to tell me how Chernobyl is similar to the pyramids or the great wall.



Is wasn't built for profit, you silly twit.


----------



## myself (Sep 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They all say Germany has the highest rates in Europe.



  Germany, only having around 80 million people and being far smaller than the U.S. and having far fewer natural resources produces about the same value in exports as the U.S.  And they aren't doing it with massive wheat or corn exports. They must be manufacturing things.  That requires electricity.  So maybe that's why they pay so much for electric.


----------



## myself (Sep 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is wasn't built for profit, you silly twit.



  Well then, the Russians paid what they should have paid for it.  Unfortunately it ended up costing them FAR more than many nuclear plant would have cost them.  So much that they needed international help and financing to try and just contain the damage to some degree.  As far as completely fixing the disaster, that is beyond the ability of humanity to do.


----------



## myself (Sep 15, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> No, I am not building the wind and solar, but the utilities are;
> 
> View attachment 539382
> 
> ...



  Todster is a global warming denier and an idiot.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You mentioned Ringworld. The Ringworld was built of scrith.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, and?
I mentioned carbon which provides many of the qualities.
AND
So what?

Did you really think I was suggesting building a "Ring World?"
That would indicate a severe break with reality.

I was  expanding on the "follow the sun" analogy.
At our technology level the "ring world" would be solar arrays covering every rural roadway around the world.  Connected to a single grid. Such a design would provide more power than we can currently consume without construction and operation harming the environment
A bit more technology and we move the arrays to space.
Quite a bit more and we can build a ring or sphere.
The political will doesn't exist because turning power into water or air doesn't suit the needs of those who run the place.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2021)

myself said:


> Germany, only having around 80 million people and being far smaller than the U.S. and having far fewer natural resources produces about the same value in exports as the U.S.  And they aren't doing it with massive wheat or corn exports. They must be manufacturing things.  That requires electricity.  So maybe that's why they pay so much for electric.



Cool story, bro.

Why is their electricity so expensive with all their green energy?
It should be cheaper, right?

*They must be manufacturing things.  That requires electricity.*

We consume over 7 times as much as they do.......DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2021)

myself said:


> Well then, the Russians paid what they should have paid for it.  Unfortunately it ended up costing them FAR more than many nuclear plant would have cost them.  So much that they needed international help and financing to try and just contain the damage to some degree.  As far as completely fixing the disaster, that is beyond the ability of humanity to do.



*Well then, the Russians paid what they should have paid for it. *

They paid "cost". That didn't work? LOL!

*Unfortunately it ended up costing them FAR more than many nuclear plant would have cost them.  *

Well, commies do suck.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2021)

myself said:


> Todster is a global warming denier and an idiot.



Still got sand in your vag?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> At our technology level the "ring world" would be solar arrays covering every rural roadway around the world. Connected to a single grid. Such a design would provide more power than we can currently consume without construction and operation harming the environment



LOL! 

That's funny.

Would the power be free.....durr.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LOL!
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> Would the power be free.....durr.


Well, since the supply is free and the grid built by the world I'm not seeing where EXXON fits in.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They all say Germany has the highest rates in Europe.


Yet they are a net exporter of electricity. Interesting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Well, since the supply is free



And the electricity is more expensive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Yet they are a net exporter of electricity. Interesting.



Why is that interesting?

If they're paying triple what we pay, why does it matter that they export some?

Would they be paying 4 times what we pay if they didn't export some?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Yet they are a net exporter of electricity. Interesting.
















						Electricity prices worldwide 2022 | Statista
					

Denmark and Germany had some of the highest electricity prices worldwide, as of March 2022.




					www.statista.com
				




DURR


----------



## myself (Sep 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cool story, bro.
> 
> Why is their electricity so expensive with all their green energy?
> It should be cheaper, right?
> ...



  As I said, maybe because of the solar panels they use, it is cheaper.  Maybe if they didn't have solar panels they would be paying more.  It sure as hell would have cost the environment a lot more.  Next, I was talking about the yearly value of exports.  Germany, a much smaller country with far fewer natural resources and around 83 million people.  The U.S., a much larger country with many natural resources and around 330 million people.  The yearly value of the U.S. exports? Around 1 trillion, 600 billion.   The yearly value of Germany's exports?  Around 1 trillion, 400 billion.


----------



## myself (Sep 16, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Yet they are a net exporter of electricity. Interesting.



  Germany exports electricity?  Tell me more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2021)

myself said:


> As I said, maybe because of the solar panels they use, it is cheaper.



But it's not cheaper, it's the most expensive in the world.

*Next, I was talking about the yearly value of exports. *

They export a lot, so that's why they have the most expensive electricity in the world?

You're not making any sense.


----------



## myself (Sep 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But it's not cheaper, it's the most expensive in the world.



  There are countries where electricity is so expensive that most people don't even have it.  Very poor countries.  Germany isn't one of those.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 16, 2021)

myself said:


> Germany exports electricity?  Tell me more.


FRANKFURT, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Germany saw its electricity export surplus shrink by 46.2% in 2020 to 18.9 terawatt hours (TWh), raising the prospect that its dependency on neighbours could rise in future as it switches off more coal and nuclear power stations, official data showed.

Power exports by Europe’s biggest economy, which shares borders with nine countries, fell 11.6% to 52.5 TWh last year compared with 59.4 TWh in 2019, the energy regulator, called the Bundesnetzagentur, said in a publication on Saturday.

Meanwhile, electricity imports into Germany in 2020 increased by 38.8% to 33.6 TWh, compared with 24.2 TWh in the prior year.









						German power export surplus shrank 46.2% in 2020
					

Germany saw its electricity export surplus shrink by 46.2% in 2020 to 18.9 terawatt hours (TWh), raising the prospect that its dependency on neighbours could rise in future as it switches off more coal and nuclear power stations, official data showed.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2021)

myself said:


> There are countries where electricity is so expensive that most people don't even have it.  Very poor countries.  Germany isn't one of those.



Germany is the most expensive. In the world.


----------



## my2¢ (Sep 16, 2021)

Solar and wind are good but don't forget about hydro-electricity.  Excess solar and wind energy can be used to pump water back up to reservoirs above the hydro-electric plant for storage until there is need for its release to generate more electricity.   

Such a system is demonstrated here: Types of Hydropower Plants  (see 3rd graphic)


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 17, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And the electricity is more expensive.


An idiot view.

Generation costs zero
Delivery costs zero
Collector maintenance is road maintenance

BUT

Speaking of cost...
Let's go back to Texas where the cost of a few hours of heat this past winter was thousands of dollars.

OH
And the air pollution
Water pollution
Ecological damage from mining fuels

What's the cost there?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> An idiot view.
> 
> Generation costs zero
> Delivery costs zero
> ...



*An idiot view.*

A true view.

*Collector maintenance is road maintenance*

Not sure what you mean.

*Speaking of cost...
Let's go back to Texas where the cost of a few hours of heat this past winter was thousands of dollars.*

Or England this year.






*OH
And the air pollution
Water pollution
Ecological damage from mining fuels*

I agree, mining for solar panel manufacturing is very dirty.


----------



## Flash (Sep 17, 2021)

myself said:


> Well then, the Russians paid what they should have paid for it.  Unfortunately it ended up costing them FAR more than many nuclear plant would have cost them.  So much that they needed international help and financing to try and just contain the damage to some degree.  As far as completely fixing the disaster, that is beyond the ability of humanity to do.




I am an Environmental Engineer.  PE.  I had a 30 year career in the field.

After retiring in 2003 and taking a couple of years off I did a little college teaching and also some consulting.

One of my consulting jobs was help with a nuclear power plant NRC permit application for an expansion at a Texas facility.

The plant wanted to permit a new reactor.  This was during the final year of Bush's administration and he was opening it up.

The section I had to write was on alternative energy sources.  The NRC permitting process has all kinds of silly ass requirements in it and one was to see if there was an alternative to putting in the nuclear power plant.  There were four of us working on the 250 page section.  I was in charge of the team.

We looked at NG, coal, thermo, hydro, oil, wind and solar.

NG, Oil and coal were the only ones capable of putting out the same amount of energy.  There were no thermo or hydro alternatives available.

Wind and solar were a complete bust.  We would have to essentially cover the entire county with either those stupid windmills or the even more stupid solar panels.  We did all the engineering calculations and the wind and solar only worked under idea conditions (wind blowing, sun out) and at a cost greater than the new nuclear reactor.

Wind and solar are terrible technologies for high energy generations.  Only idiots would suggest them.

The only reason we have wind farms and solar fields is because of filthy ass government subsidies, grants and requirements.  They are terrible engineering economics.


----------



## myself (Sep 17, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> FRANKFURT, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Germany saw its electricity export surplus shrink by 46.2% in 2020 to 18.9 terawatt hours (TWh), raising the prospect that its dependency on neighbours could rise in future as it switches off more coal and nuclear power stations, official data showed.
> 
> Power exports by Europe’s biggest economy, which shares borders with nine countries, fell 11.6% to 52.5 TWh last year compared with 59.4 TWh in 2019, the energy regulator, called the Bundesnetzagentur, said in a publication on Saturday.
> 
> ...



  Thanks for the info.  Sounds like they need more solar panels.  Which no doubt they are in the process of adding.  Next, with business acting like it tends to do, they are probably exporting electricity to countries who are willing to pay more and importing some from countries that aren't charging as much for it.  They need to stop all that crap.


----------



## myself (Sep 17, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Germany is the most expensive. In the world.



  Stop parroting that crap already.  If Germany's electricity is the most expensive in the world, there must be a reason for it.  And solar panels aren't it.  I will tell you of another country with a bit larger of a population and fewer natural resources than Germany.  Japan.  And especially after the Fukushima disaster taking out one of their nuclear plants, you would think that their electricity would be the most expensive in the world.


----------



## myself (Sep 17, 2021)

my2¢ said:


> Solar and wind are good but don't forget about hydro-electricity.  Excess solar and wind energy can be used to pump water back up to reservoirs above the hydro-electric plant for storage until there is need for its release to generate more electricity.
> 
> Such a system is demonstrated here: Types of Hydropower Plants  (see 3rd graphic)



  Yeah.  Except human caused global warming is drying up the lakes out west.


----------



## myself (Sep 17, 2021)

Flash said:


> I am an Environmental Engineer.  PE.  I had a 30 year career in the field.
> 
> After retiring in 2003 and taking a couple of years off I did a little college teaching and also some consulting.
> 
> ...



  There's hardly anything worse than an educated idiot.  I will show you a map of the U.S. with a square in yellow showing the total area required in the U.S. to power it.  Probably with more power than it needs.  Both day and night with stored excess energy.  Though there is FAR more useless desert in the U.S. than the yellow square on the map shows.  Also, there is enough paved roads in the U.S. to cover the state of West Virginia in pavement.  What if most of our highways and freeways had solar panels over them.  Do I even need to go into solar panels on people's roofs, over parking lots, over car ports, etc?


----------



## Flash (Sep 17, 2021)

myself said:


> There's hardly anything worse than an educated idiot.  I will show you a map of the U.S. with a square in yellow showing the total area required in the U.S. to power it.  Probably with more power than it needs.  Both day and night with stored excess energy.  Though there is FAR more useless desert in the U.S. than the yellow square on the map shows.  Also, there is enough paved roads in the U.S. to cover the state of West Virginia in pavement.  What if most of our highways and freeways had solar panels over them.  Do I even need to go into solar panels on people's roofs, over parking lots, over car ports, etc?
> 
> View attachment 540691



That map is bullshit and any Engineer will laugh their ass off with it.  You are a fucking idiot.

The Engineering calculations we did took a whole Texas county to produce as much solar energy as one auxiliary Nuclear power reactor and that was only under ideal conditions, like the sun being out that day.

By the way Moon Bat.  Texas counties are enormous.

Go come up with something real.  Like how ineffective solar power really is under actual field conditions.


----------



## myself (Sep 17, 2021)

Flash said:


> That map is bullshit and any Engineer will laugh their ass off with it.  You are a fucking idiot.
> 
> The Engineering calculations we did took a whole Texas county to produce as much solar energy as one auxiliary Nuclear power reactor and that was only under ideal conditions, like the sun being out that day.
> 
> ...



  The people who came up with that map are WAY smarter than you.  It may bruise your ego, but deal with it.  Also, that square is about 140 miles per side.  Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a square 100 miles per side.  Being an accomplished engineer, I would take his word on the matter over yours.


----------



## Flash (Sep 17, 2021)

myself said:


> The people who came up with that map are WAY smarter than you.  It may bruise your ego, but deal with it.  Also, that square is about 140 miles per side.  Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a square 100 miles per side.  Being an accomplished engineer, I would take his word on the matter over yours.




Show me the technical inputs to that stupid chart.

You know there is only a narrow band in the sunbelt of the Southwest where solar becomes even close to being competitive with fossil fuels.  Show me where that chart becomes relevant to the other 99% of the rest of the US.

Solar is not even close to being cost effective in Florida for power generation and we are known as the Sunshine State.  Hell boy, this is the forth cloudy day in a row today and this is the middle of summer for us.  Ohio, Illinois, Maine, Pennsylvania, forget it.  Look at the pictures of the destroyed solar farms in Louisiana after the storm a couple of weeks ago.

Shitty technology and you stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about things like this.  Your copy and paste map is pathetic.

I occasionally teach a class in Environmental Science.  You should really sign up for it so that you will learn something about the real world and won't be such a dumbass when you post your silly Environmental Wacko bullshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2021)

myself said:


> Stop parroting that crap already.  If Germany's electricity is the most expensive in the world, there must be a reason for it.  And solar panels aren't it.  I will tell you of another country with a bit larger of a population and fewer natural resources than Germany.  Japan.  And especially after the Fukushima disaster taking out one of their nuclear plants, you would think that their electricity would be the most expensive in the world.



*Stop parroting that crap already. If Germany's electricity is the most expensive in the world, there must be a reason for it.*

No kidding. All the stupid green energy. And shutting down their nukes.

Fucking idiots.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 17, 2021)

Since we have only about 30 years of oil and gas, but about 400 years of coal, we are going to end up using coal, regardless of it being the most dirty.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Since we have only about 30 years of oil and gas,



Why do you feel that?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 17, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you feel that?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you feel that?


I just looked it up again, and it looks like most oil suppliers have more like 70 years worth of gas and oil.
And for some reason, they listed Venezuela as having 370 years worth and Canada as 170 years?
So it is possible they are considering the difficulty in extraction of these heavy tar sand sites.
But this is ignoring the fact we are growing oil/gas consumption geometrically, and oil will be becoming increasingly difficult to extract.








						Oil reserves - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




What is interesting is they list the US as only having 10 years worth left.
I guess all that fracking was not such a good idea?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I just looked it up again, and it looks like most oil suppliers have more like 70 years worth of gas and oil.
> And for some reason, they listed Venezuela as having 370 years worth and Canada as 170 years?
> So it is possible they are considering the difficulty in extraction of these heavy tar sand sites.
> But this is ignoring the fact we are growing oil/gas consumption geometrically, and oil will be becoming increasingly difficult to extract.
> ...



*I just looked it up again, and it looks like most oil suppliers have more like 70 years worth of gas and oil.*

So you were lying, or ignorant?

*And for some reason, they listed Venezuela as having 370 years worth and Canada as 170 years?*

Because that's what they have? LOL!
Takes some real commie idiocy to fuck up 300+ years of reserves, right?
*
What is interesting is they list the US as only having 10 years worth left.*

OK.

*I guess all that fracking was not such a good idea?*

Because fewer than 10 years would be better? LOL!


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I just looked it up again, and it looks like most oil suppliers have more like 70 years worth of gas and oil.*
> 
> So you were lying, or ignorant?
> 
> ...



Wrong.
When they say the US has 10 years worth left and Venezuela has 370, they are obviously projecting based on opinions.
And whether that opinion is 30 years or 70 years does not matter much or is much different.
The point is there is 10 times more coal than gas/oil, and gas/oil is going to get expensive soon, as it starts to run out.
If the US only has 10 years of gas/oil left, then obviously fracking to extract it all early, when the price was low, as stupid.
We should have imported gas and oil while the price was low, and save our gas and oil for when the price is at its maximum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> When they say the US has 10 years worth left and Venezuela has 370, they are obviously projecting based on opinions.
> And whether that opinion is 30 years or 70 years does not matter much or is much different.
> The point is there is 10 times more coal than gas/oil, and gas/oil is going to get expensive soon, as it starts to run out.
> ...



*When they say the US has 10 years worth left and Venezuela has 370, they are obviously projecting based on opinions.*

They're projecting production versus reserves. Duh!

*And whether that opinion is 30 years or 70 years does not matter much or is much different.*

40 years more energy doesn't matter much? What an ignorant claim. 
I guess that's what you're good at.

*If the US only has 10 years of gas/oil left, then obviously fracking to extract it all early, when the price was low, as stupid.*

Fracking it because we need it is only stupid in your "mind".
When it becomes more expensive, it will make economic sense to frack more difficult locations.

*We should have imported gas and oil while the price was low, and save our gas and oil for when the price is at its maximum.*

We should frack it when it makes economic sense. Which means idiots like you
won't be involved in the decision.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> That map is bullshit and any Engineer will laugh their ass off with it.  You are a fucking idiot.
> 
> The Engineering calculations we did took a whole Texas county to produce as much solar energy as one auxiliary Nuclear power reactor and that was only under ideal conditions, like the sun being out that day.
> 
> ...


You are totally full of shit. Musk did the calculations with solar panels at 20%, and it would take only a square 100 X 100 miles. Of course, that is not what is going to happen. Another way is 1% of agricultural land would be equal to that. And parking lots are a very good place for a lot of solar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *When they say the US has 10 years worth left and Venezuela has 370, they are obviously projecting based on opinions.*
> 
> They're projecting production versus reserves. Duh!
> 
> ...


I don't care what is left, it is best left in the ground.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Stop parroting that crap already. If Germany's electricity is the most expensive in the world, there must be a reason for it.*
> 
> No kidding. All the stupid green energy. And shutting down their nukes.
> 
> Fucking idiots.


Then why does all that green energy cost less in the US? 









						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *An idiot view.*
> 
> A true view.
> 
> ...


Yes, they failed to winterize their generators, and Gas, Coal, and Nuclear plants failed. As did some wind turbines. However, in the Dakotas, which had much colder temperatures, for longer, the turbines did not fail. The failure here were the people in Texas that were to cheap to winterize their generating plants. And after the winter of 2011, it was not like they had no warning.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *When they say the US has 10 years worth left and Venezuela has 370, they are obviously projecting based on opinions.*
> 
> They're projecting production versus reserves. Duh!
> 
> ...



That is silly.
Obviously 40 years plus or minus does not matter at all.
The changes needed to adapt can't easily be done is 40 or even 100 years.
Its going to be a huge problem, and we have to start as soon as possible, to find a solution.
And no, since we have already fracked and sold most of the oil when it was cheap, there will be no way to replace it later when import oil will be much more expensive.
And no, fracking may not be a good idea at all, since it tends to easily contaminate the water table with cancer causing oil chemicals.
You can always make a profit selling oil, but while it was cheap, we should have imported oil and saved our reserves for later when more valuable.
If left to a few greedy people to decide, they won't care about what is best for the whole country.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> You are totally full of shit. Musk did the calculations with solar panels at 20%, and it would take only a square 100 X 100 miles. Of course, that is not what is going to happen. Another way is 1% of agricultural land would be equal to that. And parking lots are a very good place for a lot of solar.
> View attachment 540945



Its not that easy.
Night, clouds, changes in angle, dust, snow, etc., all greatly reduce solar production and increase cost.
The batteries needed would cost a fortune.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 18, 2021)

Nevada May Be Too Small to Produce 50 percent of its Own Renewable Energy as Mandated by Question 6 - Sierra Nevada Ally
					

Saving the Earth is a concept that proves relatively easy to sell to Nevadans when it comes to conservation ballot initiatives, since it would be difficult for any citizen to deny the damage inflicted annually by growing populations. Environmental observations and news reports cause concerned...




					www.sierranevadaally.org


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Then why does all that green energy cost less in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not clear your link is including batteries, which are essential for inconsistent sources like wind or solar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Its not that easy.
> Night, clouds, changes in angle, dust, snow, etc., all greatly reduce solar production and increase cost.
> The batteries needed would cost a fortune.






And further declines since 2017. 





And the cost will continue to decline.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Nevada May Be Too Small to Produce 50 percent of its Own Renewable Energy as Mandated by Question 6 - Sierra Nevada Ally
> 
> 
> Saving the Earth is a concept that proves relatively easy to sell to Nevadans when it comes to conservation ballot initiatives, since it would be difficult for any citizen to deny the damage inflicted annually by growing populations. Environmental observations and news reports cause concerned...
> ...


LOL  There are many places that you could put the 100 X 100 mile square in Nevada that would power the whole of the US, and no one would even notice. Nevada has some huge empty spaces. Have you ever driven the back roads of Nevada?


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 18, 2021)

myself said:


> How much will it cost when we destroy the world with human caused global warming.


----------



## Flash (Sep 18, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> You are totally full of shit. Musk did the calculations with solar panels at 20%, and it would take only a square 100 X 100 miles. Of course, that is not what is going to happen. Another way is 1% of agricultural land would be equal to that. And parking lots are a very good place for a lot of solar.
> View attachment 540945




Show me the engineering calculations.  I have actually done them for an NRC permit and I know bullshit when I see it.    That map is full of bullshit and I doubt any real engineer came up with that silly ass shit.  These Environmental Wackos pretend that they know something but at the end of the day they don't know their ass from a hole in ground.

Solar will never take the place of fossil fuels and produce the same amount of energy for what we get out of oil, NG  or coal.

There may be a day when we run out of fossil fuels and need to to use something else but that ain't today.  When that day comes we had better have nuclear or greatly reduce population  because all the rivers are already dammed up, thermo is not widely available and the stupid solar and wind will never come close to producing the needs for power that we have now.

It is nothing more than a silly ass Environmental Wacko's pipe dream.  You shitheads are dumbasses.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Sep 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> More expensive, less reliable energy creates wealth?
> 
> How much wealth has been created by Germany with their expensive electricity?


Germans are notoriously hard working and intelligent----what they can do is not what the average person even among other europeans can do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> I don't care what is left, it is best left in the ground.



Well, that's because you're an idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Then why does all that green energy cost less in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because you're ignoring the cost of the backups and all the mandates and subsidies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Obviously 40 years plus or minus does not matter at all.



Such a stupid claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> Obviously 40 years plus or minus does not matter at all.
> The changes needed to adapt can't easily be done is 40 or even 100 years.
> Its going to be a huge problem, and we have to start as soon as possible, to find a solution.
> ...



*The changes needed to adapt can't easily be done is 40 or even 100 years.*

How many new nuke plants could we build in the next 40 years?

*And no, fracking may not be a good idea at all, since it tends to easily contaminate the water table with cancer causing oil chemicals.*

Liar.

*If left to a few greedy people to decide, they won't care about what is best for the whole country.*

If left to green idiots, pretty much the same thing, except more expensive and less reliable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Germans are notoriously hard working and intelligent----what they can do is not what the average person even among other europeans can do.



No kidding. But when their hard work goes toward a stupid cause.....you end up with the highest electricity prices in the world.


----------



## myself (Sep 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> Show me the technical inputs to that stupid chart.
> 
> You know there is only a narrow band in the sunbelt of the Southwest where solar becomes even close to being competitive with fossil fuels.  Show me where that chart becomes relevant to the other 99% of the rest of the US.
> 
> ...



  I have some information that a "wiz kid" like you might believe.  Solar panels work.  If they didn't, people wouldn't use them.  And from what I've heard, Germany went with solar panels in a big way.  They wouldn't have done that if they didn't work.  Next, don't tell me about Florida.  I used to live there.  Next, every night I watch the nightly news of CBS and ABC.  They covered a LOT about the storms and their aftermath.  Never did they mention a damaged solar farm.  

  Next, if you teach an environmental science class, your students should get their money back.  And how much of your salary comes from coal or oil industries.  I know that colleges or universities in general receive money from them.


----------



## myself (Sep 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Stop parroting that crap already. If Germany's electricity is the most expensive in the world, there must be a reason for it.*
> 
> No kidding. All the stupid green energy. And shutting down their nukes.
> 
> Fucking idiots.



  You're the idiot.  You GET energy from green energy.  You don't lose energy from green energy.  And if they shut down any coal or nuclear power plants, it is because they don't need the electricity from them any more.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have shut them down, now would they.


----------



## myself (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Since we have only about 30 years of oil and gas, but about 400 years of coal, we are going to end up using coal, regardless of it being the most dirty.



  You only have about 30 years of survival, period.  Unless something drastic is done.  Like being all racist and limiting population growth.  Along with switching completely to solar energy.


----------



## myself (Sep 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Nevada May Be Too Small to Produce 50 percent of its Own Renewable Energy as Mandated by Question 6 - Sierra Nevada Ally
> 
> 
> Saving the Earth is a concept that proves relatively easy to sell to Nevadans when it comes to conservation ballot initiatives, since it would be difficult for any citizen to deny the damage inflicted annually by growing populations. Environmental observations and news reports cause concerned...
> ...



  On the news last night they talked about the oil and gas industry specifically spreading disinformation.  By the looks of it, you found some.


----------



## myself (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Not clear your link is including batteries, which are essential for inconsistent sources like wind or solar.



  There are many other ways to store energy than with batteries.


----------



## Flash (Sep 18, 2021)

myself said:


> I have some information that a "wiz kid" like you might believe.  Solar panels work.  If they didn't, people wouldn't use them.  And from what I've heard, Germany went with solar panels in a big way.  They wouldn't have done that if they didn't work.  Next, don't tell me about Florida.  I used to live there.  Next, every night I watch the nightly news of CBS and ABC.  They covered a LOT about the storms and their aftermath.  Never did they mention a damaged solar farm.
> 
> Next, if you teach an environmental science class, your students should get their money back.  And how much of your salary comes from coal or oil industries.  I know that colleges or universities in general receive money from them.




I have an assignment for you dumbass.

Go get any kind of fossil fuel.  Gas, oil, coal, it doesn't matter.  Ignite it.  Put your hand over it.  Record the number of seconds it takes for you to remove your had because of the heat intensity.

After your hand heals go and put your hand in direct sunlight.  Record how long it takes you before the heat intensity requires that you remove your hand, if ever,

Then go take a college class in thermodynamics.  Then report back to me as to why that difference is relevant to energy production in the US.

No need to do a do a an extensive analysis.  One or two sentences will be suffienct.


----------



## myself (Sep 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> I have an assignment for you dumbass.
> 
> Go get any kind of fossil fuel.  Gas, oil, coal, it doesn't matter.  Ignite it.  Put your hand over it.  Record the number of seconds it takes for you to remove your had because of the heat intensity.
> 
> ...



  Sun, good.  Fossil fuel, bad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

myself said:


> Solar panels work. If they didn't, people wouldn't use them.



Coal plants work. If they didn't, people wouldn't use them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

myself said:


> You're the idiot.  You GET energy from green energy.  You don't lose energy from green energy.  And if they shut down any coal or nuclear power plants, it is because they don't need the electricity from them any more.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have shut them down, now would they.




*You GET energy from green energy.*

Obviously. More expensive, less reliable energy.

*And if they shut down any coal or nuclear power plants, it is because they don't need the electricity from them any more.*

If they didn't need the electricity from the nuclear plants, why did they need more windmills and solar, after they shut down the nuclear plants?


----------



## Flash (Sep 18, 2021)

Good news Environmental Wackos!!!!

The moon is going to have a wobble that will produce higher than normal tides for a while.  It is normal and happens periodically.

Now you stupid Moon Bats can claim that the flooding because of the high tides are a direct result of higher sea levels caused by man made global warming.

It will be a lie but that won't stop you fuckers from telling the lie.  You are never honest about anything.

Have fun!









						The moon is about to 'wobble,' NASA says. It could cause surge in coastal flooding.
					

You thought the year 2020 was bad? NASA just shared some concerning news.




					www.lmtonline.com
				





"High tides get higher, and low tides get lower. Global sea-level rise pushes high tides in only one direction – higher. So half of the 18.6-year lunar cycle counteracts the effect of sea-level rise on high tides, and the other half increases the effect," NASA explains.

Scientists say there’s nothing new or dangerous about the wobble. In fact, the first report of a moon wobble dates back to 1728.

"What’s new is how one of the wobble’s effects on the Moon’s gravitational pull – the main cause of Earth’s tides – will combine with rising sea levels resulting from the planet’s warming," NASA says.

According to a new study by the NASA Sea Level Change Science Team from the University of Hawaii, every coast in the United States will see an increase in high tides because of a "wobble" in the moon's orbit. The team goes on to say that those high tides will kick off a "a decade of dramatic increases in flood numbers" in the 2030s.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> View attachment 540956
> And further declines since 2017.
> 
> View attachment 540957
> ...



No, price will start to increase as rare earth elements become a more valuable commodity.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The changes needed to adapt can't easily be done is 40 or even 100 years.*
> 
> How many new nuke plants could we build in the next 40 years?
> 
> ...



Nuke plants is not a solution.
We need a means of heating homes, powering vehicles, creating fertilizers, etc.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

myself said:


> You're the idiot.  You GET energy from green energy.  You don't lose energy from green energy.  And if they shut down any coal or nuclear power plants, it is because they don't need the electricity from them any more.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have shut them down, now would they.



Going solar or wind is too unreliable.
If they use batteries for lows, they are just guessing they have enough, and likely won't, because batteries will wear out.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

myself said:


> You only have about 30 years of survival, period.  Unless something drastic is done.  Like being all racist and limiting population growth.  Along with switching completely to solar energy.



Solar is not efficient enough.
And because solar needs huge amounts of batteries, pollutes more than coal.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

myself said:


> There are many other ways to store energy than with batteries.



There are only a few means of storing energy.
Pumping water up to a reservoir is one.
Cracking water to make hydrogen is another, but not very efficient.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, price will start to increase as rare earth elements become a more valuable commodity.
> 
> 
> Nuke plants is not a solution.
> We need a means of heating homes, powering vehicles, creating fertilizers, etc.



*Nuke plants is not a solution.
We need a means of heating homes, powering vehicles, creating fertilizers, etc.*

If only we had a way to make electricity with nuke plants.
We could use that electricty to heat homes, power vehicles and create fertilizer. 

Crazy, I know.........


----------



## elektra (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> When they say the US has 10 years worth left and Venezuela has 370, they are obviously projecting based on opinions.
> And whether that opinion is 30 years or 70 years does not matter much or is much different.
> The point is there is 10 times more coal than gas/oil, and gas/oil is going to get expensive soon, as it starts to run out.
> ...


Yet, we have a forever suppy of oil. 70 years? ha.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Nuke plants is not a solution.
> We need a means of heating homes, powering vehicles, creating fertilizers, etc.*
> 
> If only we had a way to make electricity with nuke plants.
> ...



Electricity does not work for heating homes, powering vehicles, or making fertilizers.
And if you tried to do those things with electricity, you would need more than 10 times the electrical power we have now with cheap coal.
Fertilizers need the phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc. from fossil fuel.


----------



## HenryBHough (Sep 18, 2021)

Were to bulldoze Southern California flat and cover it in solar panels it would be progress toward energy independence in oh so many ways!

Hungry work, though......


----------



## HenryBHough (Sep 18, 2021)

Were we to cut down every sequoia tree, burn the "biomass" to make electricity we still wouldn't have enough to make the glass needed to cover the barren land and produce more than 100,000 unicorn farts.

Which is why liberals on this board aren't hear right now.

They're searching under their beds for unicorns.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

elektra said:


> Yet, we have a forever suppy of oil. 70 years? ha.



Don't know what you mean, because I just looked it up and the experts say the US only have 10 years worth of domestic oil/gas.


HenryBHough said:


> Were to bulldoze Southern California flat and cover it in solar panels it would be progress toward energy independence in oh so many ways!
> 
> Hungry work, though......



Since CA is a desert and does not have sufficient water, that is likely the best use for CA.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Electricity does not work for heating homes, powering vehicles, or making fertilizers.
> And if you tried to do those things with electricity, you would need more than 10 times the electrical power we have now with cheap coal.
> Fertilizers need the phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc. from fossil fuel.



*Electricity does not work for heating homes, powering vehicles, or making fertilizers.*

Ummmmmm.....why not?

*And if you tried to do those things with electricity, you would need more than 10 times the electrical power we have now with cheap coal.*

When was the last time coal was used for any of those things?

*Fertilizers need the phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc. from fossil fuel.*

Ummmmmm.....fossil fuels don't contain any of those things. 

You're talking out of your ass again.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

HenryBHough said:


> Were we to cut down every sequoia tree, burn the "biomass" to make electricity we still wouldn't have enough to make the glass needed to cover the barren land and produce more than 100,000 unicorn farts.
> 
> Which is why liberals on this board aren't hear right now.
> 
> They're searching under their beds for unicorns.



Sequoia do not grow rapidly enough.
But you could do a bio fuel economy if we cut our consumption by about half.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Electricity does not work for heating homes, powering vehicles, or making fertilizers.*
> 
> Ummmmmm.....why not?
> 
> ...



Electricity is only used to warm homes in hot climates because it costs about twice what oil or gas does.

Electric vehicles need to double their weight from the additional batteries, they are very slow and inefficient to charge, batteries very expensive, and batteries do not have much capacity or longevity.
Fertilizers need the chemicals from fossil fuels, like nitrates and phosphorous.

Currently coal is the main source of electrical power, but can be converted to oil or gas.
Since fossil fuels come from decomposed plants containing phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc., fossil fuels are loaded with what fertilizers need.

{...
_Nitrogen fertilizer component_​Ammonia is one nitrogen fertilizer component that can be synthesized from in-expensive raw materials. Since nitrogen makes up a significant portion of the earth's atmosphere, a process was developed to produce ammonia from air. In this process, 
natural gas and steam are pumped into a large vessel. Next, air is pumped into the system, and oxygen is removed by the burning of natural gas and steam. This leaves primarily nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is removed and ammonia is produced by introducing an electric current into the system.
...}
Read more: How fertilizer is made - material, production process, making, history, used, components, composition, product


----------



## Death Angel (Sep 18, 2021)

fncceo said:


> The problem with asking that question is we don't ask the follow-up question of how do we power the US when there is no sun available?  Which is something we can't currently do.


There are many ways besides batteries.
1. Gravity.
2. Convert solar electric to hydrogen

Those are just 2 ways

Also, I'm for INDIVIDUAL energy independence.  Solar can provide that





Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## elektra (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Since CA is a desert and does not have sufficient water, that is likely the best use for CA.


How will you clean them with no water


----------



## elektra (Sep 18, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> Also, I'm for INDIVIDUAL energy independence.  Solar can provide that


Yet, someone else has to manufacture the solar panel, so you mean after you uses thousands fo tons of fossil fuels to manufacture the solar panels and you are successful enough to afford and maintain and replace them, you can be energy independent?


----------



## elektra (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Don't know what you mean, because I just looked it up and the experts say the US only have 10 years worth of domestic oil/gas.


I just looked up, "can I date a goat", and it says it may be the best date of my life? I guess they are right?


A Baby Goat Date might be the best date you ever go on - King 5
https://www.king5.com › television › programs › evening
May 1, 2019 — _Does_ 2 hours of snuggling with adorable baby _goats_ sound like the best _date_ ever? Maple Valley's Puget Sound _Goat_ Rescue has your back.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Electricity is only used to warm homes in hot climates because it costs about twice what oil or gas does.



You said it didn't work. Were you lying? Or stupid?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Electricity is only used to warm homes in hot climates because it costs about twice what oil or gas does.
> 
> Electric vehicles need to double their weight from the additional batteries, they are very slow and inefficient to charge, batteries very expensive, and batteries do not have much capacity or longevity.
> Fertilizers need the chemicals from fossil fuels, like nitrates and phosphorous.
> ...



*Electric vehicles need to double their weight from the additional batteries, they are very slow and inefficient to charge,*

You said it didn't work. Were you lying? Or stupid?

*Fertilizers need the chemicals from fossil fuels, like nitrates and phosphorous.*

Moron.  Nitrate and phosphorus fertilizers aren't made with fossil fuel ingredients.

*Since fossil fuels come from decomposed plants containing phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc., fossil fuels are loaded with what fertilizers need.*

You're full of shit. 

*The carbon dioxide is removed and ammonia is produced by introducing an electric current into the system.*

So you were lying when you said fertilizers couldn't be made with electricity? Or stupid?


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 19, 2021)

Death Angel said:


> There are many ways besides batteries.
> 1. Gravity.
> 2. Convert solar electric to hydrogen
> 
> ...


Nuclear is better.

Small reactors that don't need to run under high pressure that can be built in a factory and shipped to the site 

Molten salt reactors can use the waste from old obsolete light water reactors for fuel, can be buried underground for security and can't melt down because they are self limiting.

They are simple plug and play units because they put out power 24/7/365 the way our grid was designed to work.

Electricity can be generated locally reducing transmission costs and loss and we will be able to build in redundancy to the power supply


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2021)

elektra said:


> I just looked up, "can I date a goat", and it says it may be the best date of my life? I guess they are right?
> 
> 
> A Baby Goat Date might be the best date you ever go on - King 5
> ...


Whatever turns you on, Mrs. Elektra.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 19, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Nuclear is better.
> 
> Small reactors that don't need to run under high pressure that can be built in a factory and shipped to the site
> 
> ...


LOL  When I was a child, and the nuclear reactors were just in the design stage, they said they would be failsafe, and produce electricity so cheaply they wouldn't need to meter it. So today I am again hearing all that nonsense concerning reactors that are only theoretical. In the meantime, solar and wind are providing electricity at a lower cost than any fossil fuels, and at a far less cost than nuclear. 









						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> In the meantime, solar and wind are providing electricity at a lower cost than any fossil fuels, and at a far less cost than nuclear.



Obviously.
That's why Germany pays the highest rates in the world.
Lots of cheap wind and solar, with no expensive nuclear. 

DURR


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 19, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  There are many places that you could put the 100 X 100 mile square in Nevada that would power the whole of the US, and no one would even notice. Nevada has some huge empty spaces. Have you ever driven the back roads of Nevada?


You keep forgetting that installed capacity isn't actual output.

even in AZ a solar panel will only produce 23% of its rated capacity

so you would actually need 4.3 times as many solar panels to achieve output that equals rated capacity


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 19, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  When I was a child, and the nuclear reactors were just in the design stage, they said they would be failsafe, and produce electricity so cheaply they wouldn't need to meter it. So today I am again hearing all that nonsense concerning reactors that are only theoretical. In the meantime, solar and wind are providing electricity at a lower cost than any fossil fuels, and at a far less cost than nuclear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nuclear still is one of the safest forms of power.

And liquid fuel reactors are even safer than the old obsolete light water reactors.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 19, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  When I was a child, and the nuclear reactors were just in the design stage, they said they would be failsafe, and produce electricity so cheaply they wouldn't need to meter it. So today I am again hearing all that nonsense concerning reactors that are only theoretical. In the meantime, solar and wind are providing electricity at a lower cost than any fossil fuels, and at a far less cost than nuclear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid
					

Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.




					www.technologyreview.com


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Coal plants work. If they didn't, people wouldn't use them.



  Coal plants are helping to destroy the earth.  If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2021)

myself said:


> Coal plants are helping to destroy the earth.  If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You GET energy from green energy.*
> 
> Obviously. More expensive, less reliable energy.
> 
> ...



  Listening to deniers is like listening to farts and  burps.   That truth aside, solar panels are reliable enough.  They even work on cloudy days.  Though probably not as well.  4% of the sun's light reaches the ground as ultraviolet light.  43% is visible light.  Which solar panels use the most.  53% of the sun's energy is infrared.  Solar panels can utilize around half of that infrared light.  I think you mentioned earlier about solar panels getting hot.  Being able to turn nearly half that heat into electricity, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  I also stated before that we would still need a power grid. To transfer electricity from areas where it isn't cloudy to areas where it is.

  Next, don't put the cart before the horse.  I'm sure anybody would have waited until they started getting energy from solar or wind before they shut down and coal or nuke plants.


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Flash said:


> Good news Environmental Wackos!!!!
> 
> The moon is going to have a wobble that will produce higher than normal tides for a while.  It is normal and happens periodically.
> 
> ...


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Going solar or wind is too unreliable.
> If they use batteries for lows, they are just guessing they have enough, and likely won't, because batteries will wear out.



  Wind, maybe.  Solar, never.  The sun rises each day.  Like clockwork.  And the only thing you may need batteries for is cars.  For anything else, they are other ways to store energy.  Also, nobody is likely to be stupid enough to get only enough solar energy as they need.  It is like what some survivalists on Naked and Afraid say they are taught when it comes to collecting fire wood.  "Get as much wood as you think you need, then double it."  The same goes for solar panels.  Get twice what you need.  That is probably what they were thinking when they came up with this picture showing how much in area the U.S. would need in solar panels to power it.


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> There are only a few means of storing energy.
> Pumping water up to a reservoir is one.
> Cracking water to make hydrogen is another, but not very efficient.



  Capacitors would be the best way.  They never wear out.  Using the energy to speed up a perfectly balanced large heavy disk is another.  On a large scale, I heard that using the energy to heat up sodium is a good way.


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

HenryBHough said:


> Were to bulldoze Southern California flat and cover it in solar panels it would be progress toward energy independence in oh so many ways!
> 
> Hungry work, though......



  You don't need to bulldoze anything to put up solar panels.  And is we covered half of southern California with them, it would power the whole nation.


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Whatever turns you on, Mrs. Elektra.



  It's difficult debating these fools, isn't it.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 19, 2021)

myself said:


> Coal plants are helping to destroy the earth.  If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


The earth is going to be here long after humans are extinct.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 19, 2021)

myself said:


> Wind, maybe.  Solar, never.  The sun rises each day.  Like clockwork.  And the only thing you may need batteries for is cars.  For anything else, they are other ways to store energy.  Also, nobody is likely to be stupid enough to get only enough solar energy as they need.  It is like what some survivalists on Naked and Afraid say they are taught when it comes to collecting fire wood.  "Get as much wood as you think you need, then double it."  The same goes for solar panels.  Get twice what you need.  That is probably what they were thinking when they came up with this picture showing how much in area the U.S. would need in solar panels to power it.
> View attachment 541515


You actually need more than twice as many because solar panels only have a 23% or less depending on where they are capacity rating.

IN AZ solar panels actual power output is 23% of its rated capacity so you need 4.3 times as many solar panels to have output equal rated capacity.  So that little square on your map will actually need to be almost as big as the state of AZ


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> The earth is going to be here long after humans are extinct.



  Which should take about 30 years.  Cold comfort.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 19, 2021)

myself said:


> Which should take about 30 years.  Cold comfort.


OK Chicken little.

We'll be around for a lot longer than that but we will eventually do ourselves in.  It's out nature.

In the tale of the frog and the scorpion we are the scorpion


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> You actually need more than twice as many because solar panels only have a 23% or less depending on where they are capacity rating.
> 
> IN AZ solar panels actual power output is 23% of its rated capacity so you need 4.3 times as many solar panels to have output equal rated capacity.  So that little square on your map will actually need to be almost as big as the state of AZ



  Oh what an idiot you are.  Do you think any scientist thought that solar panels would be 100% efficient?  Or even 50% efficient?  They know exactly what solar panels are capable of.  And they want them to work.  Not sell Americans on some pipe dream for some dumbass conspiracy theory.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 19, 2021)

myself said:


> Oh what an idiot you are.  Do you think any scientist thought that solar panels would be 100% efficient?  Or even 50% efficient?  They know exactly what solar panels are capable of.  And they want them to work.  Not sell Americans on some pipe dream for some dumbass conspiracy theory.


Really then why do they only ever quote the capacity of new installations and not the actual putput?

And what I said is the truth no conspiracy implied.

If you want 400MW of solar power in AZ you must install 1720 MW of rated capacity.

That's the fact Jack


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> OK Chicken little.
> 
> We'll be around for a lot longer than that but we will eventually do ourselves in.  It's out nature.
> 
> In the tale of the frog and the scorpion we are the scorpion



  There is nothing "chicken little" about it.  You can see the effects.  And the degree to which things are getting worse is accelerating.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 19, 2021)

myself said:


> There is nothing "chicken little" about it.  You can see the effects.  And the degree to which things are getting worse is accelerating.


30 years?

You really think humans are going to be extinct in 30 years?

Yeah that's Chicken Little talking


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Really then why do they only ever quote the capacity of new installations and not the actual putput?
> 
> And what I said is the truth no conspiracy implied.
> 
> ...



  Any solar panel puts out a specific amount of electricity while in direct sunlight.  No claims of efficiency.  Nobody painting some imaginary number on them with an oily finger then sprinkling fairy dust on it to make it show up.  What they put out is what any sane person would say they put out.  Which is the measured amount of electricity that is detected of coming out of them in direct sunlight.  So if you want 400MW of electricity, you put out enough solar panels AT THEIR RATED OUTPUT to reach 400MW.  And as I said, to be in the safe side, I would put out enough to create 800MW.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2021)

myself said:


> Listening to deniers is like listening to farts and  burps.   That truth aside, solar panels are reliable enough.  They even work on cloudy days.  Though probably not as well.  4% of the sun's light reaches the ground as ultraviolet light.  43% is visible light.  Which solar panels use the most.  53% of the sun's energy is infrared.  Solar panels can utilize around half of that infrared light.  I think you mentioned earlier about solar panels getting hot.  Being able to turn nearly half that heat into electricity, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  I also stated before that we would still need a power grid. To transfer electricity from areas where it isn't cloudy to areas where it is.
> 
> Next, don't put the cart before the horse.  I'm sure anybody would have waited until they started getting energy from solar or wind before they shut down and coal or nuke plants.



*That truth aside, solar panels are reliable enough. They even work on cloudy days. Though probably not as well.*

That is awesome! Do they work after the Sun sets?

*I think you mentioned earlier about solar panels getting hot. *

Nope. Not me.

*I'm sure anybody would have waited until they started getting energy from solar or wind before they shut down and coal or nuke plants.*

Apparently they didn't wait until they got enough from solar or wind.


----------



## elektra (Sep 19, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  When I was a child, and the nuclear reactors were just in the design stage, they said they would be failsafe, and produce electricity so cheaply they wouldn't need to meter it. So today I am again hearing all that nonsense concerning reactors that are only theoretical. In the meantime, solar and wind are providing electricity at a lower cost than any fossil fuels, and at a far less cost than nuclear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


except in Europe, where the lack of wind just caused a severe shortage of energy, causing prices to rise 500%

Lower cost than fossil fuels, sure, once you ignore all the expenses in building them, get the land for free, are given billions in subsidies, and then bankrupt the company after one gets his million dollar bonus for finagling everything. Once they sell all the assets in bankruptcy court for pennies on the dollar, the new company makes a profit on state dictated contracts forced upon the public. Until the maintenance kicks in, then the company that bought the wind farm for pennies, goes bankrupt, leaving the public to dismantle and bury the rubbish. I seen it happen 3 times in california. Billions and billions it costs california, which is now suffering rising rates, highest rates in the country.


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That truth aside, solar panels are reliable enough. They even work on cloudy days. Though probably not as well.*
> 
> That is awesome! Do they work after the Sun sets?
> 
> ...



  Solar panels don't have to work after dark.  That's why you store some of the energy during the day.  Also, maybe because Germany started having more of a need for electricity due to industrial growth, or lighting the homes of the sand negroes they unfortunately let in.


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

elektra said:


> except in Europe, where the lack of wind just caused a severe shortage of energy, causing prices to rise 500%
> 
> Lower cost than fossil fuels, sure, once you ignore all the expenses in building them, get the land for free, are given billions in subsidies, and then bankrupt the company after one gets his million dollar bonus for finagling everything. Once they sell all the assets in bankruptcy court for pennies on the dollar, the new company makes a profit on state dictated contracts forced upon the public. Until the maintenance kicks in, then the company that bought the wind farm for pennies, goes bankrupt, leaving the public to dismantle and bury the rubbish. I seen it happen 3 times in california. Billions and billions it costs california, which is now suffering rising rates, highest rates in the country.



  Did I ask you this before?  How much will a destroyed earth cost.


----------



## elektra (Sep 19, 2021)

myself said:


> Did I ask you this before?  How much will a destroyed earth cost.


The Democrats say they need another $100 trillion to destroy the earth by manufacturing billions of tons of natural resources, stuff like oil and coal, into wind turbines and solar panels. That is on top of the trillion dollars they have already spent on solar and wind.


----------



## myself (Sep 19, 2021)

elektra said:


> The Democrats say they need another $100 trillion to destroy the earth by manufacturing billions of tons of natural resources, stuff like oil and coal, into wind turbines and solar panels. That is on top of the trillion dollars they have already spent on solar and wind.



  Sorry.  Just can't bring myself to take the word of a denier.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Really then why do they only ever quote the capacity of new installations and not the actual putput?
> 
> And what I said is the truth no conspiracy implied.
> 
> ...


And we are to take your word for that? LOL Give us a credible source for that.


----------



## elektra (Sep 20, 2021)

myself said:


> Sorry.  Just can't bring myself to take the word of a denier.


That comes straight from the democrats mouth as well as the democrats websites. I can cite AOC, the democrat congress woman or direct you to ceres which is the green energy industry advocate/financer.


----------



## elektra (Sep 20, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> And we are to take your word for that? LOL Give us a credible source for that.


It has been proven many times over to you personally, old crock.

It is called capacity factor

Monthly generator capacity factor data now available by fuel and technology - Today in ...









						Monthly generator capacity factor data now available by fuel and technology
					






					www.eia.gov
				




In the past, EIA published annual capacity factors for only a few fuel types, and several renewable fuel types were aggregated. With an updated methodology and more detailed technology breakout, these new tables allow readers to distinguish between generators having different roles within the electric power system. Baseload generators, like nuclear units, typically have high capacity factors ...


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 20, 2021)

myself said:


> Any solar panel puts out a specific amount of electricity while in direct sunlight.  No claims of efficiency.  Nobody painting some imaginary number on them with an oily finger then sprinkling fairy dust on it to make it show up.  What they put out is what any sane person would say they put out.  Which is the measured amount of electricity that is detected of coming out of them in direct sunlight.  So if you want 400MW of electricity, you put out enough solar panels AT THEIR RATED OUTPUT to reach 400MW.  And as I said, to be in the safe side, I would put out enough to create 800MW.


Then tell me why do people use installed capacity instead of actual output.

And you're wrong.  rated capacity and ACTUAL OUTPUT are 2 entirely different things.

So when you say that your little square of solar panels could power the entire country you don't know what your talking about.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 20, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> And we are to take your word for that? LOL Give us a credible source for that.


Gee i thought you were the wind and solar sage of the n=message board and yet you don't know what capacity factor is?






						What is capacity factor and how do solar and wind energy compare? – Sunmetrix
					

The capacity factor is the ratio of energy generated over a time period (typically a year) divided by the installed capacity.



					sunmetrix.com
				




* if we install 10 solar panels rated at 250 watts each, we will have a capacity of 2500 watts, or 2.5 kW. However, determining the actual output from these panels is much more challenging 
*
_*To illustrate how location impacts capacity factor, consider a 10 kW system installed in Phoenix (AZ) vs. Seattle (WA). With a Solar Score of 84, Phoenix has a very high solar energy potential. Using Sunmetrix Discover for Phoenix, we can see that this system would generate about 20,500 kWh of electricity during the year. If it were to run non-stop, 24/7 at peak capacity of 10 kW, it would have generated 24 x 365 x 10 = 87,600 kWh. Dividing 20,500 by 87,600 gives us a capacity factor of  about 23%. With a Solar Score of 43, Seattle is an entirely different story. Here, a 10 kW system would generate about 14,000 kWh during the year. Consequently, the capacity factor of the solar energy system here is much lower than that of Phoenix at about 16%.*_


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the planet.

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar panels.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 20, 2021)

elektra said:


> That comes straight from the democrats mouth as well as the democrats websites. I can cite AOC, the democrat congress woman or direct you to ceres which is the green energy industry advocate/financer.


Then do so, because your word is worthless, you are a proven liar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Gee i thought you were the wind and solar sage of the n=message board and yet you don't know what capacity factor is?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whooeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   And I thought Mrs. Elektra was a dumb ass. Yes, solar only meets the rated wattage in direct sunlight. And when you are installing it, you install enough for your needs by calculating how much wattage you will get in a given day. So latitude and climate play a factor. Of course a 400 watt panel does not deliver 400 watts 24/7. That wattage allows you to calculate how much it will generate per day, and, by that, per year. And one more point. You don't need a railroad or pipeline to bring in fuel. It falls out of the sky and is free. And the are not destroying watersheds and aquifers to get that free fuel. However, the proof of the superiority of solar is that the utilities are adapting solar and wind, and shutting down coal plants purely on an economic basis.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the planet.
> 
> I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar panels.


Please, repeat the third grade. You missed some pretty basic physics.


----------



## elektra (Sep 20, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Then do so, because your word is worthless, you are a proven liar.


right, we prove you dont know shit and you claim the opposite,


----------



## elektra (Sep 20, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> However, the proof of the superiority of solar is that the utilities are adapting solar and wind, and shutting down coal plants purely on an economic basis.


You are a proven liar Old Crock, where are your links, you have stated repeatedly that statements like the one you just made require links or it is all bullshit, so where are your links you lousy filthy liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> However, the proof of the superiority of solar is that the utilities are adapting solar and wind, and shutting down coal plants purely on an economic basis.



Obviously.
That's why power in Germany gets cheaper and cheaper........DURR


----------



## myself (Sep 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Then tell me why do people use installed capacity instead of actual output.
> 
> And you're wrong.  rated capacity and ACTUAL OUTPUT are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> So when you say that your little square of solar panels could power the entire country you don't know what your talking about.



  Stop talking nonsense.  The only thing that matters is how much electricity comes out of a solar panel in direct sunlight.  Also, that square on the map is around 140 miles per side.  Elon Musk says it could be done with a square only 100 miles per side.  (Though obviously they wouldn't have to be all in one spot)  He is a much more intelligent person than you are.  So I will believe him over you.  In a nanosecond. Earlier I asked you to stop talking nonsense.  But I came up with a better idea.  Stop leaving any replies in my thread at all.


----------



## myself (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the planet.
> 
> I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar panels.



  If they are on the surface of the earth, the sun is heating them.  Next, with human caused global warming accelerating, I don't think you need to worry about a new ice age.


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

myself said:


> If they are on the surface of the earth, the sun is heating them.  Next, with human caused global warming accelerating, I don't think you need to worry about a new ice age.


Nope.  Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.  

We are in an ice age.  It began 2.7 million years ago.  We are in an interglacial cycle of the ice age.


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Please, repeat the third grade. You missed some pretty basic physics.


Nope.  You are the one who doesn't understand this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.



How much less does that electricity heat the Earth when it is used? 100% less?


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much less does that electricity heat the Earth when it is used? 100% less?


Enough to be measured.









						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
				












						Giant desert solar farms might have unintended climate consequences  | Greenbiz
					

Turning deserts into solar energy farms could raise temperatures across the globe and cause devastating droughts in the Amazon.




					www.greenbiz.com
				






			https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

*Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.*

How much less does that electricity heat the Earth when it is used? 100% less?




ding said:


> Enough to be measured.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the links.....

First link...._.We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect._

Second link_.....While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15 percent) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate._

Third link...._.In urban areas, the effects were a little different. In the first simulation, the model predicted a very small amount of cooling, with temperature falling approximately 0.26 degrees Celsius. In the second simulation, the one in which global thermostat regulation is significantly increased, the large amount of power consumed actually produced an urban heat island effect, in which human energy use releases heat into the environment and causes the regional temperature to warm up. In this scenario, the warming from the heat island effect essentially compensated for the cooling caused by the solar panels._


They don't help your claim. Try again?


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.*
> 
> How much less does that electricity heat the Earth when it is used? 100% less?
> 
> ...


That's an assumption they are making because they are biased.  There's no evidence or discussion on it. 

They are basically saying that all electrical usage will warm the earth but that isn't in anyone's planetary heat budget. 

But if you want to fall for it that's on you.


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

all other energy sources that are used to generate electricity do not capture solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet. So from a budget standpoint that supposed energy conservation is already added to the system without reducing solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet. Secondly, whatever energy you might think is being conserved through the use of electricity will not heat the surface of the planet. And lastly, much of the energy that you believe is conserved is being conserved by doing mechanical work (kinetic or potential) and will not heat the surface of the earth.


----------



## myself (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Nope.  Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.
> 
> We are in an ice age.  It began 2.7 million years ago.  We are in an interglacial cycle of the ice age.



  In some other post, somebody was telling me that solar panels actually help create global warming.  Because sitting in the sun, they heat up.  Though I still don't think they heat them up any more than they heat the ground.  I have known times where I was walking on the beach and the sand was so hot it was difficult to walk on.  Next, we are in a heating age.  Not an ice age.  And the activities of humans is responsible for much of that heating.


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

myself said:


> In some other post, somebody was telling me that solar panels actually help create global warming.  Because sitting in the sun, they heat up.  Though I still don't think they heat them up any more than they heat the ground.  I have known times where I was walking on the beach and the sand was so hot it was difficult to walk on.  Next, we are in a heating age.  Not an ice age.  And the activities of humans is responsible for much of that heating.


They were wrong.  ANY solar radiation that is converted into energy is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the earth.  It's called conservation of energy and is the first law of thermodynamics.

We are in an interglacial cycle.  Our present temperature is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.  Everything is normal.  You are mistaking the natural variations of the earth's climate during an interglacial cycle with CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> That's an assumption they are making because they are biased.  There's no evidence or discussion on it.
> 
> They are basically saying that all electrical usage will warm the earth but that isn't in anyone's planetary heat budget.
> 
> But if you want to fall for it that's on you.



*That's an assumption they are making because they are biased.*

You gave me three biased links that disagree with your claim?

*They are basically saying that all electrical usage will warm the earth*

Only because it does.

*But if you want to fall for it that's on you.*

Anytime you want to post links that actually help your claim...........


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That's an assumption they are making because they are biased.*
> 
> You gave me three biased links that disagree with your claim?
> 
> ...


Same study.  Same bias.  I can't help you if you don't understand the first and second laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> And lastly, much of the energy that you believe is conserved is being conserved by doing mechanical work (kinetic or potential) and will not heat the surface of the earth.



You have some examples where work won't heat the earth?


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have some examples where work won't heat the earth?


Just so we are clear here... you believe our current electric usage heats the earth, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Same study. Same bias.



I know. Your sources.

*I can't help you if you don't understand the first and second laws of thermodynamics.*

So post 3 sources that help your claim. 
Or explain why your claim doesn't violate the first and second law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Just so we are clear here... you believe our current electric usage heats the earth, right?



If you can explain why running current thru a wire doesn't heat the earth.......please do so.


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know. Your sources.
> 
> *I can't help you if you don't understand the first and second laws of thermodynamics.*
> 
> ...


It's no different using geologic record data from sites to show the earth is cooling rather than warming even though those sites conclude the earth is warming.


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you can explain why running current thru a wire doesn't heat the earth.......please do so.


I am trying to answer your question but it requires you to acknowledge that you believe our current electric usage - which is overwhelmingly from fossil fuels - is causing the planet to warm.  Well do you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> I am trying to answer your question but it requires you to acknowledge that you believe our current electric usage - which is overwhelmingly from fossil fuels - is causing the planet to warm.  Well do you?



You posted 3 links.
One said solar panels heat the planet. Two said they're a wash.
You can't find any that say they cool the Earth?
That's hilarious!!


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You posted 3 links.
> One said solar panels heat the planet. Two said they're a wash.
> You can't find any that say they cool the Earth?
> That's hilarious!!


I'm happy to have made you laugh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> I'm happy to have made you laugh.



I'm happy to laugh.

Let me know when you find any actual backup.

Feel free to use the first and second law for proof.......


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm happy to laugh.
> 
> Let me know when you find any actual backup.
> 
> Feel free to use the first and second law for proof.......


I will.  I'm an engineer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> I will.  I'm an engineer.



Great. Any engineering links that don't disagree with your claim?


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great. Any engineering links that don't disagree with your claim?


You mean besides there's no heat budget for electricity used?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> You mean besides there's no heat budget for electricity used?
> 
> View attachment 541984



*Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.*

Still waiting for your proof...........


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.*
> 
> Still waiting for your proof...........


I just gave it to you in my last post.  They aren't accounting for electricity usage in the earth's heat budget.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> I just gave it to you in my last post.  They aren't accounting for electricity usage in the earth's heat budget.
> 
> View attachment 541986







Second link_.....While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15 percent) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate._

You see where your second link said_ will absorb a lot of additional energy_

Do you need me to show where your other two links also disagreed with your claim?

*They aren't accounting for electricity usage in the earth's heat budget.*

So the heat budget doesn't help your claim either.


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 541987
> 
> Second link_.....While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15 percent) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate._
> 
> ...


You don't have a background in science, do you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> You don't have a background in science, do you?



Still no backup? LOL!

Why don't you list all the things in your house that don't warm the environment when they use electricity?

Come on, you're an engineer, you must have dozens of examples.


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still no backup? LOL!
> 
> Why don't you list all the things in your house that don't warm the environment when they use electricity?
> 
> Come on, you're an engineer, you must have dozens of examples.


I already showed it to you.

I am still scratching my head at you believing using electricity is warming the planet but there it is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> I already showed it to you.
> 
> I am still scratching my head at you believing using electricity is warming the planet but there it is.



*I already showed it to you.*

Unless there is an arrow there for solar panels......you're still failing.

*I am still scratching my head at you believing using electricity is warming the planet*

Unless you've repealed the Second Law, you're still failing.

Maybe your links were wrong?


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I already showed it to you.*
> 
> Unless there is an arrow there for solar panels......you're still failing.
> 
> ...


So when did you first start believing that usage of electricity caused the planet to warm because this is the first time I have heard about that.


----------



## ding (Sep 20, 2021)

Breaking News: Toddsterpatriot determines that EV's will warm the planet because they use electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> So when did you first start believing that usage of electricity caused the planet to warm because this is the first time I have heard about that.



Why don't you list all the things in your house that don't warm the environment when they use electricity?

Come on, use your engineering experience.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Breaking News: Toddsterpatriot determines that EV's will warm the planet because they use electricity.



Breaking News: Ding repeals the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> You don't have a background in science, do you?


Sure as hell you don't Ding. Electrical energy gets converted either into heat directly, home heating, stoves, dryers, or mechanical energy with get gets converted into heat via friction, ect. You just keep digging the hole deeper with this highly erroneous line of illogic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Enough to be measured.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gotta love it when you take things out of context. Here is the whole thing;

"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 rely heavily on renewable energy sources. Here we model the effects of an idealized large-scale application of renewable energy on global and regional climate relative to a background climate of the representative concentration pathway 2.6 scenario (RCP2.6; ref. ). We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect. However, there are consequences involved with these processes that modulate the global atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes in regional precipitation"








						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


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Gotta love it when you take things out of context. Here is the whole thing;
> 
> "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 rely heavily on renewable energy sources. Here we model the effects of an idealized large-scale application of renewable energy on global and regional climate relative to a background climate of the representative concentration pathway 2.6 scenario (RCP2.6; ref. ). We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect. However, there are consequences involved with these processes that modulate the global atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes in regional precipitation"
> 
> ...


Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the surface of the planet.  The net effect is an effective reduction in solar radiation.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Sure as hell you don't Ding. Electrical energy gets converted either into heat directly, home heating, stoves, dryers, or mechanical energy with get gets converted into heat via friction, ect. You just keep digging the hole deeper with this highly erroneous line of illogic.


Most uses of electricity  is converted into kinetic or potential energy not heat.

All other energy sources that are used to generate electricity do not capture solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet. So from a budget standpoint that supposed energy conservation is already added to the system without reducing solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Breaking News: Ding repeals the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


How?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why don't you list all the things in your house that don't warm the environment when they use electricity?
> 
> Come on, use your engineering experience.


Anything which converts electricity into kinetic or potential energy.  Examples would be my air conditioning system and garage door opener.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 21, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Whooeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   And I thought Mrs. Elektra was a dumb ass. Yes, solar only meets the rated wattage in direct sunlight. And when you are installing it, you install enough for your needs by calculating how much wattage you will get in a given day. So latitude and climate play a factor. Of course a 400 watt panel does not deliver 400 watts 24/7. That wattage allows you to calculate how much it will generate per day, and, by that, per year. And one more point. You don't need a railroad or pipeline to bring in fuel. It falls out of the sky and is free. And the are not destroying watersheds and aquifers to get that free fuel. However, the proof of the superiority of solar is that the utilities are adapting solar and wind, and shutting down coal plants purely on an economic basis.



So once again you refuse to admit that if you want 500MW of electricity from solar power in AZ that you have to install over 2000 MW of rated capacity.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 21, 2021)

myself said:


> Stop talking nonsense.  The only thing that matters is how much electricity comes out of a solar panel in direct sunlight.  Also, that square on the map is around 140 miles per side.  Elon Musk says it could be done with a square only 100 miles per side.  (Though obviously they wouldn't have to be all in one spot)  He is a much more intelligent person than you are.  So I will believe him over you.  In a nanosecond. Earlier I asked you to stop talking nonsense.  But I came up with a better idea.  Stop leaving any replies in my thread at all.


How much power is needed in MW to run the entire country?

In 2020 we produced about 4000 KW hours of electricity

To get all that from solar we would have to install enough solar panels to produce more than 16000 KW hours.

So how much of that will your little solar array in AZ produce and how are you going to scale that up to meet the expeonentially increased demand if we move to a 100% fossil fuel free electric society?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> How?



You're doing work that doesn't result in heat loss.

Notify the Nobel committee.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Examples would be my air conditioning system and garage door opener.



Your air conditioning system doesn't warm the environment around your home?
Post your secret.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're doing work that doesn't result in heat loss.
> 
> Notify the Nobel committee.


Never said that, dummy.  

The heat list does not heat the surface of the planet, dummy.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your air conditioning system doesn't warm the environment around your home?
> Post your secret.


What heat that is lost, which is maybe 10%, doesn't heat the surface of the planet, dummy.  

How long have you believed using electricity causes global warming?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)




----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Things that heat the surface of the planet... the sun.

Accept no substitutes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> What heat that is lost, which is maybe 10%, doesn't heat the surface of the planet, dummy



You're adding heat to your neighborhood.
How does that not heat the planet?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're adding heat to your neighborhood.
> How does that not heat the planet?


There's no back radiation from it.  

Why won't you admit that you believe ALL electricity that is used heats the planet?  Cause we generate a lot of electricity that does not reduce solar radiation heating the surface of the planet.  So in the case where all electricity is generated from solar, that case would have a net reduction in the earth's heat budget.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Next time send me a bigger one.
					

Mystery, Alaska (1999) clip with quote Next time send me a bigger one.     Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote.     Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share.     Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.




					getyarn.io


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 21, 2021)

Large solar power grids, currently, is a pipe dream. Ridiculously unrealistic.
What IS realistic, is each individual home has it's own system. 
Currently it is far too expensive with high cost to maintain. But that would lower significantly if mass produced.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> There's no back radiation from it.
> 
> Why won't you admit that you believe ALL electricity that is used heats the planet?  Cause we generate a lot of electricity that does not reduce solar radiation heating the surface of the planet.  So in the case where all electricity is generated from solar, that case would have a net reduction in the earth's heat budget.



*There's no back radiation from it.*

No back radiation from your air conditioner warming your neighborhood? 
If you say so. How does that help your claim?

*Why won't you admit that you believe ALL electricity that is used heats the planet? *

Entropy increases. You're an engineer, you should understand.

*So in the case where all electricity is generated from solar, that case would have a net reduction in the earth's heat budget.*

If only you had posted 3 sources that agreed with your claim.
I mean, come on, you have to see the humor in the fact that they all disagreed with you.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *There's no back radiation from it.*
> 
> No back radiation from your air conditioner warming your neighborhood?
> If you say so. How does that help your claim?
> ...


My claim is that solar panels will have a cooling effect on the planet because any solar radiation which is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the planet.  It's already been proven through measurement.  

I understand entropy.  I don't believe you do.  

My claim is self evident.  We are generating electricity today from non-solar sources.  Those sources do not capture solar radiation.  So if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> My claim is that solar panels will have a cooling effect on the planet because any solar radiation which is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the planet.  It's already been proven through measurement.
> 
> I understand entropy.  I don't believe you do.
> 
> My claim is self evident.  We are generating electricity today from non-solar sources.  Those sources do not capture solar radiation.  So if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.



*My claim is that solar panels will have a cooling effect on the planet because any solar radiation which is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the planet. It's already been proven through measurement.*

At best, net, as 2 of your 3 sources said, it's a wash.

*I understand entropy.  I don't believe you do. *

In that case, you should be able to list your household electrical uses that 
don't heat up your surroundings. There must be dozens you could list, as an engineer.
Explain further how your air conditioning system doesn't heat your surroundings. 

*if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.*

Capture? How much of this captured solar radiation ends up as heat?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *My claim is that solar panels will have a cooling effect on the planet because any solar radiation which is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the planet. It's already been proven through measurement.*
> 
> At best, net, as 2 of your 3 sources said, it's a wash.
> 
> ...


What part of all kinetic and potential energy devices that use electricity don't you understand?

Besides aren't all devices the same regardless of whether or not you are using an energy source that converts solar radiation into electricity and one that doesn't?  Isn't that the same in both cases?  Are you so dense to see the only difference between the two scenarios is one absorbs solar radiation and the other doesn't?  This is really basic stuff.


----------



## myself (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> They were wrong.  ANY solar radiation that is converted into energy is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the earth.  It's called conservation of energy and is the first law of thermodynamics.
> 
> We are in an interglacial cycle.  Our present temperature is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.  Everything is normal.  You are mistaking the natural variations of the earth's climate during an interglacial cycle with CO2.



  How much can you be wrong.  Unfortunately, I think I'm going to find out.  For any solar radiation that is converted into electricity, that electricity will in turn heat something else.  Ever put your hand on an electric motor that has been running a while?  They can get pretty hot.  Ever run an electric heater that has an extension connected to it?  That extension chord can get pretty hot.  Some apartment places don't like you using them.  Because they could cause a fire.  Next, you are hallucinating.  Have none of the graphs showing human caused global warming meant anything to you?  Temperatures are rising, rapidly.  It is the activities of humans that is to blame.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> What part of all kinetic and potential energy devices that use electricity don't you understand?
> 
> Besides aren't all devices the same regardless of whether or not you are using an energy source that converts solar radiation into electricity and one that doesn't?  Isn't that the same in both cases?  Are you so dense to see the only difference between the two scenarios is one absorbs solar radiation and the other doesn't?  This is really basic stuff.



*What part of all kinetic and potential energy devices that use electricity don't you understand?*

The part where you think they don't emit heat.

Tell me, from an engineering viewpoint, how your air conditioner uses electricity and
releases no heat....like you claimed before.


----------



## myself (Sep 21, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> How much power is needed in MW to run the entire country?
> 
> In 2020 we produced about 4000 KW hours of electricity
> 
> ...



  Will you ever quit with your denier nonsense?  Solar panels work.  That's the only thing that matters.  You want me to run around and look up how much energy the U.S. uses at any particular point?  And then translate that into how many solar panels would be needed?  Take your crap, make a fudgesicle out of it and lick it.  The experts say it can be done.  And what area of solar panels it would take.  That's good enough for me.


----------



## myself (Sep 21, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Large solar power grids, currently, is a pipe dream. Ridiculously unrealistic.
> What IS realistic, is each individual home has it's own system.
> Currently it is far too expensive with high cost to maintain. But that would lower significantly if mass produced.



  With a large solar grid like one in the picture I will give you would be bad for one main reason.  It could be cloudy in that area of the country.  Solar panels would have to be spread all around.  With our power grid distributing power from areas where there is lots of sun to those where it may be cloudy.  They don't have to be in the desert.  Along paved roads would be a good place.  (Along with the rooftops of course)  Because there is enough pavement on the paved roads in the U.S. to cover the state of West Virginia in pavement.

  I have to admit that I don't know exactly how well solar panels work.  You would have to ask somebody who has been using them for decades.  Such as Ed Begley Jr.  But the real point of all this is that human caused global warming is real.  Something must be done about it.  As of about 40 years ago.  Converting to completely solar wouldn't be easy.  It may not be cheap.  But it is necessary.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What part of all kinetic and potential energy devices that use electricity don't you understand?*
> 
> The part where you think they don't emit heat.
> 
> ...


That's kinetic energy.  The only losses are due to thermodynamic processes not being 100% efficient.  The lion share of energy is used to run a compressor.  The rest is lost as heat.  Not the heat exchanged from the room but the heat lost in the motor and compressor which is probably on the order of 10% of the total energy consumed.  But whether or not the energy source is solar or fossil fuels the small amount of heat lost is the same in both cases.  This means that the scenario that converted solar radiation into energy would reduce the solar radiation received by the earth's surface compared to the no solar panel scenario.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

myself said:


> How much can you be wrong.  Unfortunately, I think I'm going to find out.  For any solar radiation that is converted into electricity, that electricity will in turn heat something else.  Ever put your hand on an electric motor that has been running a while?  They can get pretty hot.  Ever run an electric heater that has an extension connected to it?  That extension chord can get pretty hot.  Some apartment places don't like you using them.  Because they could cause a fire.  Next, you are hallucinating.  Have none of the graphs showing human caused global warming meant anything to you?  Temperatures are rising, rapidly.  It is the activities of humans that is to blame.


Wrong.  Electricity used for doing kinetic and potential energy work do not produce heat other than what is lost due to friction.  The majority (90% or so) is converted into kinetic energy or potential energy.  But regardless of the energy that you think is lost that same energy would have been lost regardless of the source of electricity,  So the scenario which uses solar will have a cooling effect relative to the scenario using fossil fuels.  In other words whatever energy that is returned to the atmosphere (which isn't heating the earth's surface) can be ignored because it is the same on both cases.  You guys would have never passed an engineering class.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

myself said:


> How much can you be wrong.  Unfortunately, I think I'm going to find out.  For any solar radiation that is converted into electricity, that electricity will in turn heat something else.  Ever put your hand on an electric motor that has been running a while?  They can get pretty hot.  Ever run an electric heater that has an extension connected to it?  That extension chord can get pretty hot.  Some apartment places don't like you using them.  Because they could cause a fire.  Next, you are hallucinating.  Have none of the graphs showing human caused global warming meant anything to you?  Temperatures are rising, rapidly.  It is the activities of humans that is to blame.


We are still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles.  The warming you are seeing is due to natural variations in the sun not CO2.

There's even a peer reviewed paper on it.  See?






						ShieldSquare Captcha
					






					iopscience.iop.org


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

I think you people need to accept the fact that the earth has been in an ice age for the last 2.7 million years.  Man won't be changing that.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

I don't understand why people want the planet to be colder when we are in the middle of an ice age.  Makes no sense at all.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> The lion share of energy is used to run a compressor. The rest is lost as heat.



Your air conditioner loses energy as heat?

Sounds like the solar panel cools the area it's in and the electricity heats
the area your air conditioner is in.

How is that cooling the Earth?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar energy.



You still have no sources that back up your claim?

I mean besides your 3 sources that disagreed with your claim.....


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your air conditioner loses energy as heat?
> 
> Sounds like the solar panel cools the area it's in and the electricity heats
> the area your air conditioner is in.
> ...


Any solar radiation that is used to produce energy is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet.  If you reduce the solar radiation the planet receives it will result in a net cooling effect.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You still have no sources that back up your claim?
> 
> I mean besides your 3 sources that disagreed with your claim.....


That seems like a standard response of the global warming crowd but the conservation of energy requires any solar radiation that is converted into electricity will result in less solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet.  It's a simple conservation of energy balance.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

It's probably worth repeating for the 12th time.... We are generating electricity today from non-solar sources. Those sources do not capture solar radiation. So if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You still have no sources that back up your claim?
> 
> I mean besides your 3 sources that disagreed with your claim.....


By that logic I couldn't use IPCC's data to reach a different conclusion than the IPCC yet I do that too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> That seems like a standard response of the global warming crowd but the conservation of energy requires any solar radiation that is converted into electricity will result in less solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet.  It's a simple conservation of energy balance.



*That seems like a standard response of the global warming crowd*

To point out that your sources didn't back your claim? LOL!

*the conservation of energy requires any solar radiation that is converted into electricity will result in less solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet. *

Right. Less heat from less sunlight hitting the surface, more heat from the electricity generated.
At best, nets out. At worst, the darker solar panels absorb more sunlight.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> It's probably worth repeating for the 12th time.... We are generating electricity today from non-solar sources. Those sources do not capture solar radiation. So if we replace those sources with solar panels which do capture solar radiation then the net effect will be a cooling of the planet relative to using those other sources.



If anyone said the heat released by burning fossil fuels was an issue......you'd have a point.
Is anyone saying that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> By that logic I couldn't use IPCC's data to reach a different conclusion than the IPCC yet I do that too.



If you made a claim and posted an IPCC link that said the opposite, I'd still laugh at you.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That seems like a standard response of the global warming crowd*
> 
> To point out that your sources didn't back your claim? LOL!
> 
> ...


Sure I did.  

Less heat reaching the surface of the earth, the same electricity being produced, same loses to the atmosphere which don't actually heat the surface of the planet and are less than the heat from the solar radiation that was converted into electricity.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you made a claim and posted an IPCC link that said the opposite, I'd still laugh at you.


That's because you have an external locus of control and can't help normalizing your deviance.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If anyone said the heat released by burning fossil fuels was an issue......you'd have a point.
> Is anyone saying that?


You mean the heat from fossil fuels that generates electricity and is used in powering electrical devices that has your panties in a wad?  That heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Sure I did.
> 
> Less heat reaching the surface of the earth, the same electricity being produced, same loses to the atmosphere which don't actually heat the surface of the planet and are less than the heat from the solar radiation that was converted into electricity.



*Sure I did.*

Did what? Besides post 3 links that disagreed with your claim?

*Less heat reaching the surface of the earth*

Unless the panels are dark, then there's more heat.

*same loses to the atmosphere which don't actually heat the surface of the planet*

Surface? Heating the air doesn't count?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> That's because you have an external locus of control and can't help normalizing your deviance.



Still no backup for your claim? LOL!

Maybe post an engineering source?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> You mean the heat from fossil fuels that generates electricity and is used in powering electrical devices that has your panties in a wad?  That heat?



Who's complaining about that?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Sure I did.*
> 
> Did what? Besides post 3 links that disagreed with your claim?
> 
> ...


*Did what? Besides post 3 links that disagreed with your claim?*

Explained it in exquisite detail that went over your head,  

*Unless the panels are dark, then there's more heat.*

Doesn't work that way, Einstein.  FLoT and all.

*Surface? Heating the air doesn't count?*

Not when it's in both cases.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still no backup for your claim? LOL!
> 
> Maybe post an engineering source?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who's complaining about that?


You are, but it's more like crying.  But I'm not judging.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

This is me teaching Todd about fractional reserves all over again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> *Did what? Besides post 3 links that disagreed with your claim?*
> 
> Explained it in exquisite detail that went over your head,
> 
> ...




To recap.......


First link...._.We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which *compensate* the cooling effect._

Second link_.....While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15 percent) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. *The panels are usually much darker than the ground* they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate._

Third link...._.In urban areas, the effects were a little different. In the first simulation, the model predicted a very small amount of cooling, with temperature falling approximately 0.26 degrees Celsius. In the second simulation, the one in which global thermostat regulation is significantly increased, the large amount of power consumed actually produced an urban heat island effect, *in* *which human energy use releases heat into the environment and causes the regional temperature to warm up*. In this scenario, the warming from the heat island effect essentially compensated for the cooling caused by the solar panels._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> View attachment 542358



The cover doesn't help your claim.


----------



## Flash (Sep 21, 2021)

When I see these idiots espousing solar energy for anything more than powering a calculator I automatically know they don't know their ass from a hole about energy generation.  Just silliness.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> To recap.......
> 
> 
> First link...._.We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which *compensate* the cooling effect._
> ...


Arm waving.  No science behind it whatsoever.  If anything it shows how corrupted they are and how gullible some are.  Sad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> You are, but it's more like crying.  But I'm not judging.



No, I don't give a shit about burning fossil fuels heating the planet.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The cover doesn't help your claim.


Have you taken a thermo class?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> This is me teaching Todd about fractional reserves all over again.



Did I smack you around on that topic as well?

Not a surprise.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, I don't give a shit about burning fossil fuels heating the planet.


But you care about the evil electricity that is heating up the planet, right chicken little?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Have you taken a thermo class?



Do you have anything that actually backs up your claim......or not?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did I smack you around on that topic as well?
> 
> Not a surprise.


No.  I trolled you.  I spun you like a top and then got into your pants.   It was epic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> But you care about the evil electricity that is heating up the planet, right chicken little?



Only as far as it refutes your claim.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you have anything that actually backs up your claim......or not?


FLoT.  You know conservation of energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> No.  I trolled you.  I spun you like a top and then got into your pants.   It was epic.



Yeah, sure you did. LOL!

No back up for this claim either.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> FLoT.  You know conservation of energy.



Conservation actually works against your claim.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Only as far as it refutes your claim.


Except that electricity will be generated in both cases but only solar panels reduce solar radiation from reaching the surface of the planet because it is converting that solar radiation into electricity.  It can't convert solar radiation into electricity and heat the surface of the planet because that would violate the conservation of energy thingee.  

It's cool teaching you about science and all.  You know, like I taught you about fractional reserves.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Conservation actually works against your claim.


That would be a neat trick if it did,  And an even neater trick if you tried to explain it.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, sure you did. LOL!
> 
> No back up for this claim either.


That's the beauty of an electronic message board.  There's a record of it.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

I should probably kiss you next time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> That would be a neat trick if it did,  And an even neater trick if you tried to explain it.



*Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.*

_Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.











						Measuring Earth’s Albedo
					

The global picture of how Earth reflects sunlight is a muddle, though several regional trends emerge.




					earthobservatory.nasa.gov
				





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 that suggested that PV systems should decrease ambient temperatures..........

Lowering the terrestrial albedo from ~20% in natural deserts12 to ~5% over PV panels13 alters the energy balance of absorption, storage, and release of short- and longwave radiation14,15









						The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local temperatures - Scientific Reports
					

While photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy production has surged, concerns remain about whether or not PV power plants induce a “heat island” (PVHI) effect, much like the increase in ambient temperatures relative to wildlands generates an Urban Heat Island effect in cities. Transitions to PV...




					www.nature.com
				



_
LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> only solar panels reduce solar radiation from reaching the surface of the planet because it is converting that solar radiation into electricity



At best a wash.....according to 2 of your sources. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> That's the beauty of an electronic message board.  There's a record of it.



If only you'd post it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> I should probably kiss you next time.



Is that your urge every time you get your ass kicked? Eww.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not heat the surface of the earth.*
> 
> _Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.
> 
> ...


Not seeing the issue here.  That study is 5 years old.  The latest study contradicts that.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> At best a wash.....according to 2 of your sources. LOL!


Nope.  Again... arm waving.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Not seeing the issue here.  That study is 5 years old.  The latest study contradicts that.



Post it.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If only you'd post it.


You probably forgot it because you had to compartmentalize it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Nope.  Again... arm waving.



Using your links......durr.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Post it.


Already did.  Or did you forget that you replied to it already?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> You probably forgot it because you had to compartmentalize it.



Yeah, you're still in the idiot compartment.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Using your links......durr.


You probably believe the IPCC too.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, you're still in the idiot compartment.


I'm sorry I triggered you.  Would you like for me to stop trolling you now?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that your urge every time you get your ass kicked? Eww.


No, it's the polite  thing to do when you fuck girls.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Already did.  Or did you forget that you replied to it already?












__





						Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!
					

Breaking News: Toddsterpatriot determines that EV's will warm the planet because they use electricity.   Breaking News: Ding repeals the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Hilarious!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> I'm sorry I triggered you.  Would you like for me to stop trolling you now?



Laughing at you......not a trigger.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> No, it's the polite  thing to do when you fuck girls.



Is that what you imagine when my boot is in your ass?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> You probably believe the IPCC too.



Did they refute your claim too?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 542368
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's also false.  It's arm waving.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that what you imagine when my boot is in your ass?


Is that what you would like to do to me, Todd?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did they refute your claim too?


They actually like the new study that shows regional cooling.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Laughing at you......not a trigger.


We've already established that you can't help that because you have an external locus of control and normalize your deviance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> It's also false.  It's arm waving.



You shouldn't post links that are false if you're trying to prove your claim.

Makes you look dumber than usual,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Is that what you would like to do to me, Todd?



Kicking your ass all over this thread. Already did.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You shouldn't post links that are false if you're trying to prove your claim.
> 
> Makes you look dumber than usual,


Regional cooling from solar panels is reality, Todd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> They actually like the new study that shows regional cooling.



If you think it backs your claim. Post it. LOL!


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kicking your ass all over this thread. Already did.


So you are backing off your claim.

Wise decision.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you think it backs your claim. Post it. LOL!


You replied to it.  That's what triggered you in the first place.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Regional cooling from solar panels is reality, Todd.



Right. Just like your air conditioner cools the region inside your house. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> So you are backing off your claim.



Which one?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> You replied to it.  That's what triggered you in the first place.



Yes, I replied to your silly claim.

And then you posted 3 links that disagreed with you.

Hilarious!!!


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. Just like your air conditioner cools the region inside your house. LOL!


Dude, I have you spinning like a top right now.  I'm starting to have a guilty conscience.  I don't want you to go Trevor Bauer on anyone tonight.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which one?


You mean you made more than one?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> You mean you made more than one?



You imagined more than one?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, I replied to your silly claim.
> 
> And then you posted 3 links that disagreed with you.
> 
> Hilarious!!!


Nope.  The work was on measuring the regional cooling effect of solar panel.  They waved their arms about that not being a concern without doing any science.  Sort of like what you do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Dude, I have you spinning like a top right now.  I'm starting to have a guilty conscience.  I don't want you to go Trevor Bauer on anyone tonight.



Is your air conditioner going to cause a new ice age from all the regional cooling?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You imagined more than one?


Nope.  I'm the one who knows there was only one.  You are the one who can't even remember that.  Sort of like how you forgot how I taught you about fractional reserves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Nope.  The work was on measuring the regional cooling effect of solar panel.  They waved their arms about that not being a concern without doing any science.  Sort of like what you do.



*The work was on measuring the regional cooling effect of solar panel.*

Regional? Why would that trigger a new ice age?

Backing off your claim already?


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is your air conditioner going to cause a new ice age from all the regional cooling?


No.  That will be taken care of by earth's current unique configuration.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Nope.  I'm the one who knows there was only one.  You are the one who can't even remember that.  Sort of like how you forgot how I taught you about fractional reserves.



Yeah, sure you did. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> No.  That will be taken care of by earth's current unique configuration.




*I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar panels.*





__





						Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!
					

The earth is going to be here long after humans are extinct.     Which should take about 30 years.  Cold comfort.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Wow!


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The work was on measuring the regional cooling effect of solar panel.*
> 
> Regional? Why would that trigger a new ice age?
> 
> Backing off your claim already?


Ummmm... because we are at the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.  The earth has been cooling for 50 million years but entered into an ice age 2.7 million years ago.  So reducing solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet is the last thing we should be doing.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar panels.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Ummmm... because we are at the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.  The earth has been cooling for 50 million years but entered into an ice age 2.7 million years ago.  So reducing solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet is the last thing we should be doing.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, sure you did. LOL!


It was epic.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 542383


Arm waving.  No data or science behind that.


----------



## ding (Sep 21, 2021)

Ball games on.  You can go kick your cat now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Arm waving.  No data or science behind that.



Your Harvard link?

Then why did you post it?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your Harvard link?
> 
> Then why did you post it?



Ah, go easy on Ding, he is of limited intellectual capacity. He cites an article as something that supports him, then immediately states it is garbage when he is shown what the article actually said.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 22, 2021)

myself said:


> Will you ever quit with your denier nonsense?  Solar panels work.  That's the only thing that matters.  You want me to run around and look up how much energy the U.S. uses at any particular point?  And then translate that into how many solar panels would be needed?  Take your crap, make a fudgesicle out of it and lick it.  The experts say it can be done.  And what area of solar panels it would take.  That's good enough for me.


I never said they didn't work I said if you think a little square of solar panels in one state will power the entire country that you're delusional


----------



## ding (Sep 22, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your Harvard link?
> 
> Then why did you post it?


Because it shows that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the surface of the planet. 

Their conclusion that this will have no effect on the earth's climate is a joke and so are you for believing it.


----------



## ding (Sep 22, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, go easy on Ding, he is of limited intellectual capacity. He cites an article as something that supports him, then immediately states it is garbage when he is shown what the article actually said.


I am soooo happy I could unite you and Trevor Bauer


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Because it shows that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which does not warm the surface of the planet.



You posted the Harvard link that says using the electricty compensates for
the cooling effect. No Ice Age.

*Their conclusion that this will have no effect on the earth's climate is a joke*

Your claim that it will is the joke.


----------



## ding (Sep 22, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You posted the Harvard link that says using the electricty compensates for
> the cooling effect. No Ice Age.
> 
> *Their conclusion that this will have no effect on the earth's climate is a joke*
> ...


We are in an ice age, dummy.  It began 2.7 million years ago.


----------



## ding (Sep 22, 2021)

Pfft... Chicago liberals.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Pfft... Chicago liberals.



Pfft....engineers.







Keep up your good work, Dwayne.


----------



## ding (Sep 22, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pfft....engineers.
> 
> View attachment 542501
> 
> ...




Retired and playing golf everyday.  Set for life.


----------



## myself (Sep 22, 2021)

ding said:


> Wrong.  Electricity used for doing kinetic and potential energy work do not produce heat other than what is lost due to friction.  The majority (90% or so) is converted into kinetic energy or potential energy.  But regardless of the energy that you think is lost that same energy would have been lost regardless of the source of electricity,  So the scenario which uses solar will have a cooling effect relative to the scenario using fossil fuels.  In other words whatever energy that is returned to the atmosphere (which isn't heating the earth's surface) can be ignored because it is the same on both cases.  You guys would have never passed an engineering class.



  You can believe whatever you want to believe.  You are too mired in your human caused global warming denial cult for me to change your mind.  As for solar panels cooling the planet, I say they would have no effect.  Other than keeping us from burning fossil fuels for electricity that do heat the planet.  Among other bad things.


----------



## myself (Sep 22, 2021)

ding said:


> We are still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles.  The warming you are seeing is due to natural variations in the sun not CO2.
> 
> There's even a peer reviewed paper on it.  See?
> 
> ...



I will just disregard your foolishness.  Other than that, it has been established positively that human actions are causing global warming.  Like it or not.


----------



## myself (Sep 22, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I never said they didn't work I said if you think a little square of solar panels in one state will power the entire country that you're delusional



  I never said it.  It is just a picture.  It shows the total amount of solar panels as compared to the U.S. to create the necessary electricity.  I personally think they should be on every roof top.  And maybe along major freeways.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 23, 2021)

myself said:


> I never said it.  It is just a picture.  It shows the total amount of solar panels as compared to the U.S. to create the necessary electricity.  I personally think they should be on every roof top.  And maybe along major freeways.


And that will not power the entire country day and night.


----------



## ding (Sep 23, 2021)

myself said:


> You can believe whatever you want to believe.  You are too mired in your human caused global warming denial cult for me to change your mind.  As for solar panels cooling the planet, I say they would have no effect.  Other than keeping us from burning fossil fuels for electricity that do heat the planet.  Among other bad things.


CO2 is not causing global warming.  We are in an interglacial cycle.  It's been warming for 20,000 years.


----------



## ding (Sep 23, 2021)

myself said:


> I will just disregard your foolishness.  Other than that, it has been established positively that human actions are causing global warming.  Like it or not.


No.  It hasn't been positively established  that human actions are causing global warming.  

It's still being debated in scientific circles.  See?

How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate


----------



## myself (Sep 23, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> And that will not power the entire country day and night.



  Yeah.  They're just making that shit up to piss people like you off.


----------



## myself (Sep 23, 2021)

ding said:


> CO2 is not causing global warming.  We are in an interglacial cycle.  It's been warming for 20,000 years.



  You sound like a broken record.  I showed you plenty of different graphs that show what is going on.  If you choose to disregard them, that's up to you.  You will just have to deal with being considered to be an idiot.  By not only me but about 98% of the scientists out there.


----------



## myself (Sep 23, 2021)

ding said:


> No.  It hasn't been positively established  that human actions are causing global warming.
> 
> It's still being debated in scientific circles.  See?
> 
> How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate



  It's only being debated by idiotic deniers.  For the vast majority of scientists, the issue has already been settled for a long time.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 23, 2021)

ding said:


> CO2 is not causing global warming.  We are in an interglacial cycle.  It's been warming for 20,000 years.


Dumb ass, the peak of the interglacial was over 8000 years ago, and it has been cooling gradually for 6000 years.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 24, 2021)

myself said:


> Yeah.  They're just making that shit up to piss people like you off.


No they're serving their own agendas.

There is no formula where solar alone will power the entire country 24/7


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Sep 24, 2021)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


See it's that simple you bigots! 

Lol


----------



## ding (Sep 24, 2021)

myself said:


> You sound like a broken record.  I showed you plenty of different graphs that show what is going on.  If you choose to disregard them, that's up to you.  You will just have to deal with being considered to be an idiot.  By not only me but about 98% of the scientists out there.


Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”


----------



## ding (Sep 24, 2021)

myself said:


> It's only being debated by idiotic deniers.  For the vast majority of scientists, the issue has already been settled for a long time.


Conclusion. In the title of this paper, we asked “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, *we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. *We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha


----------



## ding (Sep 24, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb ass, the peak of the interglacial was over 8000 years ago, and it has been cooling gradually for 6000 years.


The earth is still 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles and the sea level is 26 ft below the peak sea level of the previous interglacial cycle. 

There is no data to support what you are claiming.

Temperatures will rise and fall during glacial and interglacial cycles.  It is the nature of a bipolar glaciated world.  Temperatures are precariously close to the threshold for extensive continental glacial in the Northern hemisphere.  It is for this reason that our planet experiences frequent and seemingly drastic temperature fluctuations and environmental uncertainty.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Sep 24, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No kidding. But when their hard work goes toward a stupid cause.....you end up with the highest electricity prices in the world.


Yes, but they work so hard at fucking everyone and themselves over and over and over.   It's rather remarkable.


----------



## myself (Sep 24, 2021)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> See it's that simple you bigots!
> 
> Lol



  Bigotry against science?  I guess you could accuse the human caused global warming deniers that.


----------



## myself (Sep 24, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> No they're serving their own agendas.
> 
> There is no formula where solar alone will power the entire country 24/7



  An agenda to have less?  Who in the hell would be part of an agenda like that.  Also, you don't need any formula for solar power.  We know how much electricity the U.S. uses both day and night.  All we need to do is build enough solar panels to match it.


----------



## myself (Sep 24, 2021)

ding said:


> Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
> “Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”



  Yes.  I heard that skip in the record before.  And it was refuted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2021)

myself said:


> An agenda to have less? Who in the hell would be part of an agenda like that.



The Green Party.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 24, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Green Party.


Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less? Having clean air and water over most of the nation is having less? Increasing food production while using less water, and increasing the income of the farmer is having less? Not having whole watersheds poisoned by mountain top mining or aquifers poisoned by fracking is having less? Having men and women working in clean air and surroundings putting in and maintaining renewables is having less? You prefer men dying in the 40's and 50's from black lung? Your whole argument here is a red herring. It is false, and just plain wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less? Having clean air and water over most of the nation is having less? Increasing food production while using less water, and increasing the income of the farmer is having less? Not having whole watersheds poisoned by mountain top mining or aquifers poisoned by fracking is having less? Having men and women working in clean air and surroundings putting in and maintaining renewables is having less? You prefer men dying in the 40's and 50's from black lung? Your whole argument here is a red herring. It is false, and just plain wrong.


_Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less?_

Really. Having less power, less reliable power at a higher cost is having less.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 25, 2021)

myself said:


> An agenda to have less?  Who in the hell would be part of an agenda like that.  Also, you don't need any formula for solar power.  We know how much electricity the U.S. uses both day and night.  All we need to do is build enough solar panels to match it.


And how many solar panels is that?

And how many batteries?









						The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid
					

Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.




					www.technologyreview.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less? Having clean air and water over most of the nation is having less? Increasing food production while using less water, and increasing the income of the farmer is having less? Not having whole watersheds poisoned by mountain top mining or aquifers poisoned by fracking is having less? Having men and women working in clean air and surroundings putting in and maintaining renewables is having less? You prefer men dying in the 40's and 50's from black lung? Your whole argument here is a red herring. It is false, and just plain wrong.



Economics, not really a liberal thing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less?_
> 
> Really. Having less power, less reliable power at a higher cost is having less.


So Texas is shutting down usable coal fired plants as it increases solar and wind because that makes economic sense. 


Blues Man said:


> And how many solar panels is that?
> 
> And how many batteries?
> 
> ...


As many as needed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> So Texas is shutting down usable coal fired plants as it increases solar and wind because that makes economic sense.



Gotta suck on that taxpayer tit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Economics, not really a liberal thing.


LOL   President Bush, the senior, minor recession at the end of his term. President Clinton, tax increase, and record economic growth, actually paid down the national debt a bit. President Bush, junior, worst recession in our history, verging on a depression at the end of his term. President Obama, takes over during the worst of that recession, and brings the economy back with unemployment down to pre-recession levels. President Trump, inherits and economy that is hitting on all eight, and by his terrible handling of the pandemic, creates havoc with our economy. And you say liberals don't understand economics? LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Gotta suck on that taxpayer tit.


Wrong. The reason is cheap natural gas, and even cheaper renewables. 









						PolitiFact - Looking at why a coal-powered closed in Texas
					

Power outages in Texas left many residents without heat and electricity during recent ice and snow storms. Some conserva




					www.politifact.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL   President Bush, the senior, minor recession at the end of his term. President Clinton, tax increase, and record economic growth, actually paid down the national debt a bit. President Bush, junior, worst recession in our history, verging on a depression at the end of his term. President Obama, takes over during the worst of that recession, and brings the economy back with unemployment down to pre-recession levels. President Trump, inherits and economy that is hitting on all eight, and by his terrible handling of the pandemic, creates havoc with our economy. And you say liberals don't understand economics? LOL



*LOL President Bush, the senior, minor recession at the end of his term. *

Liar. 
Real GDP Q2 91 +6.2%
Real GDP Q3 91 +5.3%
Real GDP Q4 91 +3.8%
Real GDP Q1 92 +6.4%
Real GDP Q2 92 +6.9%
Real GDP Q3 92 +6.1%
Real GDP Q4 92 +7.1%









__





						Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed
					

View economic output, reported as the nominal value of all new goods and services produced by labor and property located in the U.S.



					fred.stlouisfed.org
				




* And you say liberals don't understand economics? *

Only because it's true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Wrong. The reason is cheap natural gas, and even cheaper renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cheap natural gas causes windpower tax credits?


----------



## ding (Sep 25, 2021)

myself said:


> Yes.  I heard that skip in the record before.  And it was refuted.


How so?


----------



## myself (Sep 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Green Party.



  You must be crazy.  Despite what you may think, anybody who is a member of the green party are just humans like anybody else.  I'm sure they enjoy being able to get food in cans.  Buying disposable diapers.  Drive cars, etc etc. etc.  The problem is that being wasteful is not only cheaper, but give the companies who are responsible for it more profit. They say that a rich person would sell you the rope you are going use to hang him with if he thought he would make a buck. The vast majority of companies or corporations are downright evil.  

  If there is something illegal that they think that they can get away with, they are likely to do it.  Because any punishment they might receive is so slight that it is worth taking the risk.  Also, companies tend to fold up after they've polluted some area and leave it to the government to clean up.  Since the super fund project began around 1980, as of 2019, nearly 30 years later, 431 sites have been cleaned up to a sufficient degree to be removed from the super fund site list.  1344 remain.  And more are probably being added all the time.


----------



## myself (Sep 25, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Having more power at lower cost is having less? Having clean air and water over most of the nation is having less? Increasing food production while using less water, and increasing the income of the farmer is having less? Not having whole watersheds poisoned by mountain top mining or aquifers poisoned by fracking is having less? Having men and women working in clean air and surroundings putting in and maintaining renewables is having less? You prefer men dying in the 40's and 50's from black lung? Your whole argument here is a red herring. It is false, and just plain wrong.



  Post #479 may interest you.


----------



## myself (Sep 25, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> And how many solar panels is that?
> 
> And how many batteries?
> 
> ...



  Here's your answer with a picture.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a smaller combined area.  As for storing energy, there are other ways besides using batteries to do that.


----------



## myself (Sep 25, 2021)

ding said:


> How so?



  I'm sure I mentioned it somewhere around here.  The sun isn't putting out any more or less sunlight than usual.  It has 11 year cycles where the sun's output fluctuates a little.  But not enough to cause HUMAN caused global warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2021)

myself said:


> You must be crazy.  Despite what you may think, anybody who is a member of the green party are just humans like anybody else.  I'm sure they enjoy being able to get food in cans.  Buying disposable diapers.  Drive cars, etc etc. etc.  The problem is that being wasteful is not only cheaper, but give the companies who are responsible for it more profit. They say that a rich person would sell you the rope you are going use to hang him with if he thought he would make a buck. The vast majority of companies or corporations are downright evil.
> 
> If there is something illegal that they think that they can get away with, they are likely to do it.  Because any punishment they might receive is so slight that it is worth taking the risk.  Also, companies tend to fold up after they've polluted some area and leave it to the government to clean up.  Since the super fund project began around 1980, as of 2019, nearly 30 years later, 431 sites have been cleaned up to a sufficient degree to be removed from the super fund site list.  1344 remain.  And more are probably being added all the time.



* Despite what you may think, anybody who is a member of the green party are just humans like anybody else. *

With less common sense and no understanding of economics. Obviously.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 26, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> So Texas is shutting down usable coal fired plants as it increases solar and wind because that makes economic sense.
> 
> As many as needed.


at astronomical costs


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 26, 2021)

myself said:


> Here's your answer with a picture.  Though Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a smaller combined area.  As for storing energy, there are other ways besides using batteries to do that.
> 
> View attachment 543843


I already told you why that little square needs to be at least 4 times bigger and the batteries will cost over 2.5 trillion dollars


----------



## ding (Sep 26, 2021)

myself said:


> I'm sure I mentioned it somewhere around here.  The sun isn't putting out any more or less sunlight than usual.  It has 11 year cycles where the sun's output fluctuates a little.  But not enough to cause HUMAN caused global warming.


Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy): “The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this very issue.”

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.): “During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose. The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own planetary systems.”

Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia: “The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China: “Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength impacts and responses.”

Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán (FACET-UNT), Argentina: “The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991: “We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to understanding climate change.”


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> NO?
> 
> Ever heard of Follow the Sun?
> The earth receives far more solar energy than we need or consume.
> ...


What material is used to build Ringworld or a Dyson Sphere ?


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 26, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> What material is used to build Ringworld or a Dyson Sphere ?


Since neither, to the best of anyone's knowledge, has ever built one I'm reasonable certain that no one knows the answer to that question.

The material is irrelevant as is your purpose for bringing it up.

We can build a global solar grid now.
That grid could produce more than all of the fossil and nuclear sources combined
and
Would do so while reducing human impact on the planet.

SO
What is the relevance of a fictional material?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 26, 2021)

Dadoalex said:


> Since neither, to the best of anyone's knowledge, has ever built one I'm reasonable certain that no one knows the answer to that question.
> 
> The material is irrelevant as is your purpose for bringing it up.
> 
> ...


You are the one who mentioned the fucking things and currently solar does not have the efficiency that fossil fuels have and don't even come close to nuclear.  Last who the hell is going to pay for your global solar grid ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I already told you why that little square needs to be at least 4 times bigger and the batteries will cost over 2.5 trillion dollars


And you are an expert? You Phd in economics and engineering is from where?


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> And you are an expert? You Phd in economics and engineering is from where?


Isn't it just math?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> You are the one who mentioned the fucking things and currently solar does not have the efficiency that fossil fuels have and don't even come close to nuclear.  Last who the hell is going to pay for your global solar grid ?


Another dumb ass post. Three points here. What is important is not efficiency, but cost per kw. And solar and wind are now the cheapest form of electrical generation. The second is the secondary effects of the generation. Pollution, ect. Wind and solar require no additional fuel once put in place. No pipelines, no railroads, just the grid. The third item is safety. Compared to coal mining the installation and maintenance of renewables is orders of magnitudes safer that coal mining. And, unlike nuclear, there is no danger of them contaminating hundreds of thousands of square miles of land if something goes wrong. 

So, solar and wind are less expensive, less polluting, and far safer than fossil fuels or nuclear. And we are going to have to install a lot of new generation. So why not install the least expensive, the least polluting, and the least dangerous.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

ding said:


> Isn't it just math?


It surely is;













						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> And solar and wind are now the cheapest form of electrical generation.



Obviously.

That's why Germany pays the highest rates in the world.
More cheap solar and wind, less expensive coal and less expensive nuclear means higher rates.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obviously.
> 
> That's why Germany pays the highest rates in the world.
> More cheap solar and wind, less expensive coal and less expensive nuclear means higher rates.


Yet here in the US, even in 'Conservative' Texas, they are shutting down coal plants and installing solar and wind because of economics. LOL We ain't Germany.


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> It surely is;
> 
> View attachment 544460
> 
> ...


That doesn't address his point.


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

The beauty of all of this is that within 30 years the planet will get colder as CO2 emissions increase.  Putting an end to this silliness once and for all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

ding said:


> That doesn't address his point.


Most certainly does. We are replacing coal fired plants with renewable in the US not because of government mandates, but because of economics.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

ding said:


> The beauty of all of this is that within 30 years the planet will get colder as CO2 emissions increase.  Putting an end to this silliness once and for all.


And the mechanism for this is?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Yet here in the US, even in 'Conservative' Texas, they are shutting down coal plants and installing solar and wind because of economics. LOL We ain't Germany.



Why doesn't cheaper wind and solar result in cheaper electricity in Germany?

Why would a power company shut down a coal plant to receive a federal wind/solar tax credit? LOL!

If you were right, there would be no need for "green" subsidies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> We are replacing coal fired plants with renewable in the US not because of government mandates,



Mandates AND tax credits.


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


If the solar panels are made on America it would make more sense to go solar

 Not 100% of the homes

Thats not practical

But every home in the Sunbelt should have solar for part of their energy needs

But make the panels in America and in friendly countries only


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * Despite what you may think, anybody who is a member of the green party are just humans like anybody else. *
> 
> With less common sense and no understanding of economics. Obviously.



  Any economic system can be made to work.  The one most people support right now is just a cult.  Is that understanding enough for you?  Or is it above your head.  So what is more important to you, your cult or the planet.


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Most certainly does. We are replacing coal fired plants with renewable in the US not because of government mandates, but because of economics.


What is it that you believe his point was in post #485?


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> And the mechanism for this is?


The sun in conjunction with our landmass configuration and threshold for extensive continental northern hemisphere glaciation.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I already told you why that little square needs to be at least 4 times bigger and the batteries will cost over 2.5 trillion dollars



  You tell me the same thing that other human caused global warming deniers tell me.  Bullshit.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

ding said:


> Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy): “The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this very issue.”
> 
> Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.): “During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose. The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own planetary systems.”
> 
> ...



  If any of those people think that the sun's output is responsible for human caused global warming, they are idiots.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

ding said:


> The beauty of all of this is that within 30 years the planet will get colder as CO2 emissions increase.  Putting an end to this silliness once and for all.



  You should have the word "bat" at the end of your username.  In 30 years we will all likely be dead.  Along with most of the rest of life on the planet.


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> If any of those people think that the sun's output is responsible for human caused global warming, they are idiots.


scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.










Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> You should have the word "bat" at the end of your username.  In 30 years we will all likely be dead.  Along with most of the rest of life on the planet.


That's pretty funny coming from someone who thinks we will all likely be dead in thirty years.


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks , do you believe we will likely all be dead in 30 years too?


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

Crick , do you believe we will all likely be dead in 30 years too?


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> If the solar panels are made on America it would make more sense to go solar
> 
> Not 100% of the homes
> 
> ...



  I am not the right person to be asking about solar panels in a day to day practical sense.  Because I don't own any.  Except for what is on my calculator.  A good person to ask would be Ed Begley Jr.  He has been using them for decades. But there is one thing that is a certainty.  Our use of fossil fuels is destroying the planet.  Anything we can do to change that, despite what other countries may do, is worth the effort.


----------



## Flash (Sep 27, 2021)

Solar panels for electricity generation are a stupid Moon Bat's pipe dream.

There is a narrow belt in the SW where they are marginally economical.  The rest of the US forget it.  The father east and the farther north you go it becomes a joke.

Most of the time when the Enviornmental Wackos tell you how great the panels are they use optimal input data that never comes close to the real world.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

ding said:


> scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Do you know where you can stick your graphs and those who made them?  There aren't many things that can seriously alter our climate.  A super volcano going off like the one under Yellowstone could do it.  An asteroid impact could do it.  Nuclear war could do it.  Changes in the earths orbit could do it.  A serious rise in the sun's output could do it.  Changes in the positions of land masses could do it.  A shift in ocean currents could do it.  None of that is going on.  Humans putting around 32.3 billion tons of CO2 into the biosphere is happening.  And who knows how much methane.  Which is FAR more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.  As for the amount of carbon monoxide we create and how much of a greenhouse gas that is, I don't know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Any economic system can be made to work. The one most people support right now is just a cult.



Which one is that?
Why do you feel it is a cult?
Which definition of cult are you using?


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Do you know where you can stick your graphs and those who made them?  There aren't many things that can seriously alter our climate.  A super volcano going off like the one under Yellowstone could do it.  An asteroid impact could do it.  Nuclear war could do it.  Changes in the earths orbit could do it.  A serious rise in the sun's output could do it.  Changes in the positions of land masses could do it.  A shift in ocean currents could do it.  None of that is going on.  Humans putting around 32.3 billion tons of CO2 into the biosphere is happening.  And who knows how much methane.  Which is FAR more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.  As for the amount of carbon monoxide we create and how much of a greenhouse gas that is, I don't know.


Is carbon monoxide a greenhouse gas?

Given that you believe we will all likely be dead in 30 years, how is it that you think we can do anything that will change that?  I mean it sounds like you belive it already too late to do anything about it, right?


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

ding said:


> That's pretty funny coming from someone who thinks we will all likely be dead in thirty years.



  Human caused global warming is accelerating.  Do you know what that means?  It doesn't mean that things are accelerating at a steady rate.  It means things go faster and faster and faster and faster.


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Human caused global warming is accelerating.  Do you know what that means?  It doesn't mean that things are accelerating at a steady rate.  It means things go faster and faster and faster and faster.


Does it mean we will all be dead in 30 years?  That sounds serious.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Flash said:


> Solar panels for electricity generation are a stupid Moon Bat's pipe dream.
> 
> There is a narrow belt in the SW where they are marginally economical.  The rest of the US forget it.  The father east and the farther north you go it becomes a joke.
> 
> Most of the time when the Enviornmental Wackos tell you how great the panels are they use optimal input data that never comes close to the real world.



  Newsflash.  Basically, solar panels receive as much sunlight here as they do on the equator.  That is when the sun is shining and the panels are facing it.  Only the length of the day is different.  And in Alaska where there isn't any sunlight for months, it makes a BIG difference there.


----------



## Flash (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Human caused global warming is accelerating.  Do you know what that means?  It doesn't mean that things are accelerating at a steady rate.  It means things go faster and faster and faster and faster.




You are confused Moon Bat.

There is a natural climate change.  Very common for earth.

However, there is absolutely no real proof that there is any significant AGW.  All we have are stupid non scientific correlations, fraudulent and cherry picked data and silly computer models paid for by special interest that uses bogus data.

Pull your head out of your Environmental Wacko ass.  You just look silly posting this silly horseshit.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which one is that?
> Why do you feel it is a cult?
> Which definition of cult are you using?



  Which one is what.  Next, it is a cult.  Next, there is only one definition of a cult that counts.  Which is believing a certain way based on faith instead of facts.


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Our use of fossil fuels is destroying the planet.


If you believe then push for nuclear power

Otherwise there is no chance to cut CO2


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

ding said:


> Is carbon monoxide a greenhouse gas?
> 
> Given that you believe we will all likely be dead in 30 years, how is it that you think we can do anything that will change that?  I mean it sounds like you belive it already too late to do anything about it, right?



  We created the problem.  We can solve the problem.  But it will take much effort.  Just like a pendulum.  Its swinging one way is creating human caused global warming.  It must swing the other way to stop it.  Simply going for a balance at this point isn't going to work.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> There is a natural climate change.  Very common for earth.
> 
> ...



  Why don't you head off to la la land and leave the thinking to those with brains.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> If you believe then push for nuclear power
> 
> Otherwise there is no chance to cut CO2



  Nuclear power sucks.  Solar panels alone could provide all the energy we need.


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> We created the problem.  We can solve the problem.  But it will take much effort.  Just like a pendulum.  Its swinging one way is creating human caused global warming.  It must swing the other way to stop it.  Simply going for a balance at this point isn't going to work.


If everyone is going to be dead in 30 years won't that solve the problem all by itself?


----------



## ding (Sep 27, 2021)

In 30 years this hoax will be shown to be a hoax.  Because the earth is getting ready to get colder.


----------



## Flash (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Newsflash.  Basically, solar panels receive as much sunlight here as they do on the equator.  That is when the sun is shining and the panels are facing it.  Only the length of the day is different.  And in Alaska where there isn't any sunlight for months, it makes a BIG difference there.




You know nothing about the science of solar power generation.  Go to Washington state and see how high the sun rises the fall, winter and early spring.  Not very high and the rays are diluted by having to travel longitudely (sp) through the atmosphere.

I have a pool here in Florida and have solar collectors to heat up my enclosed pool.  Works fine when the sun is out. We are closer to the equator than most of the US. However, I lived seven years in eastern Washington state.  The desert side with a lot more sunshine than the west side.  I had a pool and had to heat it with gas.  Nobody used solar panels because they simply did not work except for a couple of months around the summer solstice.  Not worth the expense.

There are very few places in the US where solar electricity generation is worthwhile.  Mostly in a narrow belt in Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico.

You are really ignorant about this horseshit you are posting.  Typical for a stupid Moon Bat.


----------



## Flash (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Why don't you head off to la la land and leave the thinking to those with brains.




You are really ignorant of Climate Science.

I occasionally teach a class in Environmental Science at an university.

I have a section on Climate change.  I teach real facts, not Environmental Wacko bullshit that has no scientific foundation.

You should sign up for the class the next time I teach it.  You would learn something real and then not be such a moron posting your silly ass Environmental Wackos bullshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Which one is what.  Next, it is a cult.  Next, there is only one definition of a cult that counts.  Which is believing a certain way based on faith instead of facts.



_"Any economic system can be made to work. The one most people support right now is just a cult"_

Did you already forget your post?

Which economic system that "most people support is just a cult"?

*Which is believing a certain way based on faith instead of facts.*

Why do you feel that?


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Nuclear power sucks. Solar panels alone could provide all the energy we need.


You sure are picky about how you save the world from destruction

Nuclear power is clean and reliable

And its ready to go now


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are really ignorant of Climate Science.
> 
> I occasionally teach a class in Environmental Science at an university.
> 
> ...



  Anybody you teach climate science to should be asking for their money back.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> You sure are picky about how you save the world from destruction
> 
> Nuclear power is clean and reliable
> 
> And its ready to go now



  I started a new thread about powering the world with solar.  Go there.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _"Any economic system can be made to work. The one most people support right now is just a cult"_
> 
> Did you already forget your post?
> 
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> _"Any economic system can be made to work. The one most people support right now is just a cult"_
> 
> Did you already forget your post?
> 
> ...


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> You sure are picky about how you save the world from destruction
> 
> Nuclear power is clean and reliable
> 
> And its ready to go now



  I just started a new thread about powering the world with solar panels.  Go there.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> If you believe then push for nuclear power
> 
> Otherwise there is no chance to cut CO2


Too expensive, too dangerous. And, yes, we can power this nation with solar and wind. And will.


----------



## GMCGeneral (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Too expensive, too dangerous. And, yes, we can power this nation with solar and wind. And will.


Won't work at all.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Too expensive, too dangerous. And, yes, we can power this nation with solar and wind. And will.



  I just started a new thread about powering the world with solar panels.  You might find it interesting.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are really ignorant of Climate Science.
> 
> I occasionally teach a class in Environmental Science at an university.
> 
> ...


And I have been to Mars and back. LOL Your posts demonstrate the degree of ignorance you have concerning the science behind global warming that creates climate change. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

GMCGeneral said:


> Won't work at all.


And the reason behind your statement?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> I just started a new thread about powering the world with solar panels.  Go there.



You made the claim about an economic system on this thread.

Why run away now?


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

GMCGeneral said:


> Won't work at all.



  You want to talk about doing something that you probably think really wouldn't work.  I just started a new thread about powering the world with solar panels.  Go there.


----------



## myself (Sep 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You made the claim about an economic system on this thread.
> 
> Why run away now?



  I'm not running away.  But this thread isn't about economics anyway.  I can show you who was responsible for creating an economy that was the envy of the world.  Make of it what you will.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> I'm not running away. But this thread isn't about economics anyway.



Not about economics, but you brought it up.

And now you're running away. LOL!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

Flash said:


> You know nothing about the science of solar power generation.  Go to Washington state and see how high the sun rises the fall, winter and early spring.  Not very high and the rays are diluted by having to travel longitudely (sp) through the atmosphere.
> 
> I have a pool here in Florida and have solar collectors to heat up my enclosed pool.  Works fine when the sun is out. We are closer to the equator than most of the US. However, I lived seven years in eastern Washington state.  The desert side with a lot more sunshine than the west side.  I had a pool and had to heat it with gas.  Nobody used solar panels because they simply did not work except for a couple of months around the summer solstice.  Not worth the expense.
> 
> ...


You are so full of shit. We had a pool using 4 4' by 10' panels on a roof slightly tipped to the north. This is in Portland, Oregon. On a warm weekend in March, the thermostat was left off, and the pool was just left to heat however much it would. Retuned on Monday to an uncomfortably warm pool. A friend has 3.3 kw of solar on his roof, side facing East, and it not only supplies all his electricity, he received a check of $250 for the period of Jan through June for the amount of excess power he put on the line. Solar works very well at all latitudes, of course, the further you go north or south, the less you get in the winter, and more you get in the summer. As well as at the equator? No, but well enough, considering that after the initial cost, the power is free.


----------



## elektra (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> You are so full of shit. We had a pool using 4 4' by 10' panels on a roof slightly tipped to the north. This is in Portland, Oregon. On a warm weekend in March, the thermostat was left off, and the pool was just left to heat however much it would. Retuned on Monday to an uncomfortably warm pool. A friend has 3.3 kw of solar on his roof, side facing East, and it not only supplies all his electricity, he received a check of $250 for the period of Jan through June for the amount of excess power he put on the line. Solar works very well at all latitudes, of course, the further you go north or south, the less you get in the winter, and more you get in the summer. As well as at the equator? No, but well enough, considering that after the initial cost, the power is free.


you are a filthy liar, where is your link


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not about economics, but you brought it up.
> 
> And now you're running away. LOL!


The economics of transporting massive amounts of goods by road is just too expensive. Can't possibly be done. Then a Republican administration started building the Interstate System. Guess what happened to that too expensive to transport goods long distance on roads.


----------



## elektra (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> The economics of transporting massive amounts of goods by road is just too expensive. Can't possibly be done. Then a Republican administration started building the Interstate System. Guess what happened to that too expensive to transport goods long distance on roads.


another filthy lie by old crock

of course, for solar, no expense is too much, even when it costs trillions in borrowed money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> The economics of transporting massive amounts of goods by road is just too expensive. Can't possibly be done. Then a Republican administration started building the Interstate System. Guess what happened to that too expensive to transport goods long distance on roads.



Goofy was talking about a road building cult? LOL!


----------



## elektra (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> You are so full of shit. We had a pool using 4 4' by 10' panels on a roof slightly tipped to the north. This is in Portland, Oregon. On a warm weekend in March, the thermostat was left off, and the pool was just left to heat however much it would. Retuned on Monday to an uncomfortably warm pool. A friend has 3.3 kw of solar on his roof, side facing East, and it not only supplies all his electricity, he received a check of $250 for the period of Jan through June for the amount of excess power he put on the line. Solar works very well at all latitudes, of course, the further you go north or south, the less you get in the winter, and more you get in the summer. As well as at the equator? No, but well enough, considering that after the initial cost, the power is free.


solar does not work at all, it is a subsidized tariff driven system forced upon the public, of course the stupid believe, like old crock. 

First and foremost, the solar panels either feed into the grid, or they feed the house, no system does both. 
So which is it old crock, it is obvious that you dont know shit about your neighbor. If your neighbor gets a check then none of the solar on his house provides his house energy. 

We keep hearing how great solar is, but nobody is paying for the solar systems, they just opt into a government subsidized program.


----------



## Flash (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Anybody you teach climate science to should be asking for their money back.




The problem with confused morons like you is that you believe all these AGW horseshit and you are not knowledgeable enough of the subject to question the basis for it.

You have ignored all the enormous evidence that much of the data is either fabricated or cherry picked. 

You pretended that when the principle scientists admitted they made up the data that it didn't mean anything.

You ignored the fact that NASA, NOAA snd the UN Climate Commission got caught fabricating data.

You ignore the fact that none of the dire predictions the Wackos make ever come true.

You know nothing about the engineering aspects of wind and solar power generation.  You live in la la land thinking that we can provide all the power we need with renewables and that is bullshit.  Typical for the mindeset of a Moon Bat.  You are detached from reality.

There is climate change but nothing significant caused by humans.

There is a tremendous amount of pollution caused by humans but it ain't changing the climate.

If you would sign up for my  class I would educate on this stuff and you wouldn't be such an idiot posting your silly Environmental Wacko horseshit.


----------



## GMCGeneral (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> You want to talk about doing something that you probably think really wouldn't work.  I just started a new thread about powering the world with solar panels.  Go there.


Stick with coal and NG.  Cheap and efficient.


----------



## Flash (Sep 27, 2021)

myself said:


> Solar panels alone could provide all the energy we need.




You are confused .  No it won't.  You know nothing about the engineering of solar panels.

An Environmental Wacko's pipe dream.  Put down your bong and go read a Thermo book.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2021)

GMCGeneral said:


> Stick with coal and NG.  Cheap and efficient.


So says the Kings fool. LOL 












						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## Flash (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> So says the Kings fool. LOL
> 
> View attachment 544616
> 
> ...


Those charts are bullshit.

They look at optimal solar emissions when in reality it is always over estimated.  By a substantial amount.

Solar is a crappy way to generate electricity.  It only comes close to being feasible in a narrow band in the SW.

Lazard created that stupid chart to get investors to scam the government for subsidies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> So says the Kings fool. LOL
> 
> View attachment 544616
> 
> ...



Send that analysis to Germany.

They're obviously doing it wrong.


----------



## Dadoalex (Sep 27, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> You are the one who mentioned the fucking things and currently solar does not have the efficiency that fossil fuels have and don't even come close to nuclear.  Last who the hell is going to pay for your global solar grid ?


Did I mention the dimensions of the Ringworld?  Did I mention the Puppeteer's name?  Perhaps you should try to stay relevant.  It may make your arguments more cogent.

And, last, WE will, one way or the other.
Continued climate change will kill billions but, on the upside, killing billions will reduce greenhouse gasses.
Continued air and water pollution will render much of the planet unlivable.
As the midas guy said...
"You can pay me now or pay me later"


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 28, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> And you are an expert? You Phd in economics and engineering is from where?


No but the guys at MIT who wrote the article I linked sure as hell are.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 28, 2021)

myself said:


> You tell me the same thing that other human caused global warming deniers tell me.  Bullshit.


But I'm not denying it.  I never have and if you're going to tell me what I said then use the quote function.

What I am saying is that solar power and batteries will never meet our current energy needs never mind the  added electricity that will be needed if we want to actually be 100% fossil fuel free


----------



## myself (Sep 28, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> The economics of transporting massive amounts of goods by road is just too expensive. Can't possibly be done. Then a Republican administration started building the Interstate System. Guess what happened to that too expensive to transport goods long distance on roads.


  Yeah.  Eisenhower stole Hitler's idea with the autobahn.


----------



## myself (Sep 28, 2021)

Flash said:


> The problem with confused morons like you is that you believe all these AGW horseshit and you are not knowledgeable enough of the subject to question the basis for it.
> 
> You have ignored all the enormous evidence that much of the data is either fabricated or cherry picked.
> 
> ...



  How much do energy companies pay you to be a denier.  I am reminded of something once said by Upton Sinclair. "It is difficult to get somebody to understand something, especially when their salary depends on them not understanding it."


----------



## myself (Sep 28, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> But I'm not denying it.  I never have and if you're going to tell me what I said then use the quote function.
> 
> What I am saying is that solar power and batteries will never meet our current energy needs never mind the  added electricity that will be needed if we want to actually be 100% fossil fuel free



  No.  Solar panels would never meet our energy needs.  They would exceed them by a wide margin.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2021)

myself said:


> How much do energy companies pay you to be a denier.



Is everyone who points out your idiocy an employee of big energy?


----------



## myself (Sep 29, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an employee of big energy?



  What other reason could there be.  That you are opposed to free energy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2021)

myself said:


> What other reason could there be.  That you are opposed to free energy?



*What other reason could there be. *

You're an idiot. I need another reason to point out your idiocy?

*That you are opposed to free energy?*

See, your claim that it's free energy is idiotic.
Who is paying you to spout your idiocy?


----------



## myself (Sep 30, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What other reason could there be. *
> 
> You're an idiot. I need another reason to point out your idiocy?
> 
> ...



  It may cost money to create solar panels.  But the energy you get from them is free.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2021)

myself said:


> It may cost money to create solar panels.



May?

*But the energy you get from them is free.*

That's awesome!

How many years does it take for you to recover the initial dollar cost?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> May?
> 
> *But the energy you get from them is free.*
> 
> ...


"The typical solar payback period in the U.S. is just *above 8 years*. If your cost of installing solar is $20,000 and your system is going to save you $2,500 a year on foregone energy bills, your solar panel payback or “break-even point” will be 8 years ($20,000/$2,500 = 8)."









						Calculate Your Solar Panel Payback Period | EnergySage
					

Learn how to calculate your solar panel payback period, the metric that most solar shoppers rely on to understand the value of solar.




					news.energysage.com
				




Now if you install batteries with your system, and can use a system like Tesla's autobidder, you may also be able to sell power. Of course, the cost of the batteries will still make the time to recover the cost about the same. However, in a grid failure, you will still have power. And in a failure like that in Texas, that means no broken water pipes, being able to cook and live like normal. In just that one failure you could say that you would recover the cost of your system because of damage avoided.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 2, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042



  With my other threads about human caused global warming, I thought I would do one about solar panels.  But I see that somebody already did so.  And it's a pretty good one.  It wouldn't take much in the way of space to power the U.S. with solar panels.  Both day and night.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2022)

haveatit said:


> ...power the U.S. with solar panels. Both *day *and *night*.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2022)

haveatit said:


> With my other threads about human caused global warming, I thought I would do one about solar panels.  But I see that somebody already did so.  And it's a pretty good one.  It wouldn't take much in the way of space to power the U.S. with solar panels.  Both day and night.



Solar panels going to power Chicago through a cold, dark, and snowy February?
You want to bet your life on that?


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Solar panels going to power Chicago through a cold, dark, and snowy February?
> You want to bet your life on that?



I'd bet Chicago's life on that...


----------



## sparky (Jun 2, 2022)

~S~


----------



## fncceo (Jun 2, 2022)

sparky said:


> View attachment 653259
> 
> ~S~



Actually, the Howell's hut was pretty nice ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2022)

sparky said:


> View attachment 653259
> 
> ~S~



Coconut radios are carbon neutral.


----------



## ding (Jun 2, 2022)

haveatit said:


> With my other threads about human caused global warming, I thought I would do one about solar panels.  But I see that somebody already did so.  And it's a pretty good one.  It wouldn't take much in the way of space to power the U.S. with solar panels.  Both day and night.


I love the pie in the sky attitude you have.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 3, 2022)

Only too much is enough.


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Solar panels going to power Chicago through a cold, dark, and snowy February?
> You want to bet your life on that?


Solar panels and wind turbines in  Lake Michigan and the farm fields surrounding the city.  Indiana and Illinois are already awash in wind mills.  Have you driven through there lately?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> Solar panels and wind turbines in  Lake Michigan and the farm fields surrounding the city.  Indiana and Illinois are already awash in wind mills.  Have you driven through there lately?



They're awesome!
You should depend on them in February.
P.S. No turbines in the lake.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 3, 2022)

An intelligent species would not try to live in hostile environments that lack easily available energy. An intelligent species would eagerly seek intelligent alternatives to dependence upon polluting, rare, expensive energy. An intelligent species would not try to make one energy source do everything.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Solar panels going to power Chicago through a cold, dark, and snowy February?
> You want to bet your life on that?



  Doing otherwise, your life has already been bet.  And it is a bet you are going to eventually lose.  Unless you die from natural causes before them.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 3, 2022)

ding said:


> I love the pie in the sky attitude you have.



  The efficacy of solar panels isn't pie in the sky.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 3, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> An intelligent species would not try to live in hostile environments that lack easily available energy. An intelligent species would eagerly seek intelligent alternatives to dependence upon polluting, rare, expensive energy. An intelligent species would not try to make one energy source do everything.



  An intelligent species would go with whatever has been proven to work.  That doesn't destroy the environment.


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2022)

haveatit said:


> The efficacy of solar panels isn't pie in the sky.


Your beliefs are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 3, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Doing otherwise, your life has already been bet.  And it is a bet you are going to eventually lose.  Unless you die from natural causes before them.



*Doing otherwise, your life has already been bet. *

Obviously. I win, heating with natural gas.

*And it is a bet you are going to eventually lose. *

Oh, we have to freeze to death in the winter, so we don't _eventually_ lose. Thanks! Moron.


----------



## sparky (Jun 4, 2022)

~S~


----------



## haveatit (Jun 4, 2022)

ding said:


> Your beliefs are.


 
  It isn't a matter of belief.  It's a matter of tried and true science.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Doing otherwise, your life has already been bet. *
> 
> Obviously. I win, heating with natural gas.
> 
> ...



  No.  Obviously you lose.  Next, did you see that graph in the beginning thread?  A one hundred forty mile square area of solar panels to power the U.S.  Do we have the land?  More than enough.  Also, there is enough pavement in the U.S. to pave over the state of West Virginia.  What if much of that pavement, such as over roads, was covered in solar panels. (That isn't even including rooftops)  We would have far more power than we need.  Both day and night.  You also talk about freezing to death.  Eskimos don't freeze to death.  And they go through much colder winters than you do.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 4, 2022)

sparky said:


> View attachment 653789
> 
> ~S~



  From what I heard, the person who came up with the water powered car was killed by poisoning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2022)

haveatit said:


> No.  Obviously you lose.  Next, did you see that graph in the beginning thread?  A one hundred forty mile square area of solar panels to power the U.S.  Do we have the land?  More than enough.  Also, there is enough pavement in the U.S. to pave over the state of West Virginia.  What if much of that pavement, such as over roads, was covered in solar panels. (That isn't even including rooftops)  We would have far more power than we need.  Both day and night.  You also talk about freezing to death.  Eskimos don't freeze to death.  And they go through much colder winters than you do.



*No. Obviously you lose.*

I didn't freeze to death in the Chicago winter. Winning!!!

*Next, did you see that graph in the beginning thread? *

That wasn't a graph.

*A one hundred forty mile square area of solar panels to power the U.S. *

So what?

*What if much of that pavement, such as over roads, was covered in solar panels.*

You want cars driving over your power source? Damn....you stupid!

*We would have far more power than we need.  Both day and night. *

You should do that. In Chicago. In winter.

* Eskimos don't freeze to death. *

Wow. Very convincing. Why do you hate seals?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2022)

haveatit said:


> From what I heard, the person who came up with the water powered car was killed by poisoning.



He ate too many lead paint chips.


----------



## ding (Jun 4, 2022)

haveatit said:


> It isn't a matter of belief.  It's a matter of tried and true science.


No.  It's a matter of math.  And the math says that low energy density technology like batteries and intermittent electrical generating technologies like solar and wind aren't practical.  That's what you have a pie in the sky attitude about.  You think this will be easy and there won't be any trade offs.  That's not the case.  It will be painful.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 5, 2022)

It will be particularly painful for the oil companies; no more hundreds of dollars per second of net profits. Painful for America's enemies, too; no more dependence on oil supplies.


----------



## sparky (Jun 5, 2022)

haveatit said:


> From what I heard, the person who came up with the water powered car was killed by poisoning.


Rumor is, a lot of energy as well as medical remedies never saw the _light of day_.  It's reasonable to expect corporate America to thwart competition , it's tin hat stuff to consider _literally_ killing it

~S~


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> It will be particularly painful for the oil companies; no more hundreds of dollars per second of net profits. Painful for America's enemies, too; no more dependence on oil supplies.



What is a fair profit per second for such a useful commodity?


----------



## lg325 (Jun 5, 2022)

fncceo said:


> The problem with asking that question is we don't ask the follow-up question of how do we power the US when there is no sun available?  Which is something we can't currently do.


Stored in batteries until needed.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 5, 2022)

Power corrupts, and too much economic power corrupts absolutely.


----------



## Crick (Jun 5, 2022)

I th


there4eyeM said:


> Power corrupts, and too much economic power corrupts absolutely.


I think there's a corrupting influence to be had from anonymous discussion forums on the internet.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> I th
> 
> I think there's a corrupting influence to be had from anonymous discussion forums on the internet.


The forums certainly confirm the presence of societal corruption. Public dialog such as our grandparents still knew is totally impossible today. Metaphor is wasted. Nuance and broad innuendo are no longer understood, so never appreciated. Polarization instantly imposes on any level of interchange, with camps 'identified' from the first syllable and no escape available.
The forums are a symptom. They might be a causal agent as well.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 5, 2022)

ding said:


> No.  It's a matter of math.  And the math says that low energy density technology like batteries and intermittent electrical generating technologies like solar and wind aren't practical.  That's what you have a pie in the sky attitude about.  You think this will be easy and there won't be any trade offs.  That's not the case.  It will be painful.



  Your "math" is bullshit.  Solar panels work.  In 1 to 4 years they produce the energy that it took to create them.  That is from mining the ore they are made of to the finished product.  They last 20 to 40 years.  Now THAT is what I call efficiency!  Next, you know what will really be painful?  Having humans and most of the other life on Earth go extinct.


----------



## ding (Jun 5, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Your "math" is bullshit.  Solar panels work.  In 1 to 4 years they produce the energy that it took to create them.  That is from mining the ore they are made of to the finished product.  They last 20 to 40 years.  Now THAT is what I call efficiency!  Next, you know what will really be painful?  Having humans and most of the other life on Earth go extinct.


Intermittent generation.  How is solar going to  base load the grid if it only generates electricity intermittently?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Next, you know what will really be painful? Having humans and most of the other life on Earth go extinct.



How many new nuke plants should we build? 100? 200? More?


----------



## haveatit (Jun 5, 2022)

sparky said:


> Rumor is, a lot of energy as well as medical remedies never saw the _light of day_.  It's reasonable to expect corporate America to thwart competition , it's tin hat stuff to consider _literally_ killing it
> 
> ~S~



  Well according to a TV show I was watching on the subject, the person who created the water powered car was out having dinner with friends.  He started having problems and ran outside.  One of his friends (or family) was there when he said, "I've been poisoned!"  I can't remember if he died there or at the hospital.  Apparently the autopsy report said that he wasn't poisoned.  But if necessary, our government can do (and has done) the same sort of crap that "Murder Inc." does.  So they could get a pathologist to say whatever they want him to say.  Also, chances are that if you have been poisoned, you would be the best judge if whether or not you had been poisoned.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 5, 2022)

lg325 said:


> Stored in batteries until needed.



  There are other ways besides batteries to store the excess energy that solar panels produce.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> I th
> 
> I think there's a corrupting influence to be had from anonymous discussion forums on the internet.



  The corrupting influence in this case would be the deniers.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Intermittent generation.  How is solar going to  base load the grid if it only generates electricity intermittently?



  More bullshit.  I already said that we would still need a power grid to transmit more power from places where the sun is shining to places where it isn't.  And there are many ways of storing the excess power that solar panels create during the day for night time use.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many new nuke plants should we build? 100? 200? More?



  None.  Zero.  And with solar panels, we could shut down what nuclear power plants we have.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2022)

haveatit said:


> None.  Zero.  And with solar panels, we could shut down what nuclear power plants we have.



We're all going to die in 30 years, why not build useful amounts of reliable nuclear energy?


----------



## haveatit (Jun 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're all going to die in 30 years, why not build useful amounts of reliable nuclear energy?



  Go to Chernobyl or Fukushima to find out.  If that's too much trouble, try looking up and watching the documentary, "Waste: A nuclear nightmare."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Go to Chernobyl or Fukushima to find out.  If that's too much trouble, try looking up and watching the documentary, "Waste: A nuclear nightmare."



We shouldn't build like commies, no containment structure and graphite moderator is 
really world class stupid.

We also shouldn't build along the ocean with our emergency generators on the ground floor.

So how many much safer modern reactors should we build to save the world in the next 30 years?

Would 300 do it?


----------



## ding (Jun 5, 2022)

haveatit said:


> More bullshit.  I already said that we would still need a power grid to transmit more power from places where the sun is shining to places where it isn't.  And there are many ways of storing the excess power that solar panels create during the day for night time use.


It's more than infrastructure.  It's the nature of the technology.  By themselves solar and wind can never base load the grid because they are intermittent generating technologies.


----------



## sparky (Jun 6, 2022)

haveatit said:


> None.  Zero.  And with solar panels, we could shut down what nuclear power plants we have.


methinks the '_math_' might reveal that just a tad out of reach.......~S~


----------



## sparky (Jun 7, 2022)

As an engineer I love electric vehicle technology However, I  have been troubled by the fact that the electrical  energy to keep the batteries charged has to come from the grid, and that means more power generation and a huge increase in the distribution infrastructure. Whether generated from coal, gas, oil, wind or sun, installed generation capacity is limited.
IF ELECTRIC CARS DO NOT USE GASOLINE, THEY WILL NOT BE  PAYING A   GASOLINE TAX ON EVERY GALLON SOLD FOR AUTOMOBILES, WHICH WAS ENACTED TO MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES. THEY WILL USE THE ROADS, BUT WILL NOT PAY FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE!
In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car...
Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it.
Electricity has to be one of the least efficient ways to power things, yet they're being shoved down our throats. Glad somebody finally put engineering and math to paper.
.
If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, you will face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On a small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.
This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So, as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This later "investment" will not be revealed until we're so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an   'OOPS...!' and a shrug.
If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following. Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. It's enlightening.
Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine." Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran  on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.
It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.
I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 Mpg = $0.10 per mile.
The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs $46,000 plus. So the Canadian Government wants loyal Canadians not to do the math, but simply pay twice as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country.
WAKE UP NORTH AMERICA!!!!!!!
UPDATE to those critical of the post:
 I simply shared something written by someone else because it's food for thought. Arithmetic inaccuracies or not, there is great cause for concern and investigation into the long term effects of decisions re EVs that are being made for us, regarding our energy and our means of transport. It seems many are interested in this. My FB posts usually get either zero reactions, or at best, a mere handful of responses. This one triggered over 1 thousand responses! PS if a war action means an attack on electric grids, ALL of us will be grounded. Stuck in one place with no food. There is some more "food for thought." never mind the $ of kilowats....


----------



## Crick (Jun 7, 2022)

sparky said:


> As an engineer I love electric vehicle technology However, I  have been troubled by the fact that the electrical  energy to keep the batteries charged has to come from the grid, and that means more power generation and a huge increase in the distribution infrastructure. Whether generated from coal, gas, oil, wind or sun, installed generation capacity is limited.
> IF ELECTRIC CARS DO NOT USE GASOLINE, THEY WILL NOT BE  PAYING A   GASOLINE TAX ON EVERY GALLON SOLD FOR AUTOMOBILES, WHICH WAS ENACTED TO MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES. THEY WILL USE THE ROADS, BUT WILL NOT PAY FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE!
> In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car...
> Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it.
> ...


The battery in the latest Volt is 18.4 kWh.  Not a huge increase but it seems to indicate this article's numbers might be out of date.  And of course the Volt was never intended to be a long distance highway cruiser.  It is an everyday car to take you to work-and-back or the store-and-back.  The small gasoline engine it contains has, since the car first entered the marked, been considered an emergency backup.  It is not a full-up hybrid vehicle.  The published full-electric range on them is 38 to 53 miles, depending on model, so, again, not a car to take cross country.  Charging times for the latest Volt model are as follows: Charging times are as follows: 120-volt outlet: 13 hours. 240-volt outlet: 2.3 hours. 3.6 kW system: 4.5 hours.  The faster charging systems would obviously improve the average travel speed as in the example Sparky worked out but, as the Volt is not intended to travel in that mode, I won't bother with the math.  It's not as if anyone at GM is attempting to give you a false impression about the Volt, as Sparky seems to be doing.

BIG PS.  I just checked and my cost for electricity here in South Florida is given as 11.94 CENTS/kWh, approximatly ONE-TENTH what Sparky claims to pay.  The cost to charge the slightly larger battery here would be $2.20 making the cost per mile on EV drive 5.78 to 4.15 cents/mile.  That - a ten-fold over statement re the cost of electricity - would seem to be Sparky's "Arithmetic inaccuracies" he mentioned but failed to ever correct.  Try a little harder next time Sparky.  It's called HONESTY.


----------



## flan327 (Jun 7, 2022)

excalibur said:


> I don't see a link.
> 
> Stored? Storage solutions can't possibly power for more than an hour.
> 
> You cannot run a power grid off solar.


You can in Hawaii


----------



## flan327 (Jun 7, 2022)

sparky said:


> As an engineer I love electric vehicle technology However, I  have been troubled by the fact that the electrical  energy to keep the batteries charged has to come from the grid, and that means more power generation and a huge increase in the distribution infrastructure. Whether generated from coal, gas, oil, wind or sun, installed generation capacity is limited.
> IF ELECTRIC CARS DO NOT USE GASOLINE, THEY WILL NOT BE  PAYING A   GASOLINE TAX ON EVERY GALLON SOLD FOR AUTOMOBILES, WHICH WAS ENACTED TO MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES. THEY WILL USE THE ROADS, BUT WILL NOT PAY FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE!
> In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car...
> Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it.
> ...


Tl;dr


----------



## hadit (Jun 7, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> NO?
> 
> Ever heard of Follow the Sun?
> The earth receives far more solar energy than we need or consume.
> ...


It would cost trillions to build that. And, we don't know if even have the raw materials on the planet to do it.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 7, 2022)

It has already cost trillions to "defend" oil companies and their stranglehold.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 7, 2022)

This thread is not even a remotely serious topic.

Ive seen some climate crusaders post up some pretty whacky proposals in this forum over the last 13 years. This one up there for one of the silliest of all time.

Those who think it at all possible are not serious people


----------



## haveatit (Jun 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We shouldn't build like commies, no containment structure and graphite moderator is
> really world class stupid.
> 
> We also shouldn't build along the ocean with our emergency generators on the ground floor.
> ...



  We don't need nuclear reactors at all.  And until you watch the documentary, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare," the best you are going to manage to do is talk out of your ass.  Some byproducts of nuclear power will remain dangerous for longer than humans have existed.  I also read somewhere that the "elephant's foot" at Chernobyl will remain dangerous for the next 4.5 billion years.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 8, 2022)

ding said:


> It's more than infrastructure.  It's the nature of the technology.  By themselves solar and wind can never base load the grid because they are intermittent generating technologies.



  We don't even need wind power.  Solar panels can do it all.  Because every day the sun shines.  Somewhere.  It's like clockwork.  And even if it is cloudy, solar panels will still produce some electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2022)

haveatit said:


> We don't need nuclear reactors at all.  And until you watch the documentary, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare," the best you are going to manage to do is talk out of your ass.  Some byproducts of nuclear power will remain dangerous for longer than humans have existed.  I also read somewhere that the "elephant's foot" at Chernobyl will remain dangerous for the next 4.5 billion years.



*Some byproducts of nuclear power will remain dangerous for longer than humans have existed.*

Yup. You probably shouldn't eat them.
But we're all dead in 30 years, so why do long-lived isotopes matter?

* I also read somewhere that the "elephant's foot" at Chernobyl will remain dangerous for the next 4.5 billion years.*

Sounds like you're reading some seriously stupid stuff.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 8, 2022)

sparky said:


> As an engineer I love electric vehicle technology However, I  have been troubled by the fact that the electrical  energy to keep the batteries charged has to come from the grid, and that means more power generation and a huge increase in the distribution infrastructure. Whether generated from coal, gas, oil, wind or sun, installed generation capacity is limited.
> IF ELECTRIC CARS DO NOT USE GASOLINE, THEY WILL NOT BE  PAYING A   GASOLINE TAX ON EVERY GALLON SOLD FOR AUTOMOBILES, WHICH WAS ENACTED TO MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES. THEY WILL USE THE ROADS, BUT WILL NOT PAY FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE!
> In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car...
> Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it.
> ...



  All crap.  Solar panels are a PROVEN technology.  Electric cars are a PROVEN technology.  Next, if you go solar, you don't have to worry about what things like coal fired power plants do.  But even then, being in the business to make money, I'm sure that coal fired power plants use every bit of the heat they generate as possible.  Which would make them fairly efficient at what they do.  But lets look at the potential power of the gasoline you put int your car.  Only 12 to 30% of it is turned into usable energy.  But electric motors convert 88 to 96% of the electricity put into them into usable energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Next, if you go solar, you don't have to worry about what things like coal fired power plants do.



You mean, provide consistent, reliable base load power?

You're right, you don't have to worry about solar doing that.


----------



## sparky (Jun 9, 2022)

haveatit said:


> All crap. Solar panels are a PROVEN technology. Electric cars are a PROVEN technology.


sure, it's just a matter of *$$$*, $0.10 or $0.74 a mile......


haveatit said:


> Next, if you go solar, you don't have to worry about what things like coal fired power plants do.


We don't have the infrastructure to accommodate it, so we either rewire ALL of America's POCO lines & substations, or it's *nukes~R~us*

~S~


----------



## wamose (Jun 9, 2022)

myself said:


> How much will it cost when we destroy the world with human caused global warming.  Also, I have mentioned here and there how much more cheaply workers in China can make things than we can here in the U.S.  But I think that part of the reason they can do so as cheaply is that the government houses them.  To whatever degree, feeds and cloths them.  As well as educate them, etc.  With that much of their living expenses being taken care of, it's no wonder that they can make things cheaper than us.  So as far as solar panels here in the U.S. goes, it would basically cost as much as the government wanted to pay for them.  If they depend on private capitalist industry to do the job, it will cost up the ass.  And probably then some.


Don't panic. This young generation of Marxists, who call themselves progressives, will destroy this country long before any hypothetical global warming possibly could.


----------



## ding (Jun 9, 2022)

haveatit said:


> We don't even need wind power.  Solar panels can do it all.  Because every day the sun shines.  Somewhere.  It's like clockwork.  And even if it is cloudy, solar panels will still produce some electricity.


What will you do at night?


----------



## haveatit (Jun 9, 2022)

sparky said:


> sure, it's just a matter of *$$$*, $0.10 or $0.74 a mile......
> 
> We don't have the infrastructure to accommodate it, so we either rewire ALL of America's POCO lines & substations, or it's *nukes~R~us*
> 
> ~S~



  Maybe one of these days I'll look into what the electricity costs to get you the same distance as a gallon of gas.  I just don't think I'll take your word for it.  Next, things as far as wiring may have to change a tiny bit.  But it isn't that big of a deal.  But those who make fortunes off the status quo energy production will no doubt tell you otherwise.  They sure as hell have done a great job in that regard when it comes to denying human caused global warming.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 9, 2022)

wamose said:


> Don't panic. This young generation of Marxists, who call themselves progressives, will destroy this country long before any hypothetical global warming possibly could.



  Marxism isn't exponential.  Human caused global warming is.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 9, 2022)

ding said:


> What will you do at night?



  Things like turn on the air conditioner, make some toast, etc.


----------



## ding (Jun 9, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Things like turn on the air conditioner, make some toast, etc.


Not on solar power you won’t.


----------



## ding (Jun 10, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Marxism isn't exponential.  Human caused global warming is.


How is human caused global warming exponential?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 10, 2022)

haveatit said:


> We don't need nuclear reactors at all.  And until you watch the documentary, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare," the best you are going to manage to do is talk out of your ass.  Some byproducts of nuclear power will remain dangerous for longer than humans have existed.  I also read somewhere that the "elephant's foot" at Chernobyl will remain dangerous for the next 4.5 billion years.



The "waste" problem becomes trivial if ignorant ecowarriors and gubmint would stop meddling over it.

The science in greatly reducing the waste is well known with nations like France having been doing it for several decades.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 10, 2022)

ding said:


> Not on solar power you won’t.



  Depending on how many solar panels you have on your own property, you could probably do it.  With other solar panels elsewhere, there is no doubt of it.  I will show you a picture of the total area of solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  Both day and night.  It is an area 140 miles square.  Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area of solar panels 100 miles square.  I will include another picture with an area shown on the U.S.  That area in solar panels would be enough to power the WORLD!


----------



## haveatit (Jun 10, 2022)

ding said:


> How is human caused global warming exponential?



  Mainly, because the warmer it gets, the more methane will be released.  And methane is 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 10, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Mainly, because the warmer it gets, the more methane will be released.



How hot did it get the last time it got warmer?
Did everything go extinct?


----------



## haveatit (Jun 10, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> The "waste" problem becomes trivial if ignorant ecowarriors and gubmint would stop meddling over it.
> 
> The science in greatly reducing the waste is well known with nations like France having been doing it for several decades.



  Did you watch the documentary?  I'm sure you could find it free to watch somewhere.  If you haven't seen it, then your words are coming straight out of your ass.  And they smell mighty bad.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How hot did it get the last time it got warmer?
> Did everything go extinct?



  When it comes to the situation the Earth is now in, there was never a "last time."  Do you understand?  We are living in a time that is unique in the entire history of the Earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 10, 2022)

haveatit said:


> When it comes to the situation the Earth is now in, there was never a "last time."  Do you understand?  We are living in a time that is unique in the entire history of the Earth.



*When it comes to the situation the Earth is now in, there was never a "last time."*

The Earth was never this temp before? Never had methane released at this temperature? Ever?

*Do you understand?*

No. Please explain it.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 10, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Did you watch the documentary?  I'm sure you could find it free to watch somewhere.  If you haven't seen it, then your words are coming straight out of your ass.  And they smell mighty bad.



I live right next to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation have talked to people have books on the topic and read about reusing nuclear waste as France does by default, but the politics always gets in the way to prevent Hanford from Reprocessing the waste ONSITE to "burn" some of the waste thus reducing the total waste material that would make it much easier to classify and store the now lower hazardous level waste.


----------



## ding (Jun 11, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Depending on how many solar panels you have on your own property, you could probably do it.  With other solar panels elsewhere, there is no doubt of it.  I will show you a picture of the total area of solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  Both day and night.  It is an area 140 miles square.  Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total area of solar panels 100 miles square.  I will include another picture with an area shown on the U.S.  That area in solar panels would be enough to power the WORLD!
> 
> View attachment 656355
> 
> View attachment 656356


How will solar panels power the nation at night?


----------



## ding (Jun 11, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Mainly, because the warmer it gets, the more methane will be released.  And methane is 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.


Why will more methane be released and how is it exponential?

Will temperatures and sea levels rise exponentially too?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 11, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Mainly, because the warmer it gets, the more methane will be released.



How do you know?
Don't we live "in a time that is unique in the entire history of the Earth"?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 11, 2022)

ding said:


> Why will more methane be released and how is it exponential?



You realize when you ask these questions it really looks like you have no clue about anything in this topic, right?  Especially for someone who claims to have sat a drill rig on the North Slope.

Let's explain *yet another* simple scientific concept to ding!

Warming leads to melting of the PERMAFROST in the high latitudes. The permafrost stores a lot of methane and a lot of materials that have been kept from decomposition by the frozen nature of permafrost.

In addition warming oceans may very well lead to instability of methane *clathrates* which we know exist in cold deep water.

You should also take some time to learn about GWP in relation to different gases.  Don't worry, there's some chemistry in there which you have no way to understand but it's there.  Maybe you can get someone who actually has a technical degree to help you.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 11, 2022)

ding said:


> How will solar panels power the nation at night?



It's a new thing called a BATTERY.

But it doesn't have to be like a AA which is the battery you know about.  There's also passive batteries like pumping water to a high elevation using the solar daytime energy and then letting it flow downhill to generate electricity.

You would be amazed at what people have invented.  You should try taking a science class!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It's a new thing called a BATTERY.
> 
> But it doesn't have to be like a AA which is the battery you know about.  There's also passive batteries like pumping water to a high elevation using the solar daytime energy and then letting it flow downhill to generate electricity.
> 
> You would be amazed at what people have invented.  You should try taking a science class!



We don't have the water supply as you think as most of it is already part of water managements systems all over the west which is increasingly becoming more scarce as population grows sucking it up, and material we don't in abundance  to make that many large batteries that wouldn't come close to meeting the needs 24/7.

You should try doing some math.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> We don't have the water supply as you think as most of it is already part of water managements systems all over the west which is increasingly becoming more scarce as population grows sucking it up, and material we don't in abundance  to make that many large batteries that wouldn't come close to meeting the needs 24/7.
> 
> You should try doing some math.



LOLOL.

Wow.  You post the most hilariously stupid things.  

Between this and the "logarithmic decline with time" comment you are on a roll today!  LOL.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> LOLOL.
> 
> Wow.  You post the most hilariously stupid things.
> 
> Between this and the "logarithmic decline with time" comment you are on a roll today!  LOL.



I see that this "scientist" shows the usual inability to provide counterpoints, but many here have notices you don't know that much as you insinuate.

What I said about Water availability in the *west* is true it is mostly bottled up by state and federal governments legislation and in my state, it is based on Senior and Junior water rights to the water established decades ago where my family's 28-acre place has junior right access to keep the place watered.

There is very little water left that you could use without permission.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Encyclopedia Brittanica

Radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide varies in an approximately logarithmic fashion with the concentration of that gas in the atmosphere. The logarithmic relationship occurs as the result of a saturation effect wherein it becomes increasingly difficult, as CO2 concentrations increase, for additional CO2 molecules to further influence the “infrared window” (a certain narrow band of wavelengths in the infrared region that is not absorbed by atmospheric gases). The logarithmic relationship predicts that the surface warming potential will rise by roughly the same amount for each doubling of CO2 concentration. 

=====

As I was saying there is indeed a Logarithmic effect in CO2 declining ability to maintain its warm forcing effect.

Here is a simple chart illustration the Logarithmic change:


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> I see that this "scientist" shows the usual inability to provide counterpoints, but many here have notices you don't know that much as you insinuate.



One shouldn't have to rebut utter stupidity.



Sunsettommy said:


> What I said about Water availability in the *west*



True in some parts of the west, yes.  I love how you think one anecdotal data point makes it some universal point.

You really are not the sharpest tool in the shed.



Sunsettommy said:


> is true it is mostly bottled up by state and federal governments legislation and in my state, it is based on Senior and Junior water rights to the water established decades ago where my family's 28-acre place has junior right access to keep the place watered.



Actually in the West most of the rivers, certainly coming out of the Sierras are already dammed which means they could be used, effectively, as a water battery in the example I provided.  It's not like the water gets consumed other than through evaporation which it also does just sitting still.



Sunsettommy said:


> There is very little water left that you could use without permission.



LOL.  You don't understand this topic even at the basic level.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Encyclopedia Brittanica
> 
> Radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide varies in *an approximately logarithmic fashion with the concentration of that gas *in the atmosphere.



Are you really this stupid?


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 11, 2022)

I’m no physics guy, but it seems to me batteries are only one way to store energy and needed mostly for portable electric use as in vehicles. Battery tech keeps improving. Potential energy can also be stored in other ways, as by pumping water up a hill and then releasing it with the help of gravity to turn turbines to remake electricity. Probably a lot of frictional losses here, and requires investments, but just saying …

My general impression is we have only begun to tap into a renewable energy revolution, which our grandchildren and great grandchildren will hopefully fully enjoy.


----------



## Magnus (Jun 11, 2022)

fncceo said:


> How do you store the power that people need when the sun isn't available?
> 
> Batteries?  That's a LOT of batteries, particularly when you consider we may soon be at war with the country that has most of the materials required to make them.
> 
> Additionally, our entire power grid works on AC.  Batteries only store DC.  You lose considerable power when you convert from one to the other, and then back again because most of our devices ultimately work on DC.


I love how conservatives come out against technology.

I can just imagine when conservatives were first confronted with cars:

_Cars? How much gas do you need to run this thing? Compare that with horses that can run all day and needs only a limited amount of grass or straw... what about when cars get stuck in the mud... you need roads all over the country... That's a LOT of roads... who's going to build all of them??...cars are never going to catch on...._


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> One shouldn't have to rebut utter stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your stupid ignorance of water laws in west is vivid here, I already posted the water use laws for the giant reservoirs in the west.

You write,

"Actually in the West most of the rivers, certainly coming out of the Sierras are already dammed which means they could be used, effectively, as a water battery in the example I provided. It's not like the water gets consumed other than through evaporation which it also does just sitting still."

Well DOH!

Yet they are subject to water apportionment rules for the region it serves you idiot!

Example for the entire Columbia River in Washington state yeah that several times Dammed river is under a State water use law

COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN WATER SUPPLY

In the link makes clear there is a process to follow to get any of the water before it can be approved the City of Richland MUST update their water use permit for additional water use with the state as part of their population expansion when I used to work there I had to be in compliance with the State water board in pumping water from the river with approved flow meters I installed with large pumps such as the 40 Horsepower 450 gpm unit at the Water intake area to water Leslie Groves a 28 acre park of mostly trees and grass.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Magnus said:


> I love how conservatives come out against technology.
> 
> I can just imagine when conservatives were first confronted with cars:
> 
> _Cars? How much gas do you need to run this thing? Compare that with horses that can run all day and needs only a limited amount of grass or straw... what about when cars get stuck in the mud... you need roads all over the country... That's a LOT of roads... who's going to build all of them??...cars are never going to catch on...._



WHO actually said that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 11, 2022)

Magnus said:


> I love how conservatives come out against technology.



Windmills......durr


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Are you really this stupid?



Yet another reply completely free of counterpoints, I think you don't have any which is why all you do is make insulting replies.

Your chronic counterpoint free replies tell me that you are a pretender who doesn't know that much which is why so many here thinks you are a joke with a very low reaction score hilariously low actually.

If you want to impress people with your alleged science background you should dial back the insults and make real counterpoints instead which can impress more people here who might benefit from what you have to say.

I just gave Thomas Paine 1949 a thumbs us despite I don't completely agree with all of it but he comes across as mild mannered and free of insults which is what all mature people do he is someone I could discuss his post with without all the nasty stuff YOU habitually reply with.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 11, 2022)

myself said:


> But with electricity being the way it is, right now I would doubt there is any energy loss in the conversion.


Because electricity magically changed.  You are naive dude.  Have you ever heard the old axiom, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?"  That hasn't changed either.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 11, 2022)

Magnus said:


> I love how conservatives come out against technology.



I'm all about technology.  I always have been.  

But, using the power of government to force people to replace a working technology with one that will not provide the same level of service or be as economical as the existing technology is wrong.

When solar and wind (or whatever technology arrives to compete with existing infrastructure) is ready to replace what we currently have, then the market will decide what technology is adopted.

Just as it did with cars, airplanes, trains, computers, and smart phones.

Try to remember that no one adopted those technology by force ... everyone who owns a car, rides in a plane, uses a computer, or communicates on a smart phone, does so by choice.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 11, 2022)

fncceo said:


> The cost of converting our entire grid to a solar / windand building enough battery capacity to store that power (assuming there is enough Lithium on the planet to do so) would destroy our economy.


You don't have to worry about that anymore.  The democrats and the vegetable in the WH have pretty much destroyed the economy already.


----------



## Magnus (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> WHO actually said that?


What part of: "_I can just imagine when conservatives... " _did you miss?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Magnus said:


> What part of: "_I can just imagine when conservatives... " _did you miss?



I know about that phrase, but you didn't make a case for that claim as being from Conservatives in the first place is seems to be a partisan based statement nothing more.

Conservatives is a label; I am wanting the *Person* allegedly saying them.


----------



## Magnus (Jun 11, 2022)

fncceo said:


> I'm all about technology.  I always have been.
> 
> But, using the power of government to force people to replace a working technology with one that will not provide the same level of service or be as economical as the existing technology is wrong.
> 
> ...


Is someone forcing you to use solar panels? Are you hiding in your mommy's basement? Get a spine, man.

As for governments and technology... we have a long history of technology first being used by the government before it becomes widely available. Doppler radar, MRIs, Computers, Microchips, LED lights, Robots and heck, even Closed captioning were developed by the government for their use and then became widely available.

And yes, no one adopts technology by force and no one know is forcing you to adopt any technology. But it is the government's responsibility to fund, encourage and promote technological breakthroughs that make our lives better.

But the best part of living in the US? You can choose to be a Luddite and no one is going to force you to live otherwise. See the Amish for one who still live as if in the 16th century.


----------



## Magnus (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> I know about that phrase, but you didn't make a case for that claim as being from Conservatives in the first place is seems to be a partisan based statement nothing more.
> 
> Conservatives is a label; I am wanting the *Person* allegedly saying them.


What phrase? I made a clear statement... *"*_*I can just imagine* when conservatives... "_

Next time, learn to read, sparky.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Magnus said:


> What phrase? I made a clear statement... *"*_*I can just imagine* when conservatives... "_
> 
> Next time, learn to read, sparky.



You originally wrote:

"I love how *conservatives* come out against technology.

I can just imagine when *conservatives were first confronted with cars:*

_Cars? How much gas do you need to run this thing? Compare that with horses that can run all day and needs only a limited amount of grass or straw... what about when cars get stuck in the mud... you need roads all over the country... That's a LOT of roads... who's going to build all of them??...cars are never going to catch on....'

bolding mine
===_

Then you write that IMAGINED past against Conservatives, but it was Conservatives who made most of the cars in the beginning you IDIOT!

Henry Ford was a Republican.

John Francis Dodge was a Republican.

William C. Durant was a Republican

Daimler Company English car maker founded in 1896

Carl Benz built the first car is 1885

I can just imagine that you are an asshole in life.

You like that, sparky?

Your partisanship was real after all which was the reason why I was asking the questions in the first place


----------



## Magnus (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> You originally wrote:
> 
> "I love how *conservatives* come out against technology.
> 
> ...


Sorry, politics of Ford was murky. He ran as a Democrat in his Senate run. He also ran as a Repbulican. Learn to use Google.

Yes, Dodge was Republican but there is no proof that Durant was one. But hey, if you think differently, prove it.

As for Benz? Guy was German. Where the fuck do you get the fact he was either a Republican or a Democrate?

 indeed.


Sorry, sparky. You got one out of 3. You got  to do better if you want me to take you seriously.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Magnus said:


> Sorry, politics of Ford was murky. He ran as a Democrat in his Senate run. He also ran as a Repbulican. Learn to use Google.
> 
> Yes, Dodge was Republican but there is no proof that Durant was one. But hey, if you think differently, prove it.
> 
> ...



I never tried to claim Benz was republican hard to be that way when he *lived in GERMANY!*

LOL

Henry Ford was Republican for TEN years while he was making those "Imagined" Model T cars Millions of them starting in 1908 which is 23 years AFTER Benz in GERMANY where no conservatives are found was making cars to the public.


Political party
Republican (before 1918)


You were shown to be highly Partisan successfully which was the main point of my replies.

You wrote this that you can't deny was a partisan based attack on conservatives something that doesn't help anyone who like to be divisive and stupid too since the first cars were built successfully in *Germany in 1885 and England in 1896* long before America were making (Ford main production in 1908) cars thus the world knew they were real and worked as Benz had the worlds largest car company before Ford came along to supplant it

===

"I love how *conservatives* come out against technology.

I can just imagine when *conservatives were first confronted with cars:*

_Cars? How much gas do you need to run this thing? Compare that with horses that can run all day and needs only a limited amount of grass or straw... what about when cars get stuck in the mud... you need roads all over the country... That's a LOT of roads... who's going to build all of them??...cars are never going to catch on....'

 _


----------



## Likkmee (Jun 11, 2022)

Qtzar could put solar on the roof of his pawn chain and power all of USMB with it !
Hadn't seen him today. Probably doing a rain dance. 109 there today


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Are you really this stupid?



You didn't address it which is well known science something you seem loathe to discuss but make insults which seems to be the limits of your ability to discuss anything.

*The post remains unchallenged.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> You didn't address it which is well known science something you seem loathe to discuss but make insults which seems to be the limits of your ability to discuss anything.
> 
> *The post remains unchallenged.*



You're too funny.


----------



## ding (Jun 11, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It's a new thing called a BATTERY.
> 
> But it doesn't have to be like a AA which is the battery you know about.  There's also passive batteries like pumping water to a high elevation using the solar daytime energy and then letting it flow downhill to generate electricity.
> 
> You would be amazed at what people have invented.  You should try taking a science class!


Great. I was hoping that someone would say that.  So how much extra generating capacity needs to be installed to charge those batteries during the day when they are generating electricity to sell during the day?


----------



## Magnus (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> I never tried to claim Benz was republican hard to be that way when he *lived in GERMANY!*
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...


LOL Actually you did try to  pass off Benz as an American Conservative - and I had to point out that he was German and not American. You really need to learn to use Google before responding. Will help you look less of a fool.  

As for Ford, did you take the time to find out that he ran for Senate as a Democrat? No? Still need evidence you are an idiot?

As for my claim that conservatives are against technology... I was _*responding to a conservative who came out against technology... *_What part of that don't you get?

So, sorry Sparky... you still have a long way to go to defend your case. Try again and this time work at it, will ya? This is getting embarrassing


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Henry Ford was a Republican.



Henry Ford was also a raging antisemite.  But that doesn't mean raging antisemites are good at making cars.



Sunsettommy said:


> Carl Benz built the first car is 1885



Carl got a patent for the first car but because German patent law didn't allow women to get patents his co-inventor, Bertha (his wife) didn't get any credit.

She was also apparently the venture capitalist who put up the money for Carl's hobbies (including inventing the car).  It was her dowry which made it possible.


Not that these make any real difference to your point whatever that was.  But suggesting there's some correlation between inventiveness and conservative politics is a bit of a stretch.  Usually what happens is someone becomes successful and then wants to protect their money so they become Conservatives (like Elon Musk).

It's called "GREEDY" and, yes, there are a lot of greedy people in the world.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *When it comes to the situation the Earth is now in, there was never a "last time."*
> 
> The Earth was never this temp before? Never had methane released at this temperature? Ever?
> 
> ...




  No, never.  Never in the history of the earth have we been in this situation.  I will show you a graph.  To the best of the ability of science to judge, it shows what the earth's temperature and CO2 levels have been through the history of Earth. At least the history that matters.  You will notice that for around the last 40 million years or so, the Earth has been getting generally cooler.  Do you know what happens on a cooler Earth?  Methane has a better ability to get stored.  Rather than evaporate.  Now after that much time, much of it has no doubt gotten buried underground.  But there is much that is much shallower.  Or on or just below the floor of the ocean existing as methane hydrate ice.  

  With temperatures and CO2 rising sharply as it is, because of human caused global warming, the more of that methane will be released.  Which will cause things to get even warmer.  Releasing even more methane.  I will also include a picture of what is said to be methane bubbles raising from the seal floor.  Which is why I started the other thread on the topic.  "Global warming.  Kiss your ass goodbye."


----------



## boedicca (Jun 11, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042



What happens at night and when it's cloudy?

Don't bother mentioning batteries.  They are grossly expensive and depend on rare earth minerals mined by slaves and children in China and third world hellholes.


----------



## EvMetro (Jun 11, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


If the panels need to be replaced every ten years, could that many panels be installed before they need to be replaced?  Is that also the size of the area required to dispose of that many panels when they are worn out?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 11, 2022)

boedicca said:


> What happens at night and when it's cloudy?



I can speak for the "cloudy" bit.  I'm in the Pacific Northwest (we have a LOT of cloud days) and my solar works fine.  I still get energy generated on those days (it isn't pitch black outside) but not as much as a full sun day.  



boedicca said:


> Don't bother mentioning batteries.



Why aren't we allowed to talk about batteries?  Is it because they make your argument meaningless and represent technology that EXISTS?



boedicca said:


> They are grossly expensive and depend on rare earth minerals mined by slaves and children in China and third world hellholes.



You DO realize that YOU already use those batteries as well, right?    In fact all the horrors of mining abuses have existed for a very long time and benefited you directly!  I hope you have been working hard for years and years to alert the world to the horrors of mining metals.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 11, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> I live right next to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation have talked to people have books on the topic and read about reusing nuclear waste as France does by default, but the politics always gets in the way to prevent Hanford from Reprocessing the waste ONSITE to "burn" some of the waste thus reducing the total waste material that would make it much easier to classify and store the now lower hazardous level waste.



  I just can't stand the stench!  Watch the documentary.  Watch the documentary.  Watch the documentary.  Watch the documentary.  Watch the documentary.  In it they show and tell you how France gets rid of most of their nuclear waste.  "THEY DUMP IT IN THE OCEAN!"  You will also find out that recycling nuclear waste is a farce.  Only a small percentage of it can be recycled into usable nuclear fuel.  Next, you can't burn nuclear waste.  Radiation will be in whatever smoke is created and remain in the ash left over.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 11, 2022)

ding said:


> How will solar panels power the nation at night?



  Do you have nothing better to do than ask me silly questions?  Because they produce FAR more electricity than can be used during the day.  That excess electricity can be stored for nighttime use.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 11, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I’m no physics guy, but it seems to me batteries are only one way to store energy and needed mostly for portable electric use as in vehicles. Battery tech keeps improving. Potential energy can also be stored in other ways, as by pumping water up a hill and then releasing it with the help of gravity to turn turbines to remake electricity. Probably a lot of frictional losses here, and requires investments, but just saying …
> 
> My general impression is we have only begun to tap into a renewable energy revolution, which our grandchildren and great grandchildren will hopefully fully enjoy.



  Indeed, there are many ways to store excess electricity.  I was reading somewhere that in some electric cars they are using capacitors to augment the batteries.  I bet that if they tried real hard they could create functional electric cars that run entirely off electricity stored in capacitors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 11, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Do you know what happens on a cooler Earth? Methane has a better ability to get stored. Rather than evaporate. Now after that much time, much of it has no doubt gotten buried underground.



Sounds scary!!!
So the last time it was this cool, and it got a little bit warmer, everything died 30 years later?


----------



## fncceo (Jun 11, 2022)

Magnus said:


> Is someone forcing you to use solar panels?



Legislating the shut down of coal and natural gas power stations. Taxpayer funded construction of massive solar arrays, wind farms, and battery banks.  These force companies to switch from an infrastructure that provides power adequate to our needs at an affordable price to one that is proven to supply only rolling blackouts and skyrocketing energy costs.

If a technology isn't ready to stand on its own in the market then it's not ready to be adopted.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 11, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Because electricity magically changed.  You are naive dude.  Have you ever heard the old axiom, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?"  That hasn't changed either.



  I'll answer that.  How could any energy be lost in converting DC to AC.  All you are doing is converting one form of electricity into another.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 11, 2022)

EvMetro said:


> If the panels need to be replaced every ten years, could that many panels be installed before they need to be replaced?  Is that also the size of the area required to dispose of that many panels when they are worn out?



  Solar panels last from 20 to 40 years.  So you wouldn't need to replace them every 10 years.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

haveatit said:


> I just can't stand the stench!  Watch the documentary.  Watch the documentary.  Watch the documentary.  Watch the documentary.  Watch the documentary.  In it they show and tell you how France gets rid of most of their nuclear waste.  "THEY DUMP IT IN THE OCEAN!"  You will also find out that recycling nuclear waste is a farce.  Only a small percentage of it can be recycled into usable nuclear fuel.  Next, you can't burn nuclear waste.  Radiation will be in whatever smoke is created and remain in the ash left over.



Your screaming is a sign of your immaturity I wouldn't doubt they dump some of the waste illegally but reprocessing the waste isn't a farce at all since what it does is *REDUCE *the level of radioactivity in the remaining waste that is why it is worth it.

The Hanford region suffered numerous bad decisions a lot of the military and political leaders from the 1950s-1970's when they finally realize the place became a big ecological concern and a threat to the Columbia River who were careless in their decisions about the waste on the reservation in that time.


----------



## haveatit (Jun 11, 2022)

boedicca said:


> What happens at night and when it's cloudy?
> 
> Don't bother mentioning batteries.  They are grossly expensive and depend on rare earth minerals mined by slaves and children in China and third world hellholes.



  Sorry.  Too stupid to reply to.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 11, 2022)

haveatit said:


> I'll answer that.  How could any energy be lost in converting DC to AC.  All you are doing is converting one form of electricity into another.



When you convert from AC to DC, you use a transformer to reduce voltage from line capacity to your desired DC voltage.  The primary side of the transformer takes the supply voltage and secondary coils produce the desired voltage for rectification.  Actually you need a larger voltage then the required DC output becuase he wave produced from a rectifier will only use half of the sinodial wave delivered by the transformer.  

Then, you use diodes to rectify (change the shape of the electrical load).  The output from the rectifier will be a 50% duty cycle.  The rounded peaks and drops of that rectified output will need to be smoothed into square waves by the further use of power loading transistors and LC circuits.

None of these devices are 100% efficient.  You will lose power through heat loss (in both the transformer and the rectifier diodes) as well as inefficient transfer.  Power transistors, coils, and capacitors all lose power through their internal resistance or, in the case of coils, impedance.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 11, 2022)

haveatit said:


> No, never.  Never in the history of the earth have we been in this situation.  I will show you a graph.  To the best of the ability of science to judge, it shows what the earth's temperature and CO2 levels have been through the history of Earth. At least the history that matters.  You will notice that for around the last 40 million years or so, the Earth has been getting generally cooler.  Do you know what happens on a cooler Earth?  Methane has a better ability to get stored.  Rather than evaporate.  Now after that much time, much of it has no doubt gotten buried underground.  But there is much that is much shallower.  Or on or just below the floor of the ocean existing as methane hydrate ice.
> 
> With temperatures and CO2 rising sharply as it is, because of human caused global warming, the more of that methane will be released.  Which will cause things to get even warmer.  Releasing even more methane.  I will also include a picture of what is said to be methane bubbles raising from the seal floor.  Which is why I started the other thread on the topic.  "Global warming.  Kiss your ass goodbye."
> 
> ...



Methane has been bubbling from the seafloor and from swampy areas for a long time and have a negligible warm forcing effect of about .. .60 W/m2.

CO2 comes in at a puny 0.04% of the atmosphere.

methane at 0.0002% is almost ZERO

Permafrost used to be far south as 42 degrees North which would be southern France and Central California now all gone back up north around 750 miles or so.





From Figure 1v, we see 1.8 Watts/m2 for CO2 and methane by 0.6 w/m2. For a benchmark contextual comparison, the combined radiative forcing of CO2 and methane is barely 0.5% of the Earth’s solar energy budget of 340 W/m2. And of which the human-made portion of this CO2 radiative forcing increase is a miserly 0.008% and methane a laughable 0.005% of the Sun’s total radiative forcing budget.

LINK


----------



## Magnus (Jun 11, 2022)

fncceo said:


> Legislating the shut down of coal and natural gas power stations. Taxpayer funded construction of massive solar arrays, wind farms, and battery banks.  These force companies to switch from an infrastructure that provides power adequate to our needs at an affordable price to one that is proven to supply only rolling blackouts and skyrocketing energy costs.
> 
> If a technology isn't ready to stand on its own in the market then it's not ready to be adopted.


Yes but none of them force _*you *_to use solar panels. Try again.


----------



## EvMetro (Jun 11, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Solar panels last from 20 to 40 years.  So you wouldn't need to replace them every 10 years.


They do not last as long when placed in extreme heat like AZ.  They don't last as long when they are subsidized by the government.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 11, 2022)

Magnus said:


> Yes but none of them force _*you *_to use solar panels. Try again.



And if they force my utility to use solar panels?


----------



## ding (Jun 11, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Do you have nothing better to do than ask me silly questions?  Because they produce FAR more electricity than can be used during the day.  That excess electricity can be stored for nighttime use.


I’m not aware of any installations in the US that have storage capabilities.  How many do you know of?


----------



## Magnus (Jun 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And if they force my utility to use solar panels?


What if green aliens want to go medieval on your ass? We will cross that bridge when it comes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 11, 2022)

Magnus said:


> What if green aliens want to go medieval on your ass? We will cross that bridge when it comes.



_As 2016 drew to a close, and after more than two years of difficult negotiations, important new clean energy and climate legislation was passed in Illinois. The Future Energy Jobs Act (Senate Bill 2814) became law on June 1, 2017. It’s significant because it puts Illinois on track to acquire 25% of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. New provisions contained in the act set explicit, long-term requirements that will ensure that renewable energy credits are supplied by new construction of wind and solar projects, including community solar, low-income solar, broweld solar, and distributed generation projects. _





__





						The Future Energy Jobs Act (FEJA) - What it Means to Our Industry | www.necaibewchicago.com
					





					www.necaibewchicago.com


----------



## Magnus (Jun 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _As 2016 drew to a close, and after more than two years of difficult negotiations, important new clean energy and climate legislation was passed in Illinois. The Future Energy Jobs Act (Senate Bill 2814) became law on June 1, 2017. It’s significant because it puts Illinois on track to acquire 25% of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. New provisions contained in the act set explicit, long-term requirements that will ensure that renewable energy credits are supplied by new construction of wind and solar projects, including community solar, low-income solar, broweld solar, and distributed generation projects. _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice cut and paste, buddy. And people call you a retard. You sure showed them, didn't you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 12, 2022)

Magnus said:


> Nice cut and paste, buddy. And people call you a retard. You sure showed them, didn't you?



That's my foot in your ass.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 12, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


Rather than going through the process of digging up the raw materials to make so many panels, and then trying to recycle them to replace them to harness a nuclear source, are you just not better off harnessing nuclear on planet earth?


----------



## boedicca (Jun 12, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Sorry.  Too stupid to reply to.




^^^ Diagnosis:  Terminal Projection ^^^


----------



## Magnus (Jun 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's my foot in your ass.


LOL. Poor retard losing the argument. Ok, let me take you seriously.

In the cut/paste you provided, where does it show anyone forcing _*you *_to use solar panels?

And, while you are at it, show us why we shouldn't call you a retard. Go.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 12, 2022)

Magnus said:


> LOL. Poor retard losing the argument. Ok, let me take you seriously.
> 
> In the cut/paste you provided, where does it show anyone forcing _*you *_to use solar panels?
> 
> And, while you are at it, show us why we shouldn't call you a retard. Go.



My utility is forced, I buy from my utility.
It's not that complicated.

That's ok, you'll do better next time.


----------



## Magnus (Jun 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> My utility is forced, I buy from my utility.
> It's not that complicated.
> 
> That's ok, you'll do better next time.


Nope. No one is forcing you to use the utility. Either move to a different location or use a generator and stay off the grid.

Get it, retard? What's the matter do I have to teach you everything? Now, you know why I call you a retard.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 19, 2022)

hadit said:


> It would cost trillions to build that. And, we don't know if even have the raw materials on the planet to do it.


How much do we spend on obtaining, burning, and cleaning up after fossils.
And that money is just burned.
Solar is an investment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> How much do we spend on obtaining, burning, and cleaning up after fossils.
> And that money is just burned.
> Solar is an investment.



More expensive, less reliable energy is a bad investment.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 19, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> More expensive, less reliable energy is a bad investment.


More expensive?
Are you including the $20B in annual subsidies in addition to costs?
Are you including the cost of the environmental damage?
NO?
I thought not.
Those inconvenient truths are what makes your statement foolish.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> More expensive?
> Are you including the $20B in annual subsidies in addition to costs?
> Are you including the cost of the environmental damage?
> NO?
> ...



*More expensive?*

Yes. More expensive.

*Are you including the $20B in annual subsidies in addition to costs?*

No I'm not including the much more than $20 billion in annual green subsidies.

*Are you including the cost of the environmental damage?*

No I'm not including the cost of the environmental damage to build the panels.

*I thought not.*

For once, we're in agreement. You'll do better next time.


----------



## ding (Jun 19, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> More expensive?
> Are you including the $20B in annual subsidies in addition to costs?
> Are you including the cost of the environmental damage?
> NO?
> ...


Low energy density technologies like solar are far more costly per btu than high energy density fossil fuels.  

And I haven't even added in the cost they should be carrying to be an effective base load option.  As it stands now it's not.  It intermittent.  So the generating efficiency is extremely low relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 19, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> More expensive, less reliable energy is a bad investment.



Todd...I kinda laughed my balls off when I saw this story today....

Germany turns to coal for electricity amid gas shortage concerns


----------



## Orangecat (Jun 19, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 20, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *More expensive?*
> 
> Yes. More expensive.
> 
> ...


So you have nothing of value or intelligence to say?
I thought not.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 20, 2022)

ding said:


> Low energy density technologies like solar are far more costly per btu than high energy density fossil fuels.
> 
> And I haven't even added in the cost they should be carrying to be an effective base load option.  As it stands now it's not.  It intermittent.  So the generating efficiency is extremely low relative to fossil fuels.


Really?
How long does it take to burn a gallon of oil?
How long do solar panels, wind turbines, and the rest last.

Try thinking beyond the end of your nose.


----------



## Flash (Jun 20, 2022)

Florida is the "Sunshine State".

Typically to run a house you need 7KWs.  That is usually a whole unobstructed roof for a typical middle class house.   By the way, most roofs are not unobstructed because of trees.

Only about 15-20 days a year mostly in the summer with very little cloud cover like we had last week with the high pressure over the state will you get anywhere close to 7KWs.

Typically in the summer with the sun high but some cloud cover in the afternoon you would only average about 4.5KWs during day light hours.

In the dry months with very few clouds but lower sun expect 3.5 KW on average.

Probably 50 days a year with overcast where you would be lucky to average .5-1KW. 

The further north you go it would be worse.

Solar for home use is only economically viable for a narrow band in the SW US.

Massive commercial solar arrays are just as shitty.  Big cost, little real output.

Then you have the stupid solar array north of Tampa.  Three weeks ago a very low level tornado came through and scattered the panels over an area of eight miles.  God forbid we have a hurricane.


----------



## badger2 (Jun 20, 2022)

Badger's three 100W panels are mounted on a trailer behind the ebike, and can recharge while the vehicle is moving.


----------



## ding (Jun 20, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Really?
> How long does it take to burn a gallon of oil?
> How long do solar panels, wind turbines, and the rest last.
> 
> Try thinking beyond the end of your nose.


Yes, really.  Energy isn't measured in time, dummy.  Energy is measured in btu's.  

Solar power and battery technology are low energy density power sources.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 20, 2022)

The renewable energy cheerleader bozos don't quite fathom how fringe their green aspirations are...particularly with solar.  It's a joke.

Give me a yell when solar clears 5% of US electricity generation.

In the meantime.....


----------



## Flash (Jun 20, 2022)

badger2 said:


> Badger's three 100W panels are mounted on a trailer behind the ebike, and can recharge while the vehicle is moving.


300W will power a vehicle, with a trailer and a person????

What happens when your trip takes you through shade?  What happens when a cloud covers the sun?  Do you stop in the middle of the street?

By the way, my typical experience with 100W panels is that only with the absolute best conditions will you get even into the 90W range.  Hardly ever 100W.  60-70W is more typical.


----------



## ozro (Jun 20, 2022)

I see uninformed people arguing a subject based on what they read, but obviously nobody here has experienced living with solar power. Some here,(the ebike dude for one) are simply liars.You are hearing a 30+ year veteran of living off-grid right here.
The literature that the industry puts out is filled with outright lies. Without trying it yourself, you really have no way of knowing. Theoretical data is simply not the same as real world experience.
People like me are rare, but we are around. 
The most important point to be made shouldn't be what battery technology is best, or how long panels last or how many cloudy days there are. 

The most important point should be how to reduce power consumption. In other words, conservation.
Most of you poor fools are tied to a power grid, and for political reasons will never be allowed the opportunity to try anything other than being tied to the grid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2022)

skookerasbil said:


> Todd...I kinda laughed my balls off when I saw this story today....
> 
> Germany turns to coal for electricity amid gas shortage concerns



What will the greentards do if Germany keeps their reactors running?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> So you have nothing of value or intelligence to say?
> I thought not.



I was answering your questions.
It's not my fault if you're wrong about almost everything.

*I thought not.*

You've gotten this far without thought, why change now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Really?
> How long does it take to burn a gallon of oil?
> How long do solar panels, wind turbines, and the rest last.
> 
> Try thinking beyond the end of your nose.



*How long does it take to burn a gallon of oil?*

Not very long. Quick, reliable energy is great.


----------



## Flash (Jun 20, 2022)

ozro said:


> I see uninformed people arguing a subject based on what they read, but obviously nobody here has experienced living with solar power. Some here,(the ebike dude for one) are simply liars.You are hearing a 30+ year veteran of living off-grid right here.
> The literature that the industry puts out is filled with outright lies. Without trying it yourself, you really have no way of knowing. Theoretical data is simply not the same as real world experience.
> People like me are rare, but we are around.
> The most important point to be made shouldn't be what battery technology is best, or how long panels last or how many cloudy days there are.
> ...


If you live off the grid in a rural area solar makes sense if you have the money.  There aren't many alternatives.

If you have lots of money and don't really care about the payback then you can even make solar work elsewhere.

The trade off is economics and solar cannot compete with the grid in a level playing field.

It is even worse when you consider government subsidies because that is false economics.

Of course then you have President Potatohead running up the cost of fossil much higher than it has to be in order to make his Chinese buddies solar cells more viable.  The Chinese that made his family filthy rich.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Yes, really.  Energy isn't measured in time, dummy.  Energy is measured in btu's.
> 
> Solar power and battery technology are low energy density power sources.


Hey dumbass...
When you burn that barrel of oil the only thing left is the pollution you create.
Solar panels will last decades.
and
millions upon millions of panels means an ongoing supply of those cute little  BTUs.

Remember, your brain is not just a spacer for your ears.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Hey dumbass...
> When you burn that barrel of oil the only thing left is the pollution you create.
> Solar panels will last decades.
> and
> ...


You aren't getting what I am saying, dado.  The technology isn't practical to replace fossil fuels but you go all in and you'll find out for yourself.  It's just math and something tells me you aren't very good at math.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I was answering your questions.
> It's not my fault if you're wrong about almost everything.
> 
> *I thought not.*
> ...


You were answering what you wanted the questions to be.
Try again but, maybe this time think with the big head.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How long does it take to burn a gallon of oil?*
> 
> Not very long. Quick, reliable energy is great.


Until it runs out.
Which it will.

Load up that F350 what's it costing you fool?$150-200 ? 
Enjoy your future fool.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Hey dumbass...
> When you burn that barrel of oil the only thing left is the pollution you create.
> Solar panels will last decades.
> and
> ...






Hey dumbass, guess how many barrels of oil you are burning to create those panels.  How much CO2 you are creating to make the cement to house them, the oil burned to make the cabling to transmit the power, etc. etc. etc.

NOTHING gets made without fossil fuels.


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Until it runs out.
> Which it will.
> 
> Load up that F350 what's it costing you fool?$150-200 ?
> Enjoy your future fool.






When?  We have passed over a dozen Peak Oil dates, no end in sight.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The technology isn't practical to replace fossil fuel


I think the tipping point will come soon.  Solar cells are getting cheaper and new materials will continue to decrease the cost.  I think it will tip once cheap and long-lived cells can be incorporated into roofing tiles and electric companies have the infrastructure to allow us to have meters that can run backwards as our roof tiles generate power


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 21, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> How much do we spend on obtaining, burning, and cleaning up after fossils.
> And that money is just burned.
> Solar is an investment.


Nuclear is an investment, solar isn't. A nuclear plant can have an eighty year life span, how long does a panel last? And don't forget, a nuclear plant is equivalent to 3.125 million PV panels, based on 320 watts a panel. So how many panels is that over 80 years, and waste?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I think the tipping point will come soon.  Solar cells are getting cheaper and new materials will continue to decrease the cost.  I think it will tip once cheap and long-lived cells can be incorporated into roofing tiles and electric companies have the infrastructure to allow us to have meters that can run backwards as our roof tiles generate power


More landfill.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 21, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> More landfill.


Even if those tiles paid for themselves over time and electric companies had extra power during peak times?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Even if those tiles paid for themselves over time and electric companies had extra power during peak times?


I thought the idea of moving away from fossil fuels was to save the planet, not dig it up and fill it back in with defunct solar panels


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I think the tipping point will come soon.  Solar cells are getting cheaper and new materials will continue to decrease the cost.  I think it will tip once cheap and long-lived cells can be incorporated into roofing tiles and electric companies have the infrastructure to allow us to have meters that can run backwards as our roof tiles generate power


That's great but without installing double capacity and battery backup storage it's never going to be  viable source for base loading electric grids.  Then there's the small problem of any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet.  Not a particularly good idea in the middle of an ice age.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042




Yeah....no....

I heard this story on the Dan and Amy show here in Chicago....

*This promised paradise is a sham built on wishful thinking and green marketing. Consider the experience of Dharnai, an Indian village that Greenpeace in 2014 tried to turn into the country’s first solar-powered community.*

*Greenpeace received glowing global media attention when it declared that Dharnai would refuse “to give into the trap of the fossil fuel industry.” But the day the village’s solar electricity was turned on, the batteries were drained within hours. One boy remembers being unable to do his homework early in the morning because there wasn’t enough power for his family’s one lamp.

Villagers were told not to use refrigerators or televisions because they would exhaust the system. They couldn’t use cookstoves and had to continue burning wood and dung, which creates air pollution as dangerous for a person’s health as smoking two packs of cigarettesa day, according to the World Health Organization. Across the developing world, millions die prematurely every year because of this indoor pollution.

In August 2014, Greenpeace invited one of the Indian’s state’s top politicians, who soon after become its chief minister, to admire the organization’s handiwork. He was met by a crowd waving signs and chanting that they wanted “real electricity” to replace this “fake electricity.”*

*When Dharnai was finally connected to the main power grid, which is overwhelmingly coal-powered, villagers quickly dropped their solar connections. An academic study found a big reason was that the grid’s electricity cost one-third of what the solar energy did. What’s more, it was plentiful enough to actually power such appliances as TV sets and stoves. Today, Dharnai’s disused solar-energy system is covered in thick dust, and the project site is a cattle shelter.*









						Opinion | The Rich World’s Climate Hypocrisy
					

They beg for more oil and coal for themselves while telling developing lands to rely on solar and wind.




					www.wsj.com


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 21, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Indeed, there are many ways to store excess electricity.  I was reading somewhere that in some electric cars they are using capacitors to augment the batteries.  I bet that if they tried real hard they could create functional electric cars that run entirely off electricity stored in capacitors.


The way I understand it, capacitors can be charged slowly over time, but they discharge 100% of their stored energy instantly.  I don't think you can meter the discharge.  They are used kind of like a ballast in a fluorescent fixture.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 21, 2022)

ding said:


> That's great but without installing double capacity and battery backup storage it's never going to be  viable source for base loading electric grids.


Not sure what you're saying.  Any electricity generated by my roof tiles, especially in the summer, and be fed back into the grid will decrease the peak requirements of our local utility.  If there is too much (hard to imagine) the utility could invest in backup systems but not necessarily backup batteries.  There are other options such as pumping water up to a dam/reservoir where that water could be used to generate power when needed.



ding said:


> Then there's the small problem of any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet.  Not a particularly good idea in the middle of an ice age.


That doesn't sound like a real fear but we could always burn some coal I guess.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 21, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I thought the idea of moving away from fossil fuels was to save the planet, not dig it up and fill it back in with defunct solar panels


We already dig up (e.g., coal) and fill in the planet (e.g., defunct cars), how is this different?


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Not sure what you're saying. Any electricity generated by my roof tiles, especially in the summer, and be fed back into the grid will decrease the peak requirements of our local utility. If there is too much (hard to imagine) the utility could invest in backup systems but not necessarily backup batteries. There are other options such as pumping water up to a dam/reservoir where that water could be used to generate power when needed.


I'm saying that intermittent electrical generation technologies (30% efficiency) trying to replace continuous electrical generation technologies (95% efficiency) will need to install additional capacity (at least double) to store electricity when it's not producing.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> That doesn't sound like a real fear but we could always burn some coal I guess.


Only if the soot makes it to the glaciers to decrease their albedo.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Until it runs out.
> Which it will.
> 
> Load up that F350 what's it costing you fool?$150-200 ?
> Enjoy your future fool.


Are you driving an EV?


----------



## sparky (Jun 21, 2022)

haveatit said:


> Maybe one of these days I'll look into what the electricity costs to get you the same distance as a gallon of gas.


Methinks you'll find EV's cost far more than internal combustion


haveatit said:


> I will show you a picture of the total area of solar panels it would take to power the U.S. Both day and night.


spam.....


Cardinal Carminative said:


> It's a new thing called a BATTERY.


it's an old thing CC >>>






Tom Paine 1949 said:


> My general impression is we have only begun to tap into a renewable energy revolution, which our grandchildren and great grandchildren will hopefully fully enjoy.


An apt sentiment Tom, so ...can wood be  a  'renewable' too......?


fncceo said:


> Try to remember that no one adopted those technology by force ... everyone who owns a car, rides in a plane, uses a computer, or communicates on a smart phone, *does so by choice.*


Point_ taken_ Mr Fncceo

Yet the green machine _crosses_ that line, legislating all that is in their favor from our Congresscritters _(always up for a $$$),  _much to the subjugation of those market forces that would normally operate via consumer 'choice'

~S~


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Until it runs out.
> Which it will.



That will be sad.
What will we use then to back up your unreliable solar?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Then there's the small problem of any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. Not a particularly good idea in the middle of an ice age.



LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Not sure what you're saying. Any electricity generated by my roof tiles, especially in the summer, and be fed back into the grid will decrease the peak requirements of our local utility.



And when the sun sets, what do you do?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Only if the soot makes it to the glaciers to decrease their albedo.



Why do you need more decreasing albedo? 
I mean besides the solar panels?


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> The way I understand it, capacitors can be charged slowly over time, but they discharge 100% of their stored energy instantly.  I don't think you can meter the discharge.  They are used kind of like a ballast in a fluorescent fixture.








That is correct.  Batteries are a balance between energy density, and energy discharge.  Racing cars need rapid discharge, and high density, so most use some form of blended battery, where one battery is for the density, and the other is for the rapid discharge.  Toyota used capacitors for their Le Mans Hypercar because they could get instant discharge.  Now that the technology is advancing they are switching to a blended system if my memory is correct.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> We already dig up (e.g., coal) and fill in the planet (e.g., defunct cars), how is this different?


If there's no difference, then why change?

Will they be filling the holes in with defunct EV's as well.

The environmental threads try to paint a rosey picture, but when you look past the Utopian fluffyness, renewables are just as bad, if not worse.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you need more decreasing albedo?
> I mean besides the solar panels?


It's odd how the decreasing albedo of solar panel results in 2C cooler daytime temps.  Oh... no... it's not.  It's due to the FLoT of converting solar radiation into electricity.  Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2022)

ding said:


> It's odd how the decreasing albedo of solar panel results in 2C cooler daytime temps.  Oh... no... it's not.  It's due to the FLoT of converting solar radiation into electricity.  Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.



*It's odd how the decreasing albedo of solar panel results in 2C cooler daytime temps. *

I know, because conservation of energy doesn't work with solar panels.

* It's due to the FLoT of converting solar radiation into electricity. *

And doing that destroys energy, right?

*Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.*

Can't absorb more solar energy and cool the planet at the same time.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.*
> 
> Can't absorb more solar energy and cool the planet at the same time.


Solar energy is not "heat based" so the heat the surface of the planet bs is moot.  Solar energy is photovoltaic meaning it is produced by "light"  The heat of the sun is still there.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know, because conservation of energy doesn't work with solar panels. And doing that destroys energy, right?Can't absorb more solar energy and cool the planet at the same time.


If you can't figure out what lower daytime temps mean I can't help you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2022)

ding said:


> If you can't figure out what lower daytime temps mean I can't help you.



If you don't understand conservation of energy, you can't be helped.


----------



## ding (Jun 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you don't understand conservation of energy, you can't be helped.


Which is exactly why the daytime temps are lower.  Energy that would have been back radiated was captured as electricity.  This is basic stuff.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Which is exactly why the daytime temps are lower.  Energy that would have been back radiated was captured as electricity.  This is basic stuff.



How much should have been radiated out?


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 21, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm saying that intermittent electrical generation technologies (30% efficiency) trying to replace continuous electrical generation technologies (95% efficiency) will need to install additional capacity (at least double) to store electricity when it's not producing.


It's not one or the other it is one augments the other.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And when the sun sets, what do you do?


You rely on other sources, probably the sources we use today, they just won't need to be as big as peak loads are generally when the sun shines.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 21, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If there's no difference, then why change?
> 
> Will they be filling the holes in with defunct EV's as well.
> 
> The environmental threads try to paint a rosey picture, but when you look past the Utopian fluffyness, renewables are just as bad, if not worse.


Economics.  Why pay for what you can get for free?


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Economics. Why pay for what you can get for free?


If that were true, then why are democrats is WA, OR and CA wanting to tear down existing hydroelectric dams which are producing "free" electricity.  Fish ladders are in place, so there goes that bs argument.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 21, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> If that were true, then why are democrats is WA, OR and CA wanting to tear down existing hydroelectric dams which are producing "free" electricity.  Fish ladders are in place, so there goes that bs argument.


I don't know, what do they say are their reasons?


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I don't know, what do they say are their reasons?


Fish.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You rely on other sources, probably the sources we use today, they just won't need to be as big as peak loads are generally when the sun shines.



Other sources?
You mean we should have useful powerplants like coal, nat gas and nuclear, idling during the day and only run them at capacity after the sun sets?


----------



## westwall (Jun 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Economics.  Why pay for what you can get for free?






Free?  Solar panels cost a lot.  Add in the fact that the corporations building them make them overseas so that they poison brown people, and you are quite simply wrong.  They are not "free".


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> It's not one or the other it is one augments the other.


That's not the stated aim.  I believe the original aim was to eliminate all fossil fuel electrical generation by 2050 in the US and Biden pledged to do it by 2035 (if my memory serves).  I don't believe either are practical and can be done.  It's just math.  And don't get me started on government controlling markets.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Other sources?
> You mean we should have useful powerplants like coal, nat gas and nuclear, idling during the day and only run them at capacity after the sun sets?


It's not practical.  Natural gas must be contracted for sale and then nominated for transportation.  The process does not lend itself to yo-yo-ing.  At least not without issues that might affect electrical generation.  Electrical systems don't work well when demand exceeds supply.  Very bad things happen to the electrical components.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much should have been radiated out?


The amount that was converted into electricity plus what was radiated out with the panels in place.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> The amount that was converted into electricity plus what was radiated out with the panels in place.



The amount converted wouldn't have otherwise been radiated out.
You need to recheck your premises. Let me know if you still don't understand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> It's not practical.  Natural gas must be contracted for sale and then nominated for transportation.  The process does not lend itself to yo-yo-ing.  At least not without issues that might affect electrical generation.  Electrical systems don't work well when demand exceeds supply.  Very bad things happen to the electrical components.



It's not practical because of the expense.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> Hey dumbass, guess how many barrels of oil you are burning to create those panels.  How much CO2 you are creating to make the cement to house them, the oil burned to make the cabling to transmit the power, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> NOTHING gets made without fossil fuels.


Hey fool!

You and the fools like you could have joined the party 50 years ago after the Oil Embargo.
Today was predictable from that point.
You could have stepped up and recognized the world for what it was 40 years ago when Carter warned us of what we needed to do.
You could have stepped up 15 years ago when prices approached $5 a gallon under Bush
You could have stepped up anytime to recognize the result of the pollution we spew into the atmosphere each and every day.

BUT

Stepping up would mean sacrifice.
Smaller houses
Fewer cars
Smaller cars
More mass transit...
And the oil companies told you 
"no, you don't have to worry about that.  Oil supplies will last forever..."
"no, you don't have to worry about environmental damage, look, it's cold someplace today..."
AND
You chose to believe what you wanted to believe rather than face reality.

NOBODY, fool, makes solar panels by pouring oil on a bunch of chemicals and setting it on fire.
They need electricity such as that from wind, solar, geo-thermal, idiot.
And the more of them we make and install the more electricity is generated to create and install more, moron.

Each ounce of oil you burn is gone forever, Shitbrain.
It will never be replaced, butthead.
It's only remnant is the pollution its burning causes, Tiny Minded Idiot.

Why not turn your TV off, fool, learn to read, dickbrain, and try to think beyond the mindless diatribes Tucker and his buddies toss your way, Dingus.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> When?  We have passed over a dozen Peak Oil dates, no end in sight.


As I said...
The oil companies said "it will last forever"
and fool that you are you believ0e them over your own common sense.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The amount converted wouldn't have otherwise been radiated out.
> You need to recheck your premises. Let me know if you still don't understand.


It's an energy balance, dummy.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's not practical because of the expense.


No.  It's not practical because of the battery backup requirements.  There's not enough lithium being mined.  

The cost/expense gets passed on to the consumer.


----------



## surada (Jun 22, 2022)

fncceo said:


> How do you store the power that people need when the sun isn't available?
> 
> Batteries?  That's a LOT of batteries, particularly when you consider we may soon be at war with the country that has most of the materials required to make them.
> 
> Additionally, our entire power grid works on AC.  Batteries only store DC.  You lose considerable power when you convert from one to the other, and then back again because most of our devices ultimately work on DC.



You can buy a solar panel for $60 on Amazon.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Are you driving an EV?


No.
I drive a 13 year old minivan that gets 23MPG and a 12 YO cube that gets 27.
I limit my driving to necessary.
I do not fill my tank.  8 gals of gas weighs about 60 pounds.  I save gas by not filling up and carrying that extra weight.

When the price of used EVs drops to a manageable level, I will buy.

But, unlike the fools like you, till then I won't have an $80k SUV with $700/mo payments that costs $150 and rising every time I fill it up.
That's right, I let you pay the depreciation and your whining over the price of gas will drive my goals.
Thanks,


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That will be sad.
> What will we use then to back up your unreliable solar?


Sigh...
You know the world is round, right?
You know that each and every minute of each and every day 1/2 of the world is covered with sunlight, right?
You know that power generate in Maine can be used in Oregon over the grid, right?
You do know that connecting the entire planet to a single grid can be done, right?

The only thing missing is the political will and the only thing standing in the way is the oil companies and the sycophantic fools who believe their lies.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> No.
> I drive a 13 year old minivan that gets 23MPG and a 12 YO cube that gets 27.
> I limit my driving to necessary.
> I do not fill my tank.  8 gals of gas weighs about 60 pounds.  I save gas by not filling up and carrying that extra weight.
> ...


You mean like fools who can afford an $80k SUV?


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> When the price of used EVs drops to a manageable level, I will buy.


What's a manageable price?   When will that be?


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> As I said...
> The oil companies said "it will last forever"
> and fool that you are you believ0e them over your own common sense.





YOU are the people bleating about oil ending.  We have more proven reserves now, than when oil was first being used.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Sigh...
> You know the world is round, right?
> You know that each and every minute of each and every day 1/2 of the world is covered with sunlight, right?
> You know that power generate in Maine can be used in Oregon over the grid, right?
> ...





No, the world is an oblate spheroid.  

Depends on cloud cover

How much loss occurs when you transfer the electricity across that vast distance?

Yes, it could, but the cost would be more than ALL of the GDP of the planet over several decades.

No, the political will is there from the global elitists, the money is what is lacking.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> It's an energy balance, dummy.



Finally.
You realized your error.
Glad I could help.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> No.  It's not practical because of the battery backup requirements.  There's not enough lithium being mined.
> 
> The cost/expense gets passed on to the consumer.



Running a huge fossil fuel plant part time is expensive.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Finally.
> You realized your error.
> Glad I could help.


I was highlighting your error, dummy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Sigh...
> You know the world is round, right?
> You know that each and every minute of each and every day 1/2 of the world is covered with sunlight, right?
> You know that power generate in Maine can be used in Oregon over the grid, right?
> ...


*
You know the world is round, right?*

Thanks for the tip!

*You know that power generate in Maine can be used in Oregon over the grid, right?*

Can it? How much Maine power is used in Oregon today?

What should we do when there is no Sun over Maine or Oregon?

*You do know that connecting the entire planet to a single grid can be done, right?*

How much will it cost? How long will it take? Link?

*The only thing missing is the political will and the only thing standing in the way is the oil companies and the sycophantic fools who believe their lies.*

That's the only thing? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I was highlighting your error, dummy.



How can you do that? 
You didn't even know how much energy was supposed to be radiated back to space.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Running a huge fossil fuel plant part time is expensive.


I don't see that as the reason for why it can't be done.  Yes, it will be add maintenance costs.  The bigger problem is the time from warm stack to operational won't be without delays and the way gas is contracted means it may not be readily available or will be at a premium which may be significant.  So filling the gap in demand in a short amount of time likely won't be possible.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How can you do that?


Study the earth's energy balance and you might be able to figure it out.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You didn't even know how much energy was supposed to be radiated back to space.


Again... It's an energy balance, dummy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I don't see that as the reason for why it can't be done.  Yes, it will be add maintenance costs.  The bigger problem is the time from warm stack to operational won't be without delays and the way gas is contracted means it may not be readily available or will be at a premium which may be significant.  So filling the gap in demand in a short amount of time likely won't be possible.



*I don't see that as the reason for why it can't be done. *

It can be done. It is being done. It eliminates any so called savings from all the green power.

It's stupid. Of course the alternative is to shut them down and have rolling blackouts daily.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Again... It's an energy balance, dummy.



Right. So how much was radiated back before the solar panels? How much less after?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> View attachment 660959



Yup.

Where is the arrow for solar panels?


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I don't see that as the reason for why it can't be done. *
> 
> It can be done. It is being done. It eliminates any so called savings from all the green power.
> 
> It's stupid. Of course the alternative is to shut them down and have rolling blackouts daily.


Are you under the impression this is about savings?  It's not.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. So how much was radiated back before the solar panels? How much less after?


Same answer as before.  Play it back for me.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 22, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


Link to the story please. Not that I doubt you however I don’t know you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Are you under the impression this is about savings?  It's not.



Some of the green idiots here, and on other threads, keep talking about how solar energy is free.

They aren't taking into account the expense of the fossil fuel back up.

Because they're idiots.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup.
> 
> Where is the arrow for solar panles?


I can't help you if you can't understand the earth's energy budget.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Which is exactly why the daytime temps are lower.  Energy that would have been back radiated was captured as electricity.  This is basic stuff.



*Play it back for me.*

If energy that would have been radiated out, isn't, because it was converted to electricity, that's not cooling the planet. Now to mention the lower albedo of the panels retains more energy in the Earth system.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I can't help you if you can't understand the earth's energy budget.



How does the budget change with darker solar panels reducing reflection to space?


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Some of the green idiots here, and on other threads, keep talking about how solar energy is free.
> 
> They aren't taking into account the expense of the fossil fuel back up.
> 
> Because they're idiots.


Or the original capital investment or the operating expenses.   Solar power producers don't need to take in the expense of fossil fuel back up because they aren't paying for it.  The consumers are though.  They won't put in battery backup or install extra capacity to charge the batteries until they are made to do so.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Play it back for me.*
> 
> If energy that would have been radiated out, isn't, because it was converted to electricity, that's not cooling the planet. Now to mention the lower albedo of the panels retains more energy in the Earth system.


That wasn't even close to our conversation or what you asked.  Try again.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does the budget change with darker solar panels reducing reflection to space?


The budget doesn't change.  Only the amount of solar radiation warming the surface of the planet changes. 

This would make more sense to you if you wouldn't keep forgetting that we are replacing an electrical generation source that doesn't reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet with an electrical generation source that does reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does the budget change with darker solar panels reducing reflection to space?


It's really funny that you thought the budget changed.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Play it back for me.*


You should learn how to use the quote feature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Which is exactly why the daytime temps are lower. Energy that would have been back radiated was captured as electricity. This is basic stuff.



How does energy that is not radiated back into space, cool the surface?


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does energy that is not radiated back into space, cool the surface?


I can't keep teaching you this stuff over and over again, Todd.  Your retention is horrible.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> ...daytime temps are lower. Energy that would have been back radiated was captured as electricity.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much should have been radiated out?





ding said:


> The amount that was converted into electricity plus what was radiated out with the panels in place.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> The budget doesn't change.  Only the amount of solar radiation warming the surface of the planet changes.
> 
> This would make more sense to you if you wouldn't keep forgetting that we are replacing an electrical generation source that doesn't reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet with an electrical generation source that does reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.



*The budget doesn't change. Only the amount of solar radiation warming the surface of the planet changes.*

Individual numbers on that picture will change.
Less radiation is reflected back from surfaces covered with solar panels. 
You understand they have a lower albedo than the earth's surface, right?
I don't need to explain albedo to you, Do I?

*This would make more sense to you if you wouldn't keep forgetting that we are replacing an electrical generation source that doesn't reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet*

Solar panels, because they have a much lower albedo, do not reduce the energy retained at the surface of the planet, they increase the radiation retained.

And that pesky conservation of energy also makes your cooling claim impossible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> It's really funny that you thought the budget changed.



Not as funny as you thinking less reflection at the surface leads to net surface cooling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I can't keep teaching you this stuff over and over again, Todd.  Your retention is horrible.



I can remember your silly errors just fine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

Right. Less radiated out leads to cooling......durr


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

myself said:


> Elon Musk said that in conjunction with rooftop solar panels, the area that would be needed would be smaller.  And the batteries that would store excess energy for nighttime use would be about one mile square.  Of course, transmitting power will cause some loss.  But as for converting electricity from DC to AC, I would have to look it up.  But with electricity being the way it is, right now I would doubt there is any energy loss in the conversion.  Also, AC is pretty efficient.  That's why Tesla went with it.


So the OP does not show all the rooftop, building wall panels that would be needed as well?


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

myself said:


> Elon Musk said that in conjunction with rooftop solar panels, the area that would be needed would be smaller.  And the batteries that would store excess energy for nighttime use would be about one mile square.  Of course, transmitting power will cause some loss.  But as for converting electricity from DC to AC, I would have to look it up.  But with electricity being the way it is, right now I would doubt there is any energy loss in the conversion.  Also, AC is pretty efficient.  That's why Tesla went with it.


AC can travel farther with transmission lines.  DC quickly loses power over long distances.   Edison was for building lots of DC power generation plants close to the service area.  Tesla had a better idea.   I believe that it takes energy to convert DC to AC dissipated as heat in a rectifier bridge.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Individual numbers on that picture will change.
> Less radiation is reflected back from surfaces covered with solar panels.
> You understand they have a lower albedo than the earth's surface, right?
> I don't need to explain albedo to you, Do I?
> ...


I'm just going to talk over you now and tell it like it is.  Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.    

Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.

The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.

What part of this don't you understand?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm just going to talk over you now and tell it like it is.  Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
> 
> Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.
> 
> ...



*Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.*

Less energy radiated and reflected into space.
That makes the planet warmer.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I can remember your silly errors just fine.


You've probably never had to state what something is your whole life.  You are like a textbook example of everything that is bad in this country.  You practice critical theory, you normalize your deviance, you have an external locus of control and you ass fuck logic like it's your boyfriend on Saturday night.  The errors are all yours and they are self induced.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.*
> 
> Less energy radiated and reflected into space.
> That makes the planet warmer.


Again... let me describe to you what something is since you don't have much experience in doing that. 

Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.
The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm just going to talk over you now and tell it like it is.  Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
> 
> Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.
> 
> ...


Solar cells do not produce electricity in the longer wave length spectrum.   Yellow and red regions produce poorly as well.   The long wave radiation is therefore absorbed by the solar panels as heat to the lower and ground level.   That's why upward long wave radiation is cooler.   IOW the solar panels are not using the longer wave radiation to produce electricity they are absorbing it and producing heat.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.*
> 
> Less energy radiated and reflected into space.
> That makes the planet warmer.


Yes, long waves not producing electricity and being absorbed by solar panels as heat radiated near the ground.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Solar cells do not produce electricity in the longer wave length spectrum.   Yellow and red regions produce poorly as well.   The long wave radiation is therefore absorbed by the solar panels as heat to the lower and ground level.   That's why upward long wave radiation is cooler.   IOW the solar panels are not using the longer wave radiation to produce electricity they are absorbing it and producing heat.


They are absorbing incoming solar radiation.  That is not being absorbed by the surface of the planet.  Here's the paper on it.



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Again... let me describe to you what something is since you don't have much experience in doing that.
> 
> Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
> Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.
> The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.



So more energy was absorbed, less was reflected and the farms were cooler.
The points of consumption must ahve been even hotter!

I mean, solar panels have an albedo below 0.1.
Lots of extra heat for the planet.
It might be enough to stop the next ice age!


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Fish.


I like fish.  Who doesn't?


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So more energy was absorbed, less was reflected and the farms were cooler.
> The points of consumption must ahve been even hotter!
> 
> I mean, solar panels have an albedo below 0.1.
> ...


Until you can tell me that you agree that solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet as the reason for why cooler temperatures were measured or at least provide a different explanation, there's really nothing to discuss.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> They are absorbing incoming solar radiation.  That is not being absorbed by the surface of the planet.  Here's the paper on it.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation


Solar panels are near the surface of the Earth though.  Therefore they do heat the surface of the planet.  That paper deals with upward emissions.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Until you can tell me that you agree that solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet as the reason for why cooler temperatures were measured or at least provide a different explanation, there's really nothing to discuss.


But longwave does not produce electricity.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Solar panels are near the surface of the Earth though.  Therefore they do heat the surface of the planet.  That paper deals with upward emissions.


Then why don't you tell me what measuring 2C cooler temperatures above the six solar farms during daylight hours means.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> But longwave does not produce electricity.


You are getting hung up on semantics.  Don't be a Todd.  

IN BROAD TERMS... 

We can agree that solar panels produce electricity, right?  And that they got that electricity from the sun, right?  However you want to describe that process is fine with me.  It's not relevant to this discussion.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Solar panels are near the surface of the Earth though.  Therefore they do heat the surface of the planet.  That paper deals with upward emissions.


The upward emissions are from longwave radiation from the surface of the planet.  Which are caused by solar radiation striking the surface of the planet.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 22, 2022)

Flash said:


> Typically to run a house you need 7KWs.



Where do you get that figure?  Is it for a family of a certain number?  My wife and I have existed quite nicely with a system as small as 3kW and our current one is 5kW which leaves us with a significant excess every month.




Flash said:


> That is usually a whole unobstructed roof for a typical middle class house.



A 5kW system isn't that huge.  



Flash said:


> Only about 15-20 days a year mostly in the summer with very little cloud cover like we had last week with the high pressure over the state will you get anywhere close to 7KWs.



I live in the Pacific Northwest.  You are no doubt familiar with our weather.  6 months of pretty much non-stop cloudy and rain.

I maintain a 1000kWh excess month-over-month year round here in the PNW with solar.



Flash said:


> The further north you go it would be worse.



I have never lived further north and I'm fine.



Flash said:


> Solar for home use is only economically viable for a narrow band in the SW US.



Grossly incorrect.

You seem to have made a near perfect score of getting almost everything wrong.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Other sources?
> You mean we should have useful powerplants like coal, nat gas and nuclear, idling during the day and only run them at capacity after the sun sets?


Having smaller coal and natural gas powerplants sounds like a win to me.  Less pollution at the very least.  I'm pretty sure it will a very long time before we won't need them, even during the day.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Then why don't you tell me what measuring 2C cooler temperatures above the six solar farms during daylight hours means.


It means just what is says, there are cooler temperatures being emitted UPWARD.   The heat from long wave radiation is therefore heating the solar array while shading the ground.   That doesn't seem to be any kind of significant cooling of the Earth's surface.  Just look at the OP's map.  If that is correct, solar panel limitation of upward  long waves would be negligible.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> Free?  Solar panels cost a lot.  Add in the fact that the corporations building them make them overseas so that they poison brown people, and you are quite simply wrong.  They are not "free".


The energy is free.  It's not like any powerplant is cheap to build and operate.  I'm guessing major portions of every construction come from overseas.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Where do you get that figure?  Is it for a family of a certain number?  My wife and I have existed quite nicely with a system as small as 3kW and our current one is 5kW which leaves us with a significant excess every month.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A typical electrical service is 200 amps.   That translates to about 50KW.   Of course we do not always use all that but, that is what it takes to replace full grid power.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The energy is free.  It's not like any powerplant is cheap to build and operate.  I'm guessing major portions of every construction come from overseas.


No energy is not free.  In the case of a solar panel, entropy starts with first use.  It will eventually have to be replaced.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> That's not the stated aim.  I believe the original aim was to eliminate all fossil fuel electrical generation by 2050 in the US and Biden pledged to do it by 2035 (if my memory serves).  I don't believe either are practical and can be done.  It's just math.  And don't get me started on government controlling markets.


We need nuclear.  Fusion would be great but fission for now.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> No energy is not free.  In the case of a solar panel, entropy starts with first use.  It will eventually have to be replaced.


The energy is free, converting it to something useful is not but that certainly holds true for every other energy source.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The energy is free.  It's not like any powerplant is cheap to build and operate.  I'm guessing major portions of every construction come from overseas.






No, it isn't.  I just laid out the costs.  Add to that the fact that you have to constantly clean the panels and you have a constant maintenance cost to fund as well.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

surada said:


> You can buy a solar panel for $60 on Amazon.


Capacity?  I can buy a photovoltaic cell that will only turn a 1/4 inch square flag for less than $10 but it ain't good for anything practical.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, it isn't.  I just laid out the costs.  Add to that the fact that you have to constantly clean the panels and you have a constant maintenance cost to fund as well.


No, the energy is free.  You buy coal and natural gas, you don't buy sunlight.  Every type of powerplant requires constant maintenance and there is the cost of the pollution too.


----------



## Flash (Jun 22, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Where do you get that figure?  Is it for a family of a certain number?  My wife and I have existed quite nicely with a system as small as 3kW and our current one is 5kW which leaves us with a significant excess every month.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are confused.

You have no idea of the Engineering of solar.

You may be hermits but most families consume much more than 3KW.

As emergency hurricane  preparedness I have a 2.3KW generator.  That will run my refrigerator, a small efficent 5K BTU emergency AC window unit for the bedroom and a few lights.  It will not run the major appliances like the washer, stove, dryer, central air or any kind of heat.  It is strain just to run the microwave by itself. 

I lived on the desert side of Washington state for seven years.  More sunshine than the East side.  During the summer months with the sun high you could produce a little bit of solar power.  However, once fall came you hardly saw the sun until the next Spring.

My neighbor up there had solar panels (non electrical) on his house to heat his swimming pool in the summer and he still had to augment it with a gas heater most of the time.

In the NW there is a lot of hydro power and some nuclear and that keeps the cost lower than in most parts of the US.  It would be dumb to put in solar at that high of a latitude with such limited sunshine during half the year when grid electricity is so cheap. 

I think you are over selling your system.  I am not calling you a liar but I would have to see it to believe it.  I have seen other solar systems and they are usually a disappointment.  As an Engineer I have done the calculations with real world inputs (as opposed to salesman inputs) and it never makes sense.

Solar is shitty technology with a really shitty payback.  In physics their ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I like fish.  Who doesn't?


I don't have a problem with fish.  I have a problem with envirowhackos who want to rip out perfectly good hydroelectric dams that have fish ladders because they "feel" that will improve fish populations.  That is illogical and a knee jerk reaction.  Fish hatcheries have been augmenting fish populations for a hundred years.  In addition, these dams provide irrigation for crops and navigable waters for delivery of goods not to mention the recreation and flood control that they provide.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The energy is free, converting it to something useful is not but that certainly holds true for every other energy source.


Yes, and other energy sources (such as petroleum, nat gas) are more easily stored and have more energy potential.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> I don't have a problem with fish.  I have a problem with envirowhackos who want to rip out perfectly good hydroelectric dams that have fish ladders because they "feel" that will improve fish populations.  That is illogical and a knee jerk reaction.  Fish hatcheries have been augmenting fish populations for a hundred years.  In addition, these dams provide irrigation for crops and navigable waters for delivery of goods not to mention the recreation and flood control that they provide.


I remember when a certain frog was endangered.  You had environmentalists marching through the ponds, streams and creeks in their rubber boots basically ruining the frog's environment as they looked for the frog.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> No, the energy is free.  You buy coal and natural gas, you don't buy sunlight.  Every type of powerplant requires constant maintenance and there is the cost of the pollution too.


Grand Coulee dam has been providing non-polluting power to 11 western states for over 80 years and paid back more than what it has cost in just electrical generation and that is not even the dam's mission which is irrigation.  In addition, it provides flood control and allows for a controlled flow for navigation.  I would say, that is truly FREE.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Yes, and other energy sources (such as petroleum, nat gas) are more easily stored and have more energy potential.


Moving the goalposts?  Irrelevant since you're wrong.  Electricity can be used to create natural gas, separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, pump water into a reservoir for later hydroelectric generation, etc.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> It means just what is says, there are cooler temperatures being emitted UPWARD.   The heat from long wave radiation is therefore heating the solar array while shading the ground.   That doesn't seem to be any kind of significant cooling of the Earth's surface.  Just look at the OP's map.  If that is correct, solar panel limitation of upward  long waves would be negligible.


That is not the conclusion of the authors nor common sense nor the FLoT.  The conclusion of the authors is that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that doesn't heat the surface of the planet and that's why daytime temperatures are cooler than before the solar farms were installed.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> No, the energy is free.  You buy coal and natural gas, you don't buy sunlight.  Every type of powerplant requires constant maintenance and there is the cost of the pollution too.


I would say the Sun is there in the sky but, you need technology to harness and use it.  Petroleum is just sitting there in the ground, you need technology to harness and use it as well but, you don't need banks of batteries to store it.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> No, the energy is free.  You buy coal and natural gas, you don't buy sunlight.  Every type of powerplant requires constant maintenance and there is the cost of the pollution too.






You have to buy the panel that converts the photons into electrical current.  You have to buy the converter that turns the electricity into a useable mode, and you have to buy the control panel that runs it all.  Full up cost for a system that will run your average house, DURING THE DAY, is 18,000 dollars.  More if you want to actually read at night.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Moving the goalposts?  Irrelevant since you're wrong.  Electricity can be used to create natural gas, separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, pump water into a reservoir for later hydroelectric generation, etc.


Hydrogen is not a natural gas.    Like electricity, hydrogen needs infrastructure to be a viable energy source.   Right now, the world runs on petroleum and the infrastructure is in place.    This woulda, shoulda, coulda, 'free energy' is nothing but a load of crap.   We are not remotely ready to completely change our main source of energy in the world.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> You have to buy the panel that converts the photons into electrical current.  You have to buy the converter that turns the electricity into a useable mode, and you have to buy the control panel that runs it all.  Full up cost for a system that will run your average house, DURING THE DAY, is 18,000 dollars.  More if you want to actually read at night.


Also, there is no way you're going to add 30 or 40 kw to match grid capability.   You'd have to have a huge solar array to do that.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> It means just what is says, there are cooler temperatures being emitted UPWARD.


Incorrect.  It means that less heat is being radiated upward by the earth after solar panels were installed compared to before solar panels were installed.  The reason less heat is being radiated upward by the earth after solar panels were installed compared to before solar panels were installed is because the solar panels converted heat that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.  It's literally due to the conservation of energy.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

Flash said:


> As emergency hurricane preparedness I have a 2.3KW generator. That will run my refrigerator, a small efficent 5K BTU emergency AC window unit for the bedroom and a few lights. It will not run the major appliances like the washer, stove, dryer, central air or any kind of heat. It is strain just to run the microwave by itself.


My home is 3K sq. ft. and my emergency generator is 22KW.  It keeps my home running as if the power was still on.  Multiple refrigerators, a freezer, microwave, electric stove and oven, microwave, DW, W & D, electric water heater lights and a 3-station split heat/AC system.
My neighbor has a professionally installed solar system with at least 200 sq ft of solar collection and they are constantly complaining that they are depleting their batteries to run a 1800 sq. ft. home in the winter time in eastern WA.  Solar is not worth the headaches even discounting the initial costs and the once a decade replacement of equipment.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  It means that less heat is being radiated upward by the earth after solar panels were installed compared to before solar panels were installed.  The reason less heat is being radiated upward by the earth after solar panels were installed compared to before solar panels were installed is because the solar panels converted heat that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.  It's literally due to the conservation of energy.


Long wave radiation does not produce electricity.  I believe I already told you that.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Also, there is no way you're going to add 30 or 40 kw to match grid capability.   You'd have to have a huge solar array to do that.





Exactly.  I have a solar system.  It is useful, but with no grid we are at 15% capability.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> My home is 3K sq. ft. and my emergency generator is 22KW.  It keeps my home running as if the power was still on.  Multiple refrigerators, a freezer, microwave, electric stove and oven, microwave, DW, W & D, electric water heater lights and a 3-station split heat/AC system.
> My neighbor has a professionally installed solar system with at least 200 sq ft of solar collection and they are constantly complaining that they are depleting their batteries to run a 1800 sq. ft. home in the winter time in eastern WA.  Solar is not worth the headaches even discounting the initial costs and the once a decade replacement of equipment.


I don't believe you can run all that at once though.   That being said, except for the electric dryer, I can run most of my home on my 6kw.   An electric dryer can take 1.5kw to 5kw all by itself.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> The heat from long wave radiation is therefore heating the solar array while shading the ground.


Incorrect.  The upward long wave radiation - which is a fancy way of saying heat - is radiated from the earth into the atmosphere but since some of the solar radiation (heat) from the sun was converted into electricity the earth didn't absorb as much heat as it would have if no solar panels had been installed and that's why the upward long wave radiation (or heat) radiated from the earth after installing solar panels is less than the upward long wave radiation (or heat) radiated from the earth before solar panels were installed.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> That doesn't seem to be any kind of significant cooling of the Earth's surface.


That all depends entirely upon how widespread solar is used.  It's just math.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> We need nuclear.  Fusion would be great but fission for now.


I agree.  See?  I'm not a monster.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  The upward long wave radiation - which is a fancy way of saying heat - is radiated from the earth into the atmosphere but since some of the solar radiation (heat) from the sun was converted into electricity the earth didn't absorb as much heat as it would have if no solar panels had been installed and that's why the upward long wave radiation (or heat) radiated from the earth after installing solar panels is less than the upward long wave radiation (or heat) radiated from the earth before solar panels were installed.


But I just told you long wave radiation does not produce electricity and yellow and red radiation is less effective.   So, not all the spectrum is producing electricity.  That was my point and you ignored it twice now.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, it isn't.  I just laid out the costs.  Add to that the fact that you have to constantly clean the panels and you have a constant maintenance cost to fund as well.


I'm actually surprised how long their life span has been.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> But I just told you long wave radiation does not produce electricity and yellow and red radiation is less effective.   So, not all the spectrum is producing electricity.  That was my point and you ignored it twice now.


You are lost in this conversation.  You are arguing semantics.  Do you really believe you can capture the energy from the sun without it having any effect whatsoever?  Do you even First Law of Thermodynamics?


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm actually surprised how long their life span has been.


Yes, solar panels do have a long life span however they are constantly putting out less power.   Sooner or later they will need to be changed out.  Preferably technology will make them more efficient though.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> You are lost in this conversation.  You are arguing semantics.  Do you really believe you can capture the energy from the sun without it having any effect whatsoever?  Do you even First Law of Thermodynamics?


How about addressing the fact that long waves do not produce electricity and therefore only have a heating effect?  That is not semantics.  I never said you can capture the Sun without it having some effect.  In fact, I explained to you how that is true.   You keep saying solar panels cool because they convert sunlight to electricity but fail to point out that the Sun's spectrum includes waves that DO NOT produce electricity but produce HEATING.  Some of that heat is dissipated by the array as HEAT near the ground.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> I don't believe you can run all that at once though.   That being said, except for the electric dryer, I can run most of my home on my 6kw.   An electric dryer can take 1.5kw to 5kw all by itself.


Granted, but I have never so much as tripped a breaker during a power outage.  The system seems to be properly sized for what I use.  The longest power outage we've ever dealt with was three days and it handled it well.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> But I just told you long wave radiation does not produce electricity and yellow and red radiation is less effective.   So, not all the spectrum is producing electricity.  That was my point and you ignored it twice now.


I did not ignore your point.  I explained that solar panels capture energy from the sun and convert that into electricity.  That conversion of solar radiation (heat) into electricity reduces the heat that warms the surface of the planet.  But if you want to argue it doesn't, be my guest.


----------



## Flash (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> My home is 3K sq. ft. and my emergency generator is 22KW.  It keeps my home running as if the power was still on.  Multiple refrigerators, a freezer, microwave, electric stove and oven, microwave, DW, W & D, electric water heater lights and a 3-station split heat/AC system.
> My neighbor has a professionally installed solar system with at least 200 sq ft of solar collection and they are constantly complaining that they are depleting their batteries to run a 1800 sq. ft. home in the winter time in eastern WA.  Solar is not worth the headaches even discounting the initial costs and the once a decade replacement of equipment.


 I looked into getting a whole house generator for our 2500Ft2 retirement home.  The minimal needed was 7KW and suggested was 9-10KW.  Even at that it would not be the same as being on the grid.  We could not have the oven, dryer, hot water heater, pool pump and central AC all on at the same time.

I live in an area that did not not have long outages during the last four hurricanes.  In fact our power was only out a few minutes during Irma when most of the rest of the state was down.  I decided to go small and get a little generator to run the necessities for a few days until the power came back on. If it is going to be an extended outage we would go to Atlanta and stay with my son.

I think he was fibbing to us when he says he can run his home with just 3KW.  He must live in a very small home with few appliances.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> How about addressing the fact that long waves do not produce electricity and therefore only have a heating effect?  That is not semantics.


How about you accepting that has nothing to do whatsoever with solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that doesn't heat the surface of the planet.  It's not magic solar radiation (HEAT).


----------



## Flash (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> My home is 3K sq. ft. and my emergency generator is 22KW.  It keeps my home running as if the power was still on.  Multiple refrigerators, a freezer, microwave, electric stove and oven, microwave, DW, W & D, electric water heater lights and a 3-station split heat/AC system.
> My neighbor has a professionally installed solar system with at least 200 sq ft of solar collection and they are constantly complaining that they are depleting their batteries to run a 1800 sq. ft. home in the winter time in eastern WA.  Solar is not worth the headaches even discounting the initial costs and the once a decade replacement of equipment.


Just think of the dust that would be settling on the solar collectors in Eastern Washington.  LOL!

You would have to clean them every week.  Then they would get covered with ice and snow in the winter.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> How about you accepting that has nothing to do whatsoever with solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that doesn't heat the surface of the planet.  It's not magic solar radiation (HEAT).


Solar radiation INCLUDES long waves and it has plenty do do with what we are discussing which is heating.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Solar radiation INCLUDES long waves and it has plenty do do with what we are discussing which is heating.


Is it really a surprise to you that any heat converted into electricity is heat that doesn't heat the surface of the planet?


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

Flash said:


> Just think of the dust that would be settling on the solar collectors in Eastern Washington.


Not to mention the pine pollen in the spring.


----------



## Flash (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I did not ignore your point.  I explained that solar panels capture energy from the sun and convert that into electricity.  That conversion of solar radiation (heat) into electricity reduces the heat that warms the surface of the planet.  But if you want to argue it doesn't, be my guest.


The problem with solar is that it is simply to low level of an energy source per square whatever measurement you use.

I worked on a NRC application for a nuclear power plant expansion in Texas about 15 years ago.  My department had to write the section on alternate energy.  That is required by the NRC.

It would have taken more than the area of the county the plant was in for solar collectors to even be 50% of what the reactor was going to produce.  By the way, Texas has big counties.

Unless you live in a narrow sun band in the SW a roof is not going to give you enough space for the solar collectors to run an average American middle class household.  Not the parts of the roof facing South for the most efficient collection..

It is shitty technology for power generation.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm actually surprised how long their life span has been.






I maintain them well.  Even with that I am hovering at 5% efficiency now.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Is it really a surprise to you that any heat converted into electricity is heat that doesn't heat the surface of the planet?


Long waves do not produce electricity.  They produce heat.


----------



## surada (Jun 22, 2022)

fncceo said:


> How do you store the power that people need when the sun isn't available?
> 
> Batteries?  That's a LOT of batteries, particularly when you consider we may soon be at war with the country that has most of the materials required to make them.
> 
> Additionally, our entire power grid works on AC.  Batteries only store DC.  You lose considerable power when you convert from one to the other, and then back again because most of our devices ultimately work on DC.



Peru and Australia have plenty of lithium.


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2022)

surada said:


> Peru and Australia have plenty of lithium.






I thought you all hated mining.  Oh.....I get it.......it's ok to fuck up other peoples land.....


----------



## surada (Jun 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> I thought you all hated mining.  Oh.....I get it.......it's ok to fuck up other peoples land.....



Why would I hate mining? You're in your own head.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

surada said:


> Peru and Australia have plenty of lithium.


Let’s go dig ‘em up!!! NIMBY


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> I would say the Sun is there in the sky but, you need technology to harness and use it.  Petroleum is just sitting there in the ground, you need technology to harness and use it as well but, you don't need banks of batteries to store it.


No just tanks and pipelines, all of which eventually fail.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> You have to buy the panel that converts the photons into electrical current.  You have to buy the converter that turns the electricity into a useable mode, and you have to buy the control panel that runs it all.  Full up cost for a system that will run your average house, DURING THE DAY, is 18,000 dollars.  More if you want to actually read at night.


$18K today, OK, what was it yesterday?  What will it be tomorrow?


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Hydrogen is not a natural gas.


What gas is more natural than the most common gas in the universe?



Leo123 said:


> We are not remotely ready to completely change our main source of energy in the world.


There we agree.  For now.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I agree.  See?  I'm not a monster.


You still scare me on occasion


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

surada said:


> Why would I hate mining? You're in your own head.


Seems the lefts' attitude changes re: mining depending on what is being mined.  Lithium--OK, Coal--NONONOOOOO!


----------



## surada (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Seems the lefts' attitude changes re: mining depending on what is being mined.  Lithium--OK, Coal--NONONOOOOO!



You're an idiot. You make up stuff and attribute it to others. Coal mining jobs have been in steady decline since 1950, stupid.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Flash said:


> The problem with solar is that it is simply to low level of an energy source per square whatever measurement you use.
> 
> I worked on a NRC application for a nuclear power plant expansion in Texas about 15 years ago.  My department had to write the section on alternate energy.  That is required by the NRC.
> 
> ...


I agree.  It's especially crappy for base loading the grid.  It's ridiculous to think that by 2035 or 2050 or whatever arbitrary date they want to pick, that 100% of generation will come from renewables.  I don't see it happening.


----------



## surada (Jun 22, 2022)

__





						Google Image Result for http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/US-Coal-Mining-Employment-1900-2016-MSHA-series-e1487808914791.png
					





					images.app.goo.gl


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> I maintain them well.  Even with that I am hovering at 5% efficiency now.


I was wondering about that.  From the limited stuff I have read they implied there was no drop off in performance.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Long waves do not produce electricity.  They produce heat.


I never said it did.  Long wave radiation is another word for heat being radiated from the surface of the planet.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You still scare me on occasion


I shouldn't.  I'm just a wise ass.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

surada said:


> You're an idiot. You make up stuff and attribute it to others. Coal mining jobs have been in steady decline since 1950, stupid.


Fuck off you idiot bitch.   I didn't say a fucking word about coal mining jobs.  I have watched you and your ilk use mining scars as a reason for not mining coal for the last year and now you are trying to distance yourself from it.  Like most democrats, you are a bald faced liar.


----------



## surada (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Fuck off you idiot bitch.   I didn't say a fucking word about coal mining jobs.  I have watched you and your ilk use mining scars as a reason for not mining coal for the last year and now you are trying to distance yourself from it.  Like most democrats, you are a bald faced liar.







__





						Google Image Result for http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/US-Coal-Mining-Employment-1900-2016-MSHA-series-e1487808914791.png
					





					images.app.goo.gl


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

surada said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please explain for the viewing public how jumping to coal mining employment numbers is relevant to Lithium mining scars, moron.  Better yet, just STFU, you're an idiot.


----------



## surada (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Please explain for the viewing public how jumping to coal mining employment numbers is relevant to Lithium mining scars, moron.  Better yet, just STFU, you're an idiot.



You brought up coal mining. I didn't. Quit acting like a brat.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Solar cells do not produce electricity in the longer wave length spectrum.


Never said it did.  The upward long wave radiation that I am discussing is the heat radiated back into the atmosphere from the surface of the planet after solar radiation (HEAT) caused the surface of the planet to heat up.  It is that heat which was 2C cooler AFTER solar panels were installed.  The reason it was 2C cooler AFTER solar panels were installed is because some of the incoming solar radiation (HEAT) was converted into electricity and did not heat the surface of the planet.  So the DAYTIME temperatures above the farm were 2C cooler because that's when the solar panels were producing electricity.  At night the temperatures were effectively the same.  Why were the night the temperatures were effectively the same ?  Because there was no electricity being generated.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jun 22, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


Who is stopping you or any other green true believer from putting up solar panels?

What are you waiting for?

I know

You want non believers to pay for them


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> You've probably never had to state what something is your whole life.  You are like a textbook example of everything that is bad in this country.  You practice critical theory, you normalize your deviance, you have an external locus of control and you ass fuck logic like it's your boyfriend on Saturday night.  The errors are all yours and they are self induced.



Pointing our your errors make you upset.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

surada said:


> You brought up coal mining. I didn't. Quit acting like a brat.


Try again, moron.  Please review the thread and show me where I said a fucking word about coal until you claimed to support mining in post#875.  I pointed out, correctly, that you and your ilk have used coal mining scars on the earth as a reason to abandon coal.  Now that argument doesn't seem to mean much when it supports your bullshit narrative--quit being a lying bitch.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pointing our your errors make you upset.


Not at all.  There haven't been any.  You've been serving my purpose.  I have explained exactly why solar panels have a cooling effect.  You on the other hand haven't explained anything.  I only care about getting the truth out.  See?  I'm going to do it again.


Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.
The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.



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


I couldn't do this without you.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I never said it did.  Long wave radiation is another word for heat being radiated from the surface of the planet.


Yes, but it is also emanating from the Sun's spectrum.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Not at all.  There haven't been any.  You've been serving my purpose.  I have explained exactly why solar panels have a cooling effect.  You on the other hand haven't explained anything.  I only care about getting the truth out.  See?  I'm going to do it again.
> 
> 
> Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
> ...


How is a long wave cooler?  Does it change frequency?   Or do you mean there is less long wave radiation?


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Yes, but it is also emanating from the Sun's spectrum.


A picture is sometimes worth a thousand words.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> How is a long wave cooler?  Does it change frequency?   Or do you mean there is less long wave radiation?


Read the paper.



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


----------



## surada (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Try again, moron.  Please review the thread and show me where I said a fucking word about coal until you claimed to support mining in post#875.  I pointed out, correctly, that you and your ilk have used coal mining scars on the earth as a reason to abandon coal.  Now that argument doesn't seem to mean much when it supports your bullshit narrative--quit being a lying bitch.



You're FOS.  The problem with coal is that all our coal fired power plants are 40 years old and investors aren't interested in building new ones. That may change.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Jun 22, 2022)

Flash said:


> You are confused.
> 
> You have no idea of the Engineering of solar.
> 
> You may be hermits but most families consume much more than 3KW.



A family of two.  Not THAT bizarre.  I thought maybe it would be extensible to show that the lower end of the distribution pulls it down a bit from your original claim.




Flash said:


> In the NW there is a lot of hydro power and some nuclear and that keeps the cost lower than in most parts of the US.  It would be dumb to put in solar at that high of a latitude with such limited sunshine during half the year when grid electricity is so cheap.



Huh.  So not paying an electric bill for about 5 years is "stupid"?  Interesting claim.  



Flash said:


> I think you are over selling your system.  I am not calling you a liar but I would have to see it to believe it.  I have seen other solar systems and they are usually a disappointment.  As an Engineer I have done the calculations with real world inputs (as opposed to salesman inputs) and it never makes sense.



Hey, your argument is with the engineers at the solar companies who scale the output to your last 12 months or so of usage.  I'm not the one doing the calculation.

All I know is that in the last 6 years I've paid only ONE electric bill since putting the solar on.   Res ipsa loquitur.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

surada said:


> You're FOS.  The problem with coal is that all our coal fired power plants are 40 years old and investors aren't interested in building new ones. That may change.


So now you are advocating for the coal mining industry.  Is that what you are saying?  I wouldn't want to misunderstand you.  Run along and take your contradictory shit with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Again... let me describe to you what something is since you don't have much experience in doing that.
> 
> Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
> Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.
> The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.



*Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.*

Why do you need a satellite? Solar panels are much darker than the Earth's surface.
They reflect much less radiation back into space. Heating the planet. Full stop.

If they're "plugged in" some of the energy they absorb is turned into electricity which may be transported a long distance before it is used. It's possible that the amount of electricity is large enough to cool the area around the panels while still resulting in more heat generated at the point of consumption. Still net heating, not cooling, the planet.

For instance, an area of the surface large enough to be hit with 100 watts of sunlight will absorb 70 watts and reflect 30 watts back into space. Cover that same area with solar panels and only 5 watts is reflected back to space. So far, the Earth is warmed by that extra 25 watts. If 30 watts of electricty is generated and transmitted 100 miles away, the solar farm "keeps" 65 watts, 5 watts fewer than that area kept without the panels. That area is slightly (5 watts, in this example) cooler.

The area 100 miles away, where the electricity is consumed, is 30 watts warmer.

You can keep pointing to the 5 watts cooler and say, "This could cause the glaciers to advance", 
but anyone who understands the physics and the math knows that you're wrong.

*The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.*

Cooled slightly, at the panel, warmed much more when the electricity is consumed.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Flash said:


> You are confused.
> 
> You have no idea of the Engineering of solar.
> 
> ...


Yeah... something smells fishy.  Who in their right mind would install solar in the Pacific NW?  Cheap hydro, poor sun, 3kW?


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.


I couldn't have said it better myself.  I'm glad you agree with me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Until you can tell me that you agree that solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet as the reason for why cooler temperatures were measured or at least provide a different explanation, there's really nothing to discuss.



Moving the heat from one spot to another.......isn't net cooling.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Moving the heat from one spot to another.......isn't net cooling.


It is relative to other generating sources that don't convert solar radiation (heat) into electricity.  You know... the sources solar is replacing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> The upward emissions are from longwave radiation from the surface of the planet.  Which are caused by solar radiation striking the surface of the planet.
> 
> View attachment 660989







163.3 absorbed by surface, 22.9 reflected by surface.

Now cut that reflected number by 2/3rds.

Cooler planet?


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 661049
> 
> 163.3 absorbed by surface, 22.9 reflected by surface.
> 
> ...


Show your math.  Make your case.  Try actually saying something for once.   Prove to us how all that electricity generated from the sun had no other consequences.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Having smaller coal and natural gas powerplants sounds like a win to me.  Less pollution at the very least.  I'm pretty sure it will a very long time before we won't need them, even during the day.



*Having smaller coal and natural gas powerplants sounds like a win to me. *

More expensive coal and nat gas plants to cover your unreliable solar.

Sounds like we're paying more for your free solar, not less.


----------



## Flash (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Yeah... something smells fishy.  Who in their right mind would install solar in the Pacific NW?  Cheap hydro, poor sun, 3kW?
> 
> View attachment 661047


Methinks the boy is not telling us the truth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> . The upward long wave radiation - which is a fancy way of saying heat - is radiated from the earth into the atmosphere but since some of the solar radiation (heat) from the sun was converted into electricity the earth didn't absorb as much heat as it would have if no solar panels



Until the long wave radiation from the consumption of the elctricity is added to the equation.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Flash said:


> Methinks the boy is not telling us the truth.


There are a number of us who don't take anything CC says at face value.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> You are lost in this conversation.  You are arguing semantics.  Do you really believe you can capture the energy from the sun without it having any effect whatsoever?  Do you even First Law of Thermodynamics?



Do you really believe moving energy from the panel to my house results in less energy?


----------



## sparky (Jun 22, 2022)

~S~


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> What gas is more natural than the most common gas in the universe?



Not uncombined on the Earth.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Until the long wave radiation from the consumption of the elctricity is added to the equation.


Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases.  It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar.  So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases.  What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Not at all.  There haven't been any.  You've been serving my purpose.  I have explained exactly why solar panels have a cooling effect.  You on the other hand haven't explained anything.  I only care about getting the truth out.  See?  I'm going to do it again.
> 
> 
> Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
> ...



*I have explained exactly why solar panels have a cooling effect.*

You're pointing out a local effect. The Earth is a bit bigger.

*I couldn't do this without you.*

You can make yourself look silly, with zero help from me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I couldn't have said it better myself.  I'm glad you agree with me.



You can't look at half the equation....without me laughing at you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> It is relative to other generating sources that don't convert solar radiation (heat) into electricity.  You know... the sources solar is replacing.



So then argue that. Because solar hasn't replaced anything.
Solar doesn't net cool the planet. Obviously.
You should say, burning fossil fuels warms the planet and we need that warming to prevent the
glaciers from advancing.

It would sound less stupid than your current claim.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you really believe moving energy from the panel to my house results in less energy?


I think you should make your case.  I already explained this in post #918.  It's an incremental analysis.  Waste heat is exactly the same no matter the generating source but only solar reduces incoming solar radiation.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So then argue that. Because solar hasn't replaced anything.
> Solar doesn't net cool the planet. Obviously.
> You should say, burning fossil fuels warms the planet and we need that warming to prevent the
> glaciers from advancing.
> ...


My argument is clear.  It's your argument that no one knows.  You haven't made a case for anything.


----------



## Flash (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> There are a number of us who don't take anything CC says at face value.


You know what gets me?

Theses wackos saying that we should all have L-I vehicles and charge them with solar power.

Lets take CC's 3KW solar system.

There are different Tesla battery packs.  To charge them takes anywhere from 80-120 KWh.

So how long is going take him to do a charge on a 100KWh battery pack with a 3KW input?

A hellva long time and he better not be using the solar power for anything else in the meantime or if the sun goes behind a cloud or heaven forbid it gets dark.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You can't look at half the equation....without me laughing at you.


Says the guy who can't actually state what he believes or why he believes it. 

Here's an example of what that might look like.

Satellites measured upwards long wave radiation over six solar farm sites before and after solar panels were installed.
Daytime measurements of upward long wave radiation were 2C cooler after the solar panels were installed.
The only possible explanation is that the solar radiation was converted into electricity before it could warm the surface of the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Show your math.  Make your case.  Try actually saying something for once.   Prove to us how all that electricity generated from the sun had no other consequences.



*Show your math. Make your case. *

Your diagram shows about 12% of the solar energy hitting the surface gets reflected.
186.2 hits,163.3 absorbed, 22.9 reflected.
If a solar panel has an albedo of 0.04, 4% is reflected, instead of 12%.
So now 7.45 is reflected.

Now you can use your vast knowledge of conservation of energy to explain how an extra
15.45 watts per square meter results in net cooling. Go!!!


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Show your math. Make your case. *
> 
> Your diagram shows about 12% of the solar energy hitting the surface gets reflected.
> 186.2 hits,163.3 absorbed, 22.9 reflected.
> ...


Still not getting your point.  What's your point?  Why were solar farms cooler?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.



That's true.
Because the solar panels add more. WIth their lower albedo.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I think you should make your case.  I already explained this in post #918.  It's an incremental analysis.  Waste heat is exactly the same no matter the generating source but only solar reduces incoming solar radiation.



If you want to argue solar warms less than coal, do that.

If you want to argue solar cools, I'll continue laughing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> but only solar reduces incoming solar radiation.



And for the 100th time, solar does not reduce incoming solar radiation.
Solar panels absorb more (reflects less) of the incoming solar and then moves (that larger number) 
around the surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Says the guy who can't actually state what he believes or why he believes it.
> 
> Here's an example of what that might look like.
> 
> ...




Satellite didn't measure upwards long wave radiation over the city using the electricity before and after solar panels were installed, so they don't prove that solar panels net cool the planet.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's true.
> Because the solar panels add more. WIth their lower albedo.


Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity.  Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere.  Heat that was to be used later.  Elsewhere.  

Again, why were the solar farms 2C cooler during the day?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Still not getting your point.  What's your point?  Why were solar farms cooler?



Because they moved some heat to the city. As your own source said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity.  Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere.  Heat that was to be used later.  Elsewhere.
> 
> Again, why were the solar farms 2C cooler during the day?



*Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity. Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere.*

The lower albedo means the heat did not bounce back into space.

*Heat that was to be used later.  Elsewhere. *

Yes. It heated the city, later.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you want to argue solar warms less than coal, do that.
> 
> If you want to argue solar cools, I'll continue laughing.


Of course solar will result in a net cooling.  It's replacing fossil fuels which don't generate their electricity by siphoning off solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And for the 100th time, solar does not reduce incoming solar radiation.
> Solar panels absorb more (reflects less) of the incoming solar and then moves (that larger number)
> around the surface.


Effectively it does.  Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that did not heat the surface of the planet.  This is common freaking sense.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Satellite didn't measure upwards long wave radiation over the city using the electricity before and after solar panels were installed, so they don't prove that solar panels net cool the planet.


That's the dumbest thing you have written yet.  It's like you aren't even trying.  You should have just written aliens.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because they moved some heat to the city. As your own source said.


Addressed in #918.  Still waiting for you to make your case.  Why was the solar farm 2C cooler?


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity. Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere.


Yes, I agree.  Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity. Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere. Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere.  No matter what the source of electrical generation.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Of course solar will result in a net cooling.  It's replacing fossil fuels which don't generate their electricity by siphoning off solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet.



Your argument is over stating the energy absorption of solar cells, and missing the main point of global warming.

The amount of solar energy converted to electricity by solar cells is very small, about 20%.
So solar cells do not do much for global cooling.
And the earth would be cooled off much more if the solar radiation simply left the earth, by reflection or radiation.

Plants are about the same efficiency as far as solar energy absorption, but plants cool the earth much more than solar panels.
That is because plants absorb CO2, and CO2 is the man moderator for whether the earth cools or warms.
Why?
Because the vast majority of the solar energy that hits the earth, has to leave, or else the earth would be like Venus, with the surface the temperature of molten lead.
And the % of solar heat retained depend on the CO2 concentration at the very outer layer of the boundary to space, because at that layer, CO2 converts photonic radiation into vibratory heat.   And vibratory heat can not leave the Earth.  It can not conduct or convect into space.  Only photonic radiation can.
Why only CO2?  Because other greenhouse gases, like water vapor, condense out at much lower altitudes, leaving the job to CO2 alone.

So normally plants regulate the Earth's temperature, by absorbing or releasing CO2.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Yes, I agree.  Their lower albedo is how they captured the heat to generate electricity. Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere. Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere.  No matter what the source of electrical generation.


Lower albedo is just less reflective and converts UV to heat.   It does not 'capture' anything unless we are talking about the interior of a car where UVs are converted to longer waves that cannot escape the window glass and temperatures rise abnormally.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Your argument is over stating the energy absorption of solar cells, and missing the main point of global warming.
> 
> The amount of solar energy converted to electricity by solar cells is very small, about 20%.
> So solar cells do not do much for global cooling.
> ...


It's not my argument.  It's been measured.  There's a paper written on it.  



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


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> It's not my argument.  It's been measured.  There's a paper written on it.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation


That 'paper' does not support your claims.


----------



## ding (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> That 'paper' does not support your claims.


Sure it does.  It's their claim.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Sure it does.  It's their claim.
> 
> View attachment 661090



While that is true, that is also the same drop in energy we get from any place where large scale photosynthesis is going on.
Photosynthesis captures about the same amount of solar energy as photovoltaic panels.

But neither of these are anywhere near to the scale of global warming.
That is because 80% of the solar energy hitting plants or photovoltaic cells is not absorbed by either plants or photovoltaic cells.
And most of the solar energy does not even hit plants or photovoltaic cells.
So then it is just CO2 in the upper atmosphere that throttles up or down, how much solar energy is radiated back out into space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> by siphoning off solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet.



Why doesn't every watt "siphoned off" eventually warm the surface of the planet? 
Explain why conservation of energy doesn't apply.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Effectively it does.  Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that did not heat the surface of the planet.  This is common freaking sense.



* Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that did not heat the surface of the planet. *

Not heating the surface at the solar farm isn't the same as never ever heating the surface anywhere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> That's the dumbest thing you have written yet.



Pointing out your first stage thinking makes you angry.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Addressed in #918.  Still waiting for you to make your case.  Why was the solar farm 2C cooler?



If you want to make the other argument, do it.
Arguing that solar panels cool the planet is just wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Why was the solar farm 2C cooler?



For the same reason the city was warmer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Heat which did not radiate into the atmosphere. Heat that was to be used later. Elsewhere.



Heat which was used later. Elsewhere. Which then heated the atmosphere.
More than the earlier cooling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> That 'paper' does not support your claims.



Here's another one that doesn't support his claims......

_Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that, though much smaller, is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas, according to a new study.

For this study, the team defined the heat island effect as the difference in ambient air temperature around the solar power plant compared to that of the surrounding wild desert landscape. Findings demonstrated that temperatures around a solar power plant were 5.4-7.2 °F (3-4 °C) warmer than nearby wildlands._









						Researchers discover solar heat island effect caused by large-scale solar power plants
					

Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that, though much smaller, is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas, according to a new study.




					phys.org


----------



## westwall (Jun 22, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> $18K today, OK, what was it yesterday?  What will it be tomorrow?





More, and more again.  You are choosing to ignore the front end cost which in most cases is so high that the alternative power sources fall apart long before they pay for themselves.

I put my system together 30 years ago, and I maintain it very carefully so it paid for itself over 10 years ago.

I didn't build it to save energy costs, I built it to HAVE energy when the grid went down, which, back when I built it, happened every year.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that did not heat the surface of the planet.


Exactly.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pointing out your first stage thinking makes you angry.







__





						The effects of Climate Change on the earth
					

Can I see the math that backs your claims up? ... we've been using T^4=(S(1-a))/4eo ... obviously you're not ... so what are you using? ...  LOL you azzhole. :^) Tommy is the one with the number "285." (and You TWO talking about local Weather no less)  I posted the heavily footnoted Wikipedia...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Good times.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why doesn't every watt "siphoned off" eventually warm the surface of the planet?


See post #918.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you want to make the other argument, do it.
> Arguing that solar panels cool the planet is just wrong.


Why was the solar farm 2C cooler?



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


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> For the same reason the city was warmer.


See post #918


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Heat which was used later. Elsewhere. Which then heated the atmosphere.
> More than the earlier cooling.


See post #918.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Here's another one that doesn't support his claims......
> 
> _Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that, though much smaller, is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas, according to a new study.
> 
> ...


Which has been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> Exactly.



Yup. You repeated your claim again.
I refuted it, again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You like repeating your humiliation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> See post #918



#918 doesn't refute conservation of energy. 
Try again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> Which has been thoroughly debunked.



When was the heat island effect debunked?


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When was the heat island effect debunked?


Why was it 2C cooler during the daytime at solar farms again?  Magic?


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> #918 doesn't refute conservation of energy.
> Try again?


Didn’t say it did. It’s an incremental analysis, dummy.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You like repeating your humiliation.


What did he tell you to do again?  Stuff it? So funny.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You like repeating your humiliation.


You must have been humiliated because you shut up after he told you to stuff it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> Why was it 2C cooler during the daytime at solar farms again?  Magic?



Moving heat from one spot to another isn't cooling the Earth.

You understand that, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> You must have been humiliated because you shut up after he told you to stuff it.



If that makes you feel better, run with it.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Moving heat from one spot to another isn't cooling the Earth.
> 
> You understand that, right?


It is when the waste heat from electricity usage is the same as it was before solar, dummy.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If that makes you feel better, run with it.


He put you in check.  It was hilarious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> It is when the waste heat from electricity usage is the same as it was before solar, dummy.



You should make that argument instead.
You'd sound less stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> He put you in check.  It was hilarious.



If that makes you feel better, run with it.

Meanwhile, keep claiming that moving 100 watts from one spot to another cools the Earth.

Bacause _that's_ hilarious.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Having smaller coal and natural gas powerplants sounds like a win to me. *
> 
> More expensive coal and nat gas plants to cover your unreliable solar.
> 
> Sounds like we're paying more for your free solar, not less.


How do smaller powerplants equate to being more expensive?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> How do smaller powerplants equate to being more expensive?



You've never heard of economies of scale?


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If that makes you feel better, run with it.
> 
> Meanwhile, keep claiming that moving 100 watts from one spot to another cools the Earth.
> 
> Bacause _that's_ hilarious.


Post #918 makes it less funny.  It's called an incremental analysis. 

There's approximately 18tWh of continuous waste heat from electricity in the world.  Hardly any of it comes from solar.  So as we replace other generating forms - which don't convert solar radiation into electricity - with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet but the waste heat won't change.  So the decrease in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet won't be offset by an increase in waste heat from electricity use.  I know this is a hard concept for you to understand not being good with math and all but it's just math.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> Post #918 makes it less funny.  It's called an incremental analysis.
> 
> There's approximately 18tWh of continuous waste heat from electricity in the world.  Hardly any of it comes from solar.  So as we replace other generating forms - which don't convert solar radiation into electricity - with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet but the waste heat won't change.  I know this is a hard concept for you to understand not being good with math and all but it's just math.



If you want to claim we need to keep burning fossil fuels, so the waste heat can stop the glaciers from advancing, do that.

*with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet *

Running solar radiation thru a solar panel doesn't cool the planet compared to letting that radiation hit the surface. In fact, due to their lower albedo, panels warm the planet.

Claiming they cool the planet is stupid.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You've never heard of economies of scale?


What the difference in efficiency between a power block of less than 500 MW compared to a power blocks larger than 1,000 MW?  

And what's the difference in per-unit capital and expense costs between large and small power blocks?


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you want to claim we need to keep burning fossil fuels, so the waste heat can stop the glaciers from advancing, do that.
> 
> *with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet *
> 
> ...


Other than your statement that solar converts solar radiation into electricity and that there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet everything else was wrong.

The cooling effect was measured by satellites.  



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> What the difference in efficiency between a power block of less than 500 MW compared to a power blocks larger than 1,000 MW?
> 
> And what's the difference in per-unit capital and expense costs between large and small power blocks?



I don't know. What's the difference?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet



Why do you keep claiming that radiation that hits a panel doesn't heat the planet?

*The cooling effect was measured by satellites.*

Moving energy from one spot to another doesn't result in net cooling of the planet.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't know. What's the difference?


I'm not the one who claimed there was an economy of scale.  That was you.  If you don't know if there is a difference or how much the difference is then you don't know that there's an economy of scale that is different or materially different.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you keep claiming that radiation that hits a panel doesn't heat the planet?


Because daytime temps were 2C cooler with panels than without,  Duh.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 23, 2022)

westwall said:


> More, and more again.  You are choosing to ignore the front end cost which in most cases is so high that the alternative power sources fall apart long before they pay for themselves.
> 
> I put my system together 30 years ago, and I maintain it very carefully so it paid for itself over 10 years ago.
> 
> I didn't build it to save energy costs, I built it to HAVE energy when the grid went down, which, back when I built it, happened every year.


Do you have any reason to believe the trend will end anytime soon ?


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The cooling effect was measured by satellites.
> 
> Moving energy from one spot to another doesn't result in net cooling of the planet.


Yes, the cooling effect was measured by satellites. 

No. it's incorrect to say that incrementally energy was moved from one spot to another.

There's approximately 18tWh of continuous waste heat from electricity in the world. Hardly any of it comes from solar. So as we replace other generating forms - which don't convert solar radiation into electricity - with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet but the waste heat won't change. So the decrease in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet won't be offset by an increase in waste heat from electricity use. I know this is a hard concept for you to understand not being good with math and all but it's just math.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You've never heard of economies of scale?


Certainly a factor but so are many other factors, including the cost of energy transmission, construction, and capital.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet


Exactly.  Which is why there is a cooling effect.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Certainly a factor but so are many other factors, including the cost of energy transmission, construction, and capital.


He's not even sure there is a difference.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm not the one who claimed there was an economy of scale.  That was you.  If you don't know if there is a difference or how much the difference is then you don't know that there's an economy of scale that is different or materially different.



*I'm not the one who claimed there was an economy of scale. *

You doubt that there is?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> Because daytime temps were 2C cooler with panels than without, Duh.



No they weren't. Try to be more precise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> No. it's incorrect to say that incrementally energy was moved from one spot to another.



Energy didn't move from the solar farm to the point of use?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

ding said:


> Yes, the cooling effect was measured by satellites.
> 
> No. it's incorrect to say that incrementally energy was moved from one spot to another.
> 
> There's approximately 18tWh of continuous waste heat from electricity in the world. Hardly any of it comes from solar. So as we replace other generating forms - which don't convert solar radiation into electricity - with solar which does convert solar radiation into electricity there will be an incremental increase in solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet but the waste heat won't change. So the decrease in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet won't be offset by an increase in waste heat from electricity use. I know this is a hard concept for you to understand not being good with math and all but it's just math.



*There's approximately 18tWh of continuous waste heat from electricity in the world. Hardly any of it comes from solar. *

If you want to claim that without this waste heat, ice sheets will spread across the world, do it.

It would be less silly than claiming that moving power from a panel to a city will cool the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Certainly a factor but so are many other factors, including the cost of energy transmission, construction, and capital.



Yes, building two small plants instead of one larger one, with the same output, will have a higher cost of transmission and a higher cost of construction.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, building two small plants instead of one larger one, with the same output, will have a higher cost of transmission and a higher cost of construction.


That might be true if you built one across the street from the other but that is never going to be the case.  The point is that if lots of homes have solar panels that feed power into the grid you don't need to build a big plant to serve the same population.  A smaller plant will be cheaper to build and maintain.

By your logic we should build one giant powerplant in Iowa and ship the power to the entire US.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> That might be true if you built one across the street from the other but that is never going to be the case. The point is that if lots of homes have solar panels that feed power into the grid you don't need to build a big plant to serve the same population.



The bigger plant is already built and in use.
And now you want all these solar panels to replace the plant for a portion of the day.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Do you have any reason to believe the trend will end anytime soon ?







Yeah, amazingly enough I used the current numbers.  And yes, that trend is ending soon.  As government subsidies stop, the cost of solar increases dramatically.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The bigger plant is already built and in use.


They don't last forever and it may be cost effective to replace an old plant with a smaller, more efficient one.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> And now you want all these solar panels to replace the plant for a portion of the day.


If possible, absolutely.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 23, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, amazingly enough I used the current numbers.  And yes, that trend is ending soon.  As government subsidies stop, the cost of solar increases dramatically.


So it is only gov't subsidies that lowered the cost of solar?  I doubt that and I don't think you'll produce any evidence to back that up.  Government subsidies may end but the technology will continue to develop.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> They don't last forever and it may be cost effective to replace an old plant with a smaller, more efficient one.
> 
> 
> If possible, absolutely.



Running a gas or coal power plant only part of the day makes it more expensive.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So it is only gov't subsidies that lowered the cost of solar?  I doubt that and I don't think you'll produce any evidence to back that up.  Government subsidies may end but the technology will continue to develop.






Not entirely.  Shifting production away from first world countries with environmental laws and protections, to third world countries with none, was the biggest cause, but do you really want to poison brown people?

Or are you saying it's ok to poison brown people?


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 24, 2022)

westwall said:


> Not entirely.  Shifting production away from first world countries with environmental laws and protections, to third world countries with none, was the biggest cause, but do you really want to poison brown people?
> 
> Or are you saying it's ok to poison brown people?


Are solar panels somehow unique or should we import no manufactured goods?  What about raw materials, should we refuse to import them too?  Works great for N. Korea.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Running a gas or coal power plant only part of the day makes it more expensive.


That is why you build them smaller.


----------



## ding (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm not the one who claimed there was an economy of scale.


Yes you are.


----------



## ding (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Energy didn't move from the solar farm to the point of use?


It didn't increase waste energy.  It just replaced one generating source with another.


----------



## ding (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> There's approximately 18tWh of continuous waste heat from electricity in the world. Hardly any of it comes from solar.


Correct.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> That is why you build them smaller.



It doesn't matter if you built it smaller, it's still more expensive to only run part time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

ding said:


> It didn't increase waste energy.  It just replaced one generating source with another.



Who said it increased waste energy? 
It moved heat from one spot to another.
That doesn't cool the Earth no matter how bad you are at physics.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It doesn't matter if you built it smaller, it's still more expensive to only run part time.


If you build it smaller you will have to run it full time since, ideally, solar would be the difference between a large and small plant.  If there is too much power in the system I'm sure the excess could be sold or stored.


----------



## ding (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who said it increased waste energy?
> It moved heat from one spot to another.
> That doesn't cool the Earth no matter how bad you are at physics.


Again... Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> If you build it smaller you will have to run it full time since, ideally, solar would be the difference between a large and small plant.  If there is too much power in the system I'm sure the excess could be sold or stored.



If your solar output drops to zero, how can the full-time, smaller plant be enough?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

ding said:


> Again... Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.



Yes, the waste heat is the same. The solar radiation hitting the planet is the same. 
With a lower albedo, more is retained, not less.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If your solar output drops to zero, how can the full-time, smaller plant be enough?


I'm not sure why the solar output would drop to zero unless you mean nighttime, a small plant can provide enough power at night when demand is low.

Where I live utilities have to be able to generate enough to satisfy peak demand, mainly hot, summer days.  That is where solar panels can offer their best economy.


----------



## ding (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The solar radiation hitting the planet is the same.


Except for the solar radiation that was converted into electricity.


----------



## ding (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> With a lower albedo, more is retained, not less.


You mean converted into electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'm not sure why the solar output would drop to zero unless you mean nighttime, a small plant can provide enough power at night when demand is low.



You said that the plant was going to run non-stop.
Does that mean its output plus solar are enought to power the area?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Where I live utilities have to be able to generate enough to satisfy peak demand, mainly hot, summer days. That is where solar panels can offer their best economy.



People come home after work and turn up the airconditioning, plug in their electric cars, run their microwaves and televisions. Are you sure peak demand is always during sunlight hours?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

ding said:


> Except for the solar radiation that was converted into electricity.



Right. There is extra retained at the panel and some is moved to the city.
Net, less reflected into space means more to warm the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

ding said:


> You mean converted into electricity.



I mean more retained at the surface.
That's what lower albedo means.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said that the plant was going to run non-stop.
> Does that mean its output plus solar are enought to power the area?


If sized correctly, yes.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> People come home after work and turn up the airconditioning, plug in their electric cars, run their microwaves and televisions. Are you sure peak demand is always during sunlight hours?


Demand levels rise throughout the day and tend to be highest during a block of hours referred to as "on-peak," which usually occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. Weekly patterns: Demand levels are generally lowest between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and on weekends.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> If sized correctly, yes.



Great. With full solar and running non-stop, they power the area.
Sun sets, solar drops to zero, now there is insufficient power.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Demand levels rise throughout the day and tend to be highest during a block of hours referred to as "on-peak," which usually occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. Weekly patterns: Demand levels are generally lowest between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and on weekends.



*Demand levels rise throughout the day and tend to be highest during a block of hours referred to as "on-peak," which usually occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. *

Looks like you're gonna run short when days aren't as long, on cloudy, rainy and snowy days.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great. With full solar and running non-stop, they power the area.
> Sun sets, solar drops to zero, now there is insufficient power.


Demand also drops but you're right, some storage is likely going to have to be part of the system.  Assuming no wind, hydrothermal, or other system is available and power is not available for purchase on the grid.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Demand levels rise throughout the day and tend to be highest during a block of hours referred to as "on-peak," which usually occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. *
> 
> Looks like you're gonna run short when days aren't as long, on cloudy, rainy and snowy days.


Hopefully the designers are as smart as you are and can anticipate those inevitabilities.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 24, 2022)

In the UK if you install solar panels to your home, it takes 10.21 years to break even in East Anglia compared to 14.84 years in northern Scotland.

The average time people live in a home before selling and moving is nearly 9 years.

Solar panels only increase a house price on average by £1,916, average cost to supply and fit the panels is £5,875.

If I went and fitted solar panels, I would be the best part of 70 before I broke even. So I haven't and won't bother. But I would have to move because the current house is facing the wrong direction to give any payback at all.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 24, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> In the UK if you install solar panels to your home, it takes 10.21 years to break even in East Anglia compared to 14.84 years in northern Scotland.
> 
> The average time people live in a home before selling and moving is nearly 9 years.
> 
> ...


I don't think the UK will ever be a hot spot for Photo Voltaics.  A wind turbine might be a better investment.  Someday.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 24, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I don't think the UK will ever be a hot spot for Photo Voltaics.  A wind turbine might be a better investment.  Someday.


We're littered with those damn things and they don't spin half the time.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 24, 2022)

When America has enough solar panels to meed 100% of our electricity needs on the brightest of days we'll all starve because no rain will ever reach the ground to irrigate the crops.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 25, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> We're littered with those damn things and they don't spin half the time.


Yet people are still building them, investing lots of money, so I think they know what they're getting.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Yet people are still building them, investing lots of money, so I think they know what they're getting.


What do they get. They get grants, subsidies, and payments not to go over quotas . And the land owner rakes in a fortune in rent.

And what does the consumer get? Expensive electric to pay for wind turbine grants, subsidies, quotas, and land rent.

You won't believe it though, some people (alarmists) thinks that all this wind turbine idea is fantastic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Yet people are still building them, investing lots of money, so I think they know what they're getting.



In Germany, the people are getting the highest electricity prices in the world.
Triple what we pay in the US.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In Germany, the people are getting the highest electricity prices in the world.
> Triple what we pay in the US.


Maybe because *they choose to:*

Several European countries pay north of $7 or $8 per gallon, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. At the top of the expensive list is Hong Kong, where prices per gallon are higher than $11, followed by Norway at more than $10.​​"European energy prices of all kinds are higher than what consumers in the U.S. pay," Peter McNally, Global Sector Lead for Industrials, Materials and Energy at Third Bridge told Yahoo Finance. "This was the case before 2022, but it has only become wider since."​​McNally explained the primary reason for the discrepancy is "the difference in U.S. and European fuel prices is the tax rates — *Europe has significantly higher taxes than in the U.S.*."​


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 25, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> What do they get. They get grants, subsidies, and payments not to go over quotas . And the land owner rakes in a fortune in rent.
> 
> And what does the consumer get? Expensive electric to pay for wind turbine grants, subsidies, quotas, and land rent.
> 
> You won't believe it though, some people (alarmists) thinks that all this wind turbine idea is fantastic.


I'm impressed.  How do you know the local politics of China, India, and the UK so well?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Maybe because *they choose to:*
> 
> Several European countries pay north of $7 or $8 per gallon, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. At the top of the expensive list is Hong Kong, where prices per gallon are higher than $11, followed by Norway at more than $10.​​"European energy prices of all kinds are higher than what consumers in the U.S. pay," Peter McNally, Global Sector Lead for Industrials, Materials and Energy at Third Bridge told Yahoo Finance. "This was the case before 2022, but it has only become wider since."​​McNally explained the primary reason for the discrepancy is "the difference in U.S. and European fuel prices is the tax rates — *Europe has significantly higher taxes than in the U.S.*."​



Yes, they choose to install a bunch of free solar power and pay triple.

Congrats?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Maybe because *they choose to:*
> 
> Several European countries pay north of $7 or $8 per gallon, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. At the top of the expensive list is Hong Kong, where prices per gallon are higher than $11, followed by Norway at more than $10.​​"European energy prices of all kinds are higher than what consumers in the U.S. pay," Peter McNally, Global Sector Lead for Industrials, Materials and Energy at Third Bridge told Yahoo Finance. "This was the case before 2022, but it has only become wider since."​​McNally explained the primary reason for the discrepancy is "the difference in U.S. and European fuel prices is the tax rates — *Europe has significantly higher taxes than in the U.S.*."​


That's why we giggle when Americans complain about the cost to fuel their cars, we get out our violins for them!!


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'm impressed.  How do you know the local politics of China, India, and the UK so well?


By being British living in the UK.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Yet people are still building them, investing lots of money, so I think they know what they're getting.


Barnum had it right.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 25, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> By being British living in the UK.


Still living in the Empire, eh?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Still living in the Empire, eh?


Yes thanks.

Are still living in the declining US empire, eh?


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 25, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes thanks.
> 
> Are still living in the declining US empire, eh?


That is certainly how it appears over here.  We can't get past Trump, you can't get past Boris.  Two empires separated by a common language.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> That is certainly how it appears over here.  We can't get past Trump, you can't get past Boris.  Two empires separated by a common language.



Well, I find nothing wrong with Trump and Boris, but we both suffer from an awful lot people that are hung up on them. I emailed my local Tory MP to go tell the conservative MP's that voted against Boris to quit because they don't deserve to be in parliament. The spineless git didn't reply.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 25, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Well, I find nothing wrong with Trump and Boris, but we both suffer from an awful lot people that are hung up on them. I emailed my local Tory MP to go tell the conservative MP's that voted against Boris to quit because they don't deserve to be in parliament. The spineless git didn't reply.


They both think they are above the law but that is unacceptable to me.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> They both think they are above the law but that is unacceptable to me.


So why do Democrats hold illegal immigrants above the law?

As for Boris, that law was stupid and meaningless. Say you come up with a law that's, say, you can't wear blue socks in public or it's a £100 fine, what would you expect to happen if you went into public with blue socks?


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 25, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> So why do Democrats hold illegal immigrants above the law?


Do they?  We have laws that allow refugees to seek asylum in this country.  Many don't like the law but that is the law.



Captain Caveman said:


> As for Boris, that law was stupid and meaningless. Say you come up with a law that's, say, you can't wear blue socks in public or it's a £100 fine, what would you expect to happen if you went into public with blue socks?


Didn't Boris violate the laws his gov't created?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In Germany, the people are getting the highest electricity prices in the world.


Except for Texas during a grid crisis, when prices will get several hundred times higher.


----------



## MarathonMike (Jun 25, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


Where is your data? Anyone can draw a yellow square.


----------



## Missourian (Jun 25, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042




Every human on earth...almost eight billion of them...mashed into a ball would comprise a sphere less than one kilometer in diameter.









						Disturbing Simulation Shows What Would Happen if You Blended Up Every Living Human
					

They did the math.




					futurism.com


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 25, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Do they?  We have laws that allow refugees to seek asylum in this country.  Many don't like the law but that is the law.
> 
> 
> Didn't Boris violate the laws his gov't created?


Do they? Yes.

Let me make the question simpler. Say you come up with a law about the number of people that you can socialize with during a pandemic. Anyone breaking the law, can be fined £200, and up to £10,000. What would you expect to happen if you broke the law? I hope you can answer it this time.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Do they? Yes.
> 
> Let me make the question simpler. Say you come up with a law about the number of people that you can socialize with during a pandemic. Anyone breaking the law, can be fined £200, and up to £10,000. What would you expect to happen if you broke the law? I hope you can answer it this time.


I'd expect to be fined £200, and up to £10,000.  Do have the right to ignore this law if I don't like it?  Does everyone have the right to decide which laws they will obey?


----------



## Flash (Jun 26, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> That is certainly how it appears over here.  We can't get past Trump, you can't get past Boris.  Two empires separated by a common language.


Meanwhile Joe Potatohead continues to fuck up everything he touches.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 26, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'd expect to be fined £200, and up to £10,000.  Do have the right to ignore this law if I don't like it?  Does everyone have the right to decide which laws they will obey?


But, that's what happened, Boris broke the law and paid between £200 and £10,000. So he's complied with the law and the punishment (the fine), was dish out and served (and this paid). So that's the end of the matter, right?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Does everyone have the right to decide which laws they will obey?


Of course they do.  People break laws all the time.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. There is extra retained at the panel and some is moved to the city.
> Net, less reflected into space means more to warm the planet.


The incrementally cooler daytime temperatures measured above six solar farms says otherwise.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I mean more retained at the surface.
> That's what lower albedo means.


Again... the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures measured above six solar farms says otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> They were wrong. ANY solar radiation that is converted into energy is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the earth. It's called conservation of energy and is the first law of thermodynamics.



Still funny!

Take a patch of bare soil large enough to be hit by 1000 watts of solar energy.


With a typical albedo of 0.15, 150 watts is reflected to space, 850 watts retained to warm the surface.


Take the same patch and cover it with a solar panel, typical albedo 0.05, 50 watts reflected to space, 950 watts retained to warm the surface. 



Plug that panel into the grid, typical efficiency 20%. 190 watts turned into electric power, shipped to a city 10 miles away. Now there are 760 watts retained at the panel. It's not a surprise if the retained 760 watts leaves the solar farm cooler than the 850 watts retained for the bare soil.


Of course when you add back the 190 watts of heat in the city, the solar panel heats the planet more than the bare soil did. By 100 watts.



So much for your claim that solar panels cool the planet because their electricity doesn't heat the surface.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still funny!
> 
> Take a patch of bare soil large enough to be hit by 1000 watts of solar energy.
> 
> ...


Cool story, bro.  Again tho... the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures measured above six solar farms says otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Cool story, bro.  Again tho... the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures measured above six solar farms says otherwise.



Of course. 760 is less than 850, bro.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course. 760 is less than 850, bro.


Just the other day you were arguing the solar panels made temps hotter at the farms.  You are all over the map, bro.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect





Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's not a surprise if the retained 760 watts leaves the solar farm cooler


Which is it, bro?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Just the other day you were arguing the solar panels made temps hotter at the farms.  You are all over the map, bro.



Sorry if that article confused you.

Tell me more about the new solar panel induced Ice Age!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Which is it, bro?



Either one, you're wrong about causing an Ice Age.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sorry if that article confused you.
> 
> Tell me more about the new solar panel induced Ice Age!!!


You are making diametrically opposed arguments.  On one hand you argue it's not cooler at the solar farms and on the other you argue it is cooler at the solar farm but the waste heat from electricity more than compensates for it.  Pick a lane.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EIther one, you're wrong about causing an Ice Age.


I'm pretty sure the planet will experience a glacial cycle (less than -2C away) before it experiences a super greenhouse state (more than +6C away) without glaciation at the poles.  The planet has been cooling for 50 million years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> You are making diametrically opposed arguments.  On one hand you argue it's not cooler at the solar farms and on the other you argue it is cooler at the solar farm but the waster heat from electricity more than compensates for it.  Pick a lane.


*
You are making diametrically opposed arguments.*

Are you confusing me for the author of the paper I linked?

Let's look at the math.

Is 760 larger or smaller than 850?

Is 950 larger or smaller than 850?

Let me know if you need help.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm pretty sure the planet will experience a glacial cycle (less than -2C away) before it experiences a super greenhouse state (more than +6C away) without glaciation at the poles.  The planet has been cooling for 50 million years.
> 
> View attachment 662510



Probably. So what?

Solar panels aren't going to make the planet cooler.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You are making diametrically opposed arguments.*
> 
> Are you confusing me for the author of the paper I linked?
> 
> ...


No. I'm not confusing you for the author of the paper.  But when you posted the paper you said...


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Here's another one that doesn't support his claims......


 Which doesn't sound like something someone who believed that solar panels created a cooling effect at solar farms.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Probably. So what?
> 
> Solar panels aren't going to make the planet cooler.


Relative to other generating sources which don't convert solar radiation into electricity it does.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> No. I'm not confusing you for the author of the paper.  But when you posted the paper you said...
> 
> Which doesn't sound like something someone who believed that solar panels created a cooling effect at solar farms.



Yes, when I said the paper didn't support your claim that was because it didn't support your claim.

Let me know when you figure out the math.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Relative to other generating sources which don't convert solar radiation into electricity it does.



That wasn't your original claim.





If you want to admit you didn't understand the First Law and change your claim, I'll 
support you 100%.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, the waste heat is the same.


I rest my case.  Because the incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms proves that the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet is not the same when solar panels are present because solar panels are converting solar radiation into electricity.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The solar radiation hitting the planet is the same.


The incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms says otherwise.  The solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is lower when solar panels are present because the solar panels are converting solar radiation into electricity.  Proof of this can be found in the incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, when I said the paper didn't support your claim that was because it didn't support your claim.
> 
> Let me know when you figure out the math.


And then you prompted changed your position and argued the exact opposite when you wrote...


Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's not a surprise if the retained 760 watts *leaves the solar farm cooler *than the 850 watts retained for the bare soil.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Because the incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms proves that the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet is not the same



Only because it's heating the surface in the city.

Now about that math.........


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> The solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is lower when solar panels are present because the solar panels are converting solar radiation into electricity.



950 is still larger than 850.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That wasn't your original claim.


My claim has been the same since day one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> And then you prompted changed your position and argued the exact opposite when you wrote...



The lower panel albedo heats the solar farm or heats the city, they both leave the planet warmer.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 950 is still larger than 850.


The incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms says otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> My claim has been the same since day one.



Your original claim was, electricity doesn't heat the planet.

Is that still your claim?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The lower panel albedo heats the solar farm or heats the city, they both leave the planet warmer.


The incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms says otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> The incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms says otherwise.



Shipping heat to the city doesn't change  950 > 850


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> The incrementally lower temperatures measured above the solar farms says otherwise.



Ignoring the added heat in the city doesn't say otherwise.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your original claim was, electricity doesn't heat the planet.
> 
> Is that still your claim?


My claim was... Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.  So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Shipping heat to the city doesn't change  950 > 850


Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ignoring the added heat in the city doesn't say otherwise.


No waste heat is being added.  Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Only because it's heating the surface in the city.
> 
> Now about that math.........


Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> My claim was... Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.  So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.



*My claim was... Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar.*

Your original claim didn't mention waste heat, from solar or fossil fuels.
Or that solar panels have a lower albedo.

*What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.*

Why do you keep repeating this error?
The solar energy converted to electricity heats the planet just as much as
it heats the surface without a panel.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you keep repeating this error?
> The solar energy converted to electricity heats the planet just as much as
> it heats the surface without a panel.


Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the planet.  Proof of this can be found by the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures that were MEASURED above six solar farms. 


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your original claim didn't mention waste heat, from solar or fossil fuels.
> Or that solar panels have a lower albedo.


Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the planet.  Proof of this can be found by the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures that were MEASURED above six solar farms.
> 
> Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.



*Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the planet. *

It warms the planet at the point of use. You know, conservation of energy. I can post a link.

*What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet*

The solar radiation warming the planet is higher with solar. 950>850


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It warms the planet at the point of use. You know, conservation of energy. I can post a link.


The incrementally COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms proves that the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet is not the same when solar panels are present because solar panels are converting solar radiation into electricity during the DAYTIME which is when solar panels convert solar radiation into electricity which is consistent with the conservation of energy.  Any solar radiation converted into electricity cannot generate electricity AND warm the surface of the planet without violating the law of conservation. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The solar radiation warming the planet is higher with solar. 950>850


Incorrect.  COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms says otherwise.  As for waste heat - which seems to be what you are relying upon - waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> The incrementally COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms proves that the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet is not the same when solar panels are present because solar panels are converting solar radiation into electricity during the DAYTIME which is when solar panels convert solar radiation into electricity which is consistent with the conservation of energy.  Any solar radiation converted into electricity cannot generate electricity AND warm the surface of the planet without violating the law of conservation.
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms says otherwise.  As for waste heat - which seems to be what you are relying upon - waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.



*Any solar radiation converted into electricity cannot generate electricity AND warm the surface of the planet without violating the law of conservation.*

When did electricity stop heating the planet?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Any solar radiation converted into electricity cannot generate electricity AND warm the surface of the planet without violating the law of conservation.*
> 
> When did electricity stop heating the planet?


Converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.



Electricity didn't stop heating the planet.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Electricity didn't stop heating the planet.


18 tW of continuous heat but relative to fossil fuels solar panels will cause a net cooling effect because solar effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.  According to the law of conservation solar radiation cannot heat the surface of the planet and be converted into electricity.

Proof that solar power effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet can be found in the incrementally COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot I think your problem in understanding this concept stems from your reluctance to agree that it's logical that solar farms would reduce the heat above solar farms during the daytime because solar is converting heat into electricity during the daytime.   You keep wanting to harp on the FLoT on the back-end (electricity use) but refuse to accept the FLoT on the front end (electricity generation).  

It would be so much easier if you would just accept that solar farms cause a cooling effect during daytime hours as a working fact of science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> 18 tW of continuous heat but relative to fossil fuels solar panels will cause a net cooling effect because solar effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.  According to the law of conservation solar radiation cannot heat the surface of the planet and be converted into electricity.
> 
> Proof that solar power effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet can be found in the incrementally COOLER DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED above six solar farms.



*According to the law of conservation solar radiation cannot heat the surface of the planet and be converted into electricity.*

But it doesn't say that. And you have the order wrong.
First, the radiation is converted into electricity, then, when the electricity is used, it produces heat.

*solar power effectively reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet*

At the panel. The heat is moved to point of use.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Toddsterpatriot I think your problem in understanding this concept stems from your reluctance to agree that it's logical that solar farms would reduce the heat above solar farms during the daytime because solar is converting heat into electricity during the daytime.   You keep wanting to harp on the FLoT on the back-end (electricity use) but refuse to accept the FLoT on the front end (electricity generation).
> 
> It would be so much easier if you would just accept that solar farms cause a cooling effect during daytime hours as a working fact of science.



* I think your problem in understanding this concept stems from your reluctance to agree that it's logical that solar farms would reduce the heat above solar farms during the daytime because solar is converting heat into electricity during the daytime.*

I already explained that 760 is less than 850. Did you miss that math?

Also, it's NOT converting heat into electricity.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But it doesn't say that. And you have the order wrong.
> First, the radiation is converted into electricity, then, when the electricity is used, it produces heat.


Whatever energy that was converted into electricity can't also have been used to heat the surface of the planet.  Right?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> At the panel. The heat is moved to point of use.


Let's do this one step at a time.  

Whatever energy that was converted into electricity can't also have been used to heat the surface of the planet. Right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Whatever energy that was converted into electricity can't also have been used to heat the surface of the planet.  Right?



When I use electricity, heat is produced.

Happens to you as well, right?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * I think your problem in understanding this concept stems from your reluctance to agree that it's logical that solar farms would reduce the heat above solar farms during the daytime because solar is converting heat into electricity during the daytime.*
> 
> I already explained that 760 is less than 850. Did you miss that math?
> 
> Also, it's NOT converting heat into electricity.


You can quibble all you want.  It doesn't change the fact that whatever energy that was converted into electricity can't also have been used to heat the surface of the planet.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When I use electricity, heat is produced.
> 
> Happens to you as well, right?


Can't discuss that until you admit that solar farms create a cooling effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Let's do this one step at a time.
> 
> Whatever energy that was converted into electricity can't also have been used to heat the surface of the planet. Right?



The energy that would have warmed the panel is moved to the city.
Then it heats the city.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Also, it's NOT converting heat into electricity.


What do you believe solar radiation is?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> You can quibble all you want.  It doesn't change the fact that whatever energy that was converted into electricity can't also have been used to heat the surface of the planet.



There is no quibble. The panel has a lower albedo than the surface.
Less energy is reflected back to space. Less reflected energy means a warmer planet.
Whether it warms the unplugged panel or warms the city if the panel is connected to the grid.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The energy that would have warmed the panel is moved to the city.
> Then it heats the city.


So you are saying there is a cooling effect at solar farms.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> There is no quibble. The panel has a lower albedo than the surface.
> Less energy is reflected back to space. Less reflected energy means a warmer planet.
> Whether it warms the unplugged panel or warms the city if the panel is connected to the grid.


All you have done is quibble.  For the most part it's all you ever do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> What do you believe solar radiation is?



_*Solar radiation*_*, often called the solar resource or just sunlight, is a general term for the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun. *









						Solar Radiation Basics
					

Learn the basics of solar radiation, also called sunlight or the solar resource, a general term for electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun.




					www.energy.gov


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> So you are saying there is a cooling effect at solar farms.



760 < 850


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> All you have done is quibble.  For the most part it's all you ever do.



I keep pointing out your errors.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _*Solar radiation*_*, often called the solar resource or just sunlight, is a general term for the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fantastic.  It's all heat.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 760 < 850


Is that a yes?  

So you have no issues with there being an expectation that solar farms will have a regional cooling effect?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I keep pointing out your errors.


I'm sure you believe you are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Fantastic.  It's all heat.



You think solar panels covert heat into electricity? That's funny!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Is that a yes?
> 
> So you have no issues with there being an expectation that solar farms will have a regional cooling effect?



So you have no issues with there being an expectation that using solar electricity will have a regional warming effect?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You think solar panels covert heat into electricity? That's funny!


I think you are showing everyone how butt hurt you are with your games.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So you have no issues with there being an expectation that using solar electricity will have a regional warming effect?


I have an issue with your statement that solar power results in net warming. 

Do you have any issue with there being an expectation that solar farms create a regional cooling effect as evidenced by measurements at six solar farms?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I think you are showing everyone how butt hurt you are with your games.



Pointing out your confusion doesn't hurt me even a little bit.

Tell me more about your heat powered solar panels!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Of course I have issues with that.
> 
> Do you have any issue with there being an expectation that solar farms create a regional cooling effect as evidenced by measurements at six solar farms?



Why would you have an issue with that?
Doesn't electricity usage generate waste heat?

I don't have an issue with 760 < 850. Do you?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pointing out your confusion doesn't hurt me even a little bit.
> 
> Tell me more about your heat powered solar panels!!!


Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would you have an issue with that?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> when you add back the 190 watts of heat in the city, the solar panel heats the planet more than the bare soil did. By 100 watts.


That's why.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Doesn't electricity usage generate waste heat?


I'll get to that when you agree that solar farms induce a regional cooling effect as measured at six solar farms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Thanks for proving my point.



I'm happy to show your lack of understanding of solar panels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> That's why.



You have an issue with 190 watts of heat added to the city?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I'll get to that when you agree that solar farms induce a regional cooling effect as measured at six solar farms.



Moving 190 watts to the city cools the solar farm......by 190 watts.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't have an issue with 760 < 850. Do you?


Why would I?  760 is less than 850.  

But that's still not you agreeing that solar farms induce a regional cooling effect as measured at six solar farms.  And I can't go on until you do.  Because you keep muddying the waters with it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Why would I?  760 is less than 850.
> 
> But that's still not you agreeing that solar farms induce a regional cooling effect as measured at six solar farms.  And I can't go on until you do.  Because you keep muddying the waters with it.



I'm glad you finally understand some of the math.

*But that's still not you agreeing that solar farms induce a regional cooling effect*

But that's still not you agreeing that solar electricity use induces a regional warming effect.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm glad you finally understand some of the math.
> 
> 
> But that's still not you agreeing that solar electricity use induces a regional warming effect.


Cool story.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet*  (760 < 850)*. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Cool story.



Doesn't electricity usage generate waste heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.



*Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases.*

Yes, 190 watts of nat gas electricity will heat the city just as much as 190 watts of solar electricity.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Doesn't electricity usage generate waste heat?


760<850


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet*  (760 < 850)*. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.



*What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet. *

That's true, because the lower albedo of the panel increases the solar radiation warming the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> 760<850



You left out the electricity....190


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 760 < 850


Thank you for agreeing with me that there is a cooling effect at solar farms.  That's all I really wanted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Thank you for agreeing with me that there is a cooling effect at solar farms.  That's all I really wanted.



Happy to help you with basic math.

Now, about your heat powered panels.........


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I have an issue with your statement that solar power results in net warming.



Because you don't understand albedo.

950>850


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So much for your claim that solar panels cool the planet because their electricity doesn't heat the surface.


Relative to fossil fuels it does.

Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet* (760 < 850)*. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

For solar farm daytime temperatures to be incrementally cooler the net albedo of the solar panels (after subtracting the solar radiation converted to electricity) must be effectively higher than bare earth, not lower.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Relative to fossil fuels it does.
> 
> Waste heat from electricity use is the same for all cases. It's in the case of generating electricity from 100% fossil fuels and it's in the case of generating electricity from 100% solar. So you will have exactly the same waste heat in both cases. What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet* (760 < 850)*. So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface of the planet which incrementally will result in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.



_Relative to fossil fuels it does._

If you want to change your claim, you should do that.

_What won't be the same is solar radiation warming the surface of the planet* (760 < 850)*. _

950. 

_So converting from fossil fuels to solar will keep the same waste heat and will reduce the effective solar radiation heating the surface_ 

The solar radiation heating the surface is increasing from 850 to 950.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> For solar farm daytime temperatures to be incrementally cooler the net albedo of the solar panels (after subtracting the solar radiation converted to electricity) must be effectively higher than bare earth, not lower.



The electricity generation doesn't reduce the heating of the planet, it simply moves a portion of it.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Relative to fossil fuels it does._
> 
> If you want to change your claim, you should do that.
> 
> ...


Same claim.  Glad you agree with it.

Your numbers are made up.  Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat.   Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power.  That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The electricity generation doesn't reduce the heating of the planet, it simply moves a portion of it.


Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power.   That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Same claim.  Glad you agree with it.
> 
> Your numbers are made up.  Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat.   Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power.  That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.


*
Same claim. Glad you agree with it.*

You agree that solar panels add heat to the Earth?

*Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet*

Ummmm......relative to fossil fuels?  You're changing your original claim?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power.   That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.



*That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.*

Because some heat was moved to the city.

Or do you think you've refuted conservation of energy?

Any more info on those heat powered solar panels? That'd be a huge breakthrough!


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You agree that solar panels add heat to the Earth?


Don't be silly.  Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ummmm......relative to fossil fuels? You're changing your original claim?


You do realize the aim is to replace electrical generation from fossil fuels with solar and wind, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> They were wrong.  ANY solar radiation that is converted into energy is solar radiation that does not heat the surface of the earth.  It's called conservation of energy and is the first law of thermodynamics.
> 
> We are in an interglacial cycle.  Our present temperature is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.  Everything is normal.  You are mistaking the natural variations of the earth's climate during an interglacial cycle with CO2.



No mention of "relative to fossil fuels" here.

Weird.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because some heat was moved to the city.
> 
> Or do you think you've refuted conservation of energy?
> 
> Any more info on those heat powered solar panels? That'd be a huge breakthrough!


Incorrect.  Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.  Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Don't be silly.  Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.
> 
> You do realize the aim is to replace electrical generation from fossil fuels with solar and wind, right?




*Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat.*

Relative to bare soil, solar panels retain more heat.

*You do realize the aim is to replace electrical generation from fossil fuels with solar and wind, right?*

You need to make that your new claim.

"We need the waste heat from fossil fuels to prevent the next glaciation".

That claim doesn't get the math and physics wrong, like your original one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.  Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.



*Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. *

Ignoring the solar power waste heat was your first error.

*there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet*

Ignoring the lower albedo of the solar panels was your second error.

With solar panels there is an increase in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet <fixed it


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No mention of "relative to fossil fuels" here.
> 
> Weird.


I was discussing the front end (electricity generation).  I wasn't discussing the back end (electricity usage).  Energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.  Energy is conserved on the back end (electricity usage) through waste heat that is the exact same for the fossil fuel case and the solar power case.  But because energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity converting from fossil fuels to solar will reduce the effective solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by the amount of solar radiation that was converted into electricity thus satisfying the conservation of energy.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Relative to bare soil, solar panels retain more heat.


Not according to daytime temperature measurements at six solar farms.  Besides you have already agreed to this.  Remember?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> 760 < 850


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You need to make that your new claim. "We need the waste heat from fossil fuels to prevent the next glaciation". That claim doesn't get the math and physics wrong, like your original one.


The claim has always and will always be... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms. Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ignoring the solar power waste heat was your first error.


I didn't ignore it.  Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms. Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ignoring the lower albedo of the solar panels was your second error.


For solar farm daytime temperatures to be incrementally cooler the net albedo of the solar panels (after subtracting the solar radiation converted to electricity) must be effectively higher than bare earth, not lower.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I was discussing the front end (electricity generation).  I wasn't discussing the back end (electricity usage).  Energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.  Energy is conserved on the back end (electricity usage) through waste heat that is the exact same for the fossil fuel case and the solar power case.  But because energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity converting from fossil fuels to solar will reduce the effective solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by the amount of solar radiation that was converted into electricity thus satisfying the conservation of energy.



*I was discussing the front end (electricity generation). I wasn't discussing the back end (electricity usage).*

I know, that's where you got the physics wrong.

*Energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.  Energy is conserved on the back end (electricity usage) through waste heat *

Exactly. I'm glad I could finally get you to realize you error.

* But because energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet *

Ummmm....you just admitted the waste heat warms the planet. There is no cooling from solar.

* converting from fossil fuels to solar*

If you stopped there, you'd eliminate your errors.
Solar doesn't cool the planet....ending fossil fuels will cool the planet.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> With solar panels there is an increase in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet <fixed it


Incorrect.  Your numbers are made up. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I was discussing the front end (electricity generation). I wasn't discussing the back end (electricity usage).*
> 
> I know, that's where you got the physics wrong.
> 
> ...


Again... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Not according to daytime temperature measurements at six solar farms.  Besides you have already agreed to this.  Remember?



You're saying "Look at the temperature in my freezer, it's colder. My freezer cools the planet"

*Besides you have already agreed to this.  Remember?*






Yes, I agree that moving heat from your freezer into your kitchen cooled your freezer.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're saying "Look at the temperature in my freezer, it's colder. My freezer cools the planet"
> 
> *Besides you have already agreed to this.  Remember?*
> 
> ...


I'm saying... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> The claim has always and will always be... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms. Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.



*The claim has always and will always be... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. *

That wasn't your claim here.......





__





						Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!
					

Gee i thought you were the wind and solar sage of the n=message board and yet you don't know what capacity factor is?  https://sunmetrix.com/what-is-capacity-factor-and-how-does-solar-energy-compare/   if we install 10 solar panels rated at 250 watts each, we will have a capacity of 2500 watts...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> For solar farm daytime temperatures to be incrementally cooler the net albedo of the solar panels (after subtracting the solar radiation converted to electricity) must be effectively higher than bare earth, not lower.



Net albedo? Is that like your heat powered solar panels (something you made up)?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The claim has always and will always be... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. *
> 
> That wasn't your claim here.......
> 
> ...


I've already addressed this in post #1151.  Here it is again.

_I was discussing the front end (electricity generation). I wasn't discussing the back end (electricity usage). Energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity. Energy is conserved on the back end (electricity usage) through waste heat that is the exact same for the fossil fuel case and the solar power case. But because energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity converting from fossil fuels to solar will reduce the effective solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by the amount of solar radiation that was converted into electricity thus satisfying the conservation of energy._​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  Your numbers are made up. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.



*Incorrect. Your numbers are made up. *

If you can find some data on solar panels with a higher albedo than bare soil, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm saying... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms.



*I'm saying... Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat.*

Yes, I see your new claim.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Net albedo? Is that like your heat powered solar panels (something you made up)?


You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which does not warm the surface of the planet.  I even explained it... _the net albedo of the solar panels (after subtracting the solar radiation converted to electricity)_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I've already addressed this in post #1151.  Here it is again.
> 
> _I was discussing the front end (electricity generation). I wasn't discussing the back end (electricity usage). Energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity. Energy is conserved on the back end (electricity usage) through waste heat that is the exact same for the fossil fuel case and the solar power case. But because energy is conserved in the front end (electricity generation) by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity converting from fossil fuels to solar will reduce the effective solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by the amount of solar radiation that was converted into electricity thus satisfying the conservation of energy._​



*I've already addressed this in post #1151. *

Yes, I see your new claim in post #1151 has fewer errors than your claim in post #296.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Incorrect. Your numbers are made up. *
> 
> If you can find some data on solar panels with a higher albedo than bare soil, I'd love to see it.


You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet.  It's the only way to explain why they measured cooler temperatures at six solar farms.  Your albedo argument is dead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which does not warm the surface of the planet.  I even explained it... _the net albedo of the solar panels (after subtracting the solar radiation converted to electricity)_



*You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which does not warm the surface of the planet. *

Why do you keep saying the waste heat doesn't heat the planet?

*I even explained it... *_*the net albedo *_

Yes, I saw your invented term "net albedo"......hilarious!


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I've already addressed this in post #1151. *
> 
> Yes, I see your new claim in post #1151 has fewer errors than your claim in post #296.


Post #296 was discussing the conservation of energy which explains why converting solar radiation into electricity resulted in cooler measured temperatures at six solar farms. 

If you keep this up Meister  will thread ban us both.  My answers haven't changed.  You are the one who is keeping this going.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet.  It's the only way to explain why they measured cooler temperatures at six solar farms.  Your albedo argument is dead.



*You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet.*

If I pump heat from point A to Point B, I'm not cooling the planet.

Why do you keeping claiming cooling?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Post #296 was discussing the conservation of energy which explains why converting solar radiation into electricity resulted in cooler measured temperatures at six solar farms.
> 
> If you keep this up Meister  will thread bad us both.  My answers haven't changed.  You are the one who is keeping this going.



*Post #296 was discussing the conservation of energy which explains why converting solar radiation into electricity resulted in cooler measured temperatures at six solar farms.*

Post #296 ignored conservation of energy.

*My answers haven't changed.*

I know, no matter how hard I try, I can't fix your stupid.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you keep saying the waste heat doesn't heat the planet?


I didn't say that.  I said incrementally there is no change in waste heat from electricity regardless of how it was generated but the same cannot be said about the reduction in solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet.  This is only an artifact of solar.  So incrementally changing from fossil fuels to solar will result in a cooling effect relative to using fossil fuels.  


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, I saw your invented term "net albedo"......hilarious!


The solar radiation that was converted into electricity has to be accounted for.  The cooler daytime temperatures measured at six solar farms does that.  You cannot count the full abedo as warming the surface of the planet when some of it is responsible for generating electricity.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Post #296 ignored conservation of energy.


Incorrect.  It discussed that for energy to be conserved any solar radiation converted into electricity must reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by a corresponding amount.  Which is why they measured cooler daytime temperatures at six solar farms.  Because energy was being conserved.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know, no matter how hard I try, I can't fix your stupid.


Personal attacks, huh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I didn't say that.  I said incrementally there is no change in waste heat from electricity regardless of how it was generated but the same cannot be said about the reduction in solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet.  This is only an artifact of solar.  So incrementally changing from fossil fuels to solar will result in a cooling effect relative to using fossil fuels.
> 
> The solar radiation that was converted into electricity has to be accounted for.  The cooler daytime temperatures measured at six solar farms does that.  You cannot count the full abedo as warming the surface of the planet when some of it is responsible for generating electricity.


*
I didn't say that.*

You did say that. Everytime you said , 

"You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet"

*The solar radiation that was converted into electricity has to be accounted for. *

It is. As waste heat after use.

*You cannot count the full abedo as warming the surface of the planet when some of it is responsible for generating electricity.*

850 was absorbed by the soil. 
950 is absorbed by the panel, 190 is moved to the city. 

How much of the 950 doesn't heat the planet?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If I pump heat from point A to Point B, I'm not cooling the planet.
> 
> Why do you keeping claiming cooling?


I've explained this at least a dozen times.  My answer isn't going to change.

Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms. Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  It discussed that for energy to be conserved any solar radiation converted into electricity must reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by a corresponding amount.  Which is why they measured cooler daytime temperatures at six solar farms.  Because energy was being conserved.



*It discussed that for energy to be conserved any solar radiation converted into electricity must reduce the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet by a corresponding amount.*

If energy is conserved why do you keep saying "reduction in solar radiation"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I've explained this at least a dozen times.  My answer isn't going to change.
> 
> Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat. Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is a reduction in solar radiation warming the surface of the planet generating electricity from solar power. That's why cooler daytime temperatures were measured at six solar farms. Energy is conserved by converting solar radiation that would have warmed the surface of the planet into electricity.



*Relative to electricity generated from fossil fuels there is no change in waste heat.*

Yes, keep changing the subject. Your original claim was embarrassing.

So how much does my freezer cool the planet?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You did say that. Everytime you said ,
> 
> "You have to account for the solar radiation converted into electricity which reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet"
> 
> ...


I've addressed this at least a dozen times.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If energy is conserved why do you keep saying "reduction in solar radiation"?


That was already explained too.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, keep changing the subject. Your original claim was embarrassing.
> 
> So how much does my freezer cool the planet?


Incorrect.  You misunderstood what I wrote.  Conservation of energy requires that any solar radiation converted into electricity can not also heat the surface of the planet and that's why they measured cooler DAYTIME temperatures at six solar farms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I've addressed this at least a dozen times.



And you've been wrong, at least a dozen times.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I've addressed this at least a dozen times.



All 950 heats the planet?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And you've been wrong, at least a dozen times.


Cooler DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED at SIX solar farms says otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  You misunderstood what I wrote.  Conservation of energy requires that any solar radiation converted into electricity can not also heat the surface of the planet and that's why they measured cooler DAYTIME temperatures at six solar farms.



Any heat moved from the solar farm to the city....heats the city.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> All 950 heats the planet?


Not in an incremental analysis comparing solar to fossil fuels it doesn't.  In an incremental analysis comparing fossil fuels to solar the waste heat is the same in both cases.  So incrementally solar results in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Any heat moved from the solar farm to the city....heats the city.


Already addressed.  Try again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Not in an incremental analysis comparing solar to fossil fuels it doesn't.  In an incremental analysis comparing fossil fuels to solar the waste heat is the same in both cases.  So incrementally solar results in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.









What's your secret?

How does your air conditioner not warm the environment?


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 26, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042






  The area you show is approximately the same area as South Carolina, which is saying that you would need about 12,400,000,000 solar panels assuming each was a size of 2' X 3'.  That would cost about 1.2 trillion dollars just in panels roughly and another amount about equal in hardware to mount them and move them according to time of day with labor so figure on about a 2.5 to 3 trillion dollar outlay just to build it, and another 500 billion for the 60Hz inverters needed to convert the output to AC plus another 500 billion roughly to store the power during the night plus about another 5 billion annually to maintain it, so figure on about having a 5 trillion overhead to play with before you can even think about doing it or about 1/6th the total national debt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Already addressed.  Try again.



Right. Moving heat from A to B doesn't cool the planet.

Already addressed.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 662691
> 
> What's your secret?
> 
> How does your air conditioner not warm the environment?


Adiabatic processes


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Moving heat from A to B doesn't cool the planet


Correct.  Converting to a generating source that converts solar radiation into electricity does.  The waste heat is the same regardless of how the electricity was generated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Adiabatic processes



If you have an air conditioner that doesn't let heat leave your house, you need to return it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Correct.  Converting to a generating source that converts solar radiation into electricity does.  The waste heat is the same regardless of how the electricity was generated.



*Converting to a generating source that converts solar radiation into electricity does*

Converting solar radiation into electricity doesn't heat _or_ cool the planet.
Covering the planet with lower albedo panels _will_ heat the planet.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Converting solar radiation into electricity doesn't heat _or_ cool the planet.


I've already explained how dozens of times.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Covering the planet with lower albedo panels _will_ heat the planet.


I've addressed this already too.  At least twice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I've already explained how dozens of times.



You explained how it won't heat or cool the planet?


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You explained how it won't heat or cool the planet?


I explained everything to you.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 26, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> But, that's what happened, Boris broke the law and paid between £200 and £10,000. So he's complied with the law and the punishment (the fine), was dish out and served (and this paid). So that's the end of the matter, right?


I'd say legally yes but politically, probably not.  Personally I'd prefer my politicians to moral.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> Of course they do.  People break laws all the time.


And they pay the price if they're caught.  Unless they're Trump.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> And they pay the price if they're caught.


That's all part of the choice.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 26, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> And they pay the price if they're caught.  Unless they're Trump.


Welcome to Xidenerica Mr. VanWinkle!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I explained everything to you.



LOL!


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LOL!


I thought so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> I thought so.



Yes, your "explanations" that still get the math and physics wrong are funny.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, your "explanations" that still get the math and physics wrong are funny.


There, there, get it out of your system.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2022)

ding said:


> There, there, get it out of your system.



I don't think I'll ever stop laughing at your errors.


----------



## ding (Jun 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't think I'll ever stop laughing at your errors.


That's nice.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 27, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'd say legally yes but politically, probably not.  Personally I'd prefer my politicians to moral.


Probably due to social media, this has caused a change in society where now the sentence/punishment laid down by law just seems to be enough for many. They wanting people sacked and fined again, OBE's and peerages removed. They want awards removed etc..

These people just go on and on and on and on and on.......to get their way that has nothing to do with the law.


----------



## ding (Jun 27, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'd say legally yes but politically, probably not.  Personally I'd prefer my politicians to moral.


As long as their idea of what's moral lines up with your idea of whats moral, right?  

Which is why I'd prefer that they protect the sovereign interest of our nation despite what is perceived as being moral.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 27, 2022)

ding said:


> As long as their idea of what's moral lines up with your idea of whats moral, right?


I thought you were the moral absolutist?  One set of morals for everyone.  



ding said:


> Which is why I'd prefer that they protect the sovereign interest of our nation despite what is perceived as being moral.


The end justifies the means?  Hitler shared that morality.


----------



## ding (Jun 27, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The end justifies the means? Hitler shared that morality.


The end justifies the means is for people who need to justify they didn't do wrong.  The act of justification is how they gradually move away from is good and just.  


alang1216 said:


> I thought you were the moral absolutist? One set of morals for everyone.


I'm not sure I'd describe myself as a moral absolutist.  I'm not even sure what that means.  I'm complex.  

One set of morals for everyone?  Whose morals would that be?


----------



## Batcat (Jun 27, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


So what happens if we have a major volcano eruption and another “year without a summer.” 









						What was the “Year Without a Summer”?
					

In the summer of 1816, the Northern Hemisphere was plagued by a weather disruption of seemingly biblical proportions. Following a relatively ordinary early




					www.history.com
				




In the summer of 1816, the Northern Hemisphere was plagued by a weather disruption of seemingly biblical proportions. Following a relatively ordinary early spring, temperatures in the eastern United States plunged back below freezing, and communities from New England to Virginia experienced heavy snowfalls and crop-killing frost during June, July and August. Europe also found itself in the grip of an unseasonable chill. Winter snows refused to melt, and between April and September, some parts of the Continent were drenched by as many as many as 130 days of rain. The unrelenting gloom inspired author Mary Shelley to write her famous novel “Frankenstein,” but it also wreaked havoc on farmers. Crops failed across Europe and China, spawning deadly famines and outbreaks of typhus and other diseases. In India, the disturbances gave rise to a virulent new strain of cholera that eventually killed millions. The suffering in the United States was less pronounced, but many still felt the squeeze of soaring grain prices. Some poorer Americans were even reduced to eating hedgehogs and scrounging for wild turnips.

What caused this calamitous “Year Without a Summer?” At the time, many people believed the chaos was some form of divine retribution, but most scientists now place the lion’s share of the blame on an Indonesian volcano called Mount Tambora. In early 1815, Tambora roared to life with one of the most devastating volcanic eruptions on record—an explosion 10 times more powerful than Krakatoa. Along with killing thousands of locals, the blast also spewed sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The ash cloud drifted across the globe in the months that followed, blotting out the sun and creating a volcanic winter. When combined with the lingering effects of the Little Ice Age—a period of global cooling that lasted from the 14th to 19th centuries—the sun-sapping pall was enough to lower the planet’s average temperature and send weather patterns into a tailspin.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 28, 2022)

ding said:


> The end justifies the means is for people who need to justify they didn't do wrong.  The act of justification is how they gradually move away from is good and just.


That seems to contradict your previous statement, "Which is why I'd prefer that they protect the sovereign interest of our nation despite what is perceived as being moral".



ding said:


> I'm not sure I'd describe myself as a moral absolutist.  I'm not even sure what that means.  I'm complex.
> 
> One set of morals for everyone?  Whose morals would that be?


Did I confuse you with a believer in God?


----------



## sparky (Jun 28, 2022)

Batcat said:


> So what happens if we have a major volcano eruption and another “year without a summer.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Evident just how delicate our ecosystem really is Batcat

~S~


----------



## ding (Jun 28, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> That seems to contradict your previous statement, "Which is why I'd prefer that they protect the sovereign interest of our nation despite what is perceived as being moral".


How so?  I am arguing one shouldn't justify his actions as good and just when they aren't because that's how people (and nations) move away from being good and just. 

Sometimes protecting the sovereign interest of a nation doesn't line up with being moral.  In those instances it's better not to rationalize they do.  Rationalizing that wrong wasn't done (i.e. failing to be accountable) is the original sin.


----------



## ding (Jun 28, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Did I confuse you with a believer in God?


No.  Your understanding of me and your understanding of these concepts is blinded by your bias.  It's complicated and complex enough without the baggage of bias.  In short, even though I believe in absolute truth and absolute right and wrong - which BTW does not make me a moral absolutist - it doesn't mean I always follow it.  But I will have a much better chance of following it the next time, if I don't rationalize that I did when I don't.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 28, 2022)

ding said:


> How so?  I am arguing one shouldn't justify his actions as good and just when they aren't because that's how people (and nations) move away from being good and just.


My bad, I just assumed that people (and nations) moving away from being good and just was not a desirable goal.



ding said:


> Sometimes protecting the sovereign interest of a nation doesn't line up with being moral.  In those instances it's better not to rationalize they do.  Rationalizing that wrong wasn't done (i.e. failing to be accountable) is the original sin.


So protecting the sovereign interest of a nation by immoral actions is acceptable to you?  Putin would agree.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 28, 2022)

ding said:


> No.  Your understanding of me and your understanding of these concepts is blinded by your bias.  It's complicated and complex enough without the baggage of bias.  In short, even though I believe in absolute truth and absolute right and wrong - which BTW does not make me a moral absolutist - it doesn't mean I always follow it.  But I will have a much better chance of following it the next time, if I don't rationalize that I did when I don't.


If you believe in absolute truth and absolute right and wrong your are by definition a moral absolutist, IMHO.  But fear not, I never thought of you as having God-like perfection.


----------



## ding (Jun 28, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> My bad, I just assumed that people (and nations) moving away from being good and just was not a desirable goal.


You have simplistic worldview.  In your worldview people are either all good or all bad.  People are more complex than that.  


alang1216 said:


> So protecting the sovereign interest of a nation by immoral actions is acceptable to you? Putin would agree.


This is exactly what I would expect someone with a simplistic worldview to say.


----------



## ding (Jun 28, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> If you believe in absolute truth and absolute right and wrong your are by definition a moral absolutist, IMHO.  But fear not, I never thought of you as having God-like perfection.


According to you.  Not according to me.  According to me believing in absolute truth and absolute right and wrong means just that and nothing more.  It's convenient for you to use labels.  It makes it easier for you to feel superior and look down your pointy nose at others - for no other reason than they have different beliefs than you.  Me?  I'm no saint.  Never claimed I was but I learn from my mistakes because I'm honest about my mistakes.  

As for sovereign nations protecting the interest of their nation through immoral actions, America fire bombed Germany and Japan with white phosphorous and dropped two nukes.  The difference between that and what Putin has done is that he was the aggressor, America wasn't.  But all were immoral acts.  

Shouldn't you be rationalizing you are a good guy about something?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 24, 2022)

ding said:


> It's odd how the decreasing albedo of solar panel results in 2C cooler daytime temps.  Oh... no... it's not.  It's due to the FLoT of converting solar radiation into electricity.  Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.



*Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.*

What about a few seconds later? Or do only fossil fuel electrons heat things up?
Solar power electrons are magic?


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

ding said:


> Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.



I didn't realize modern solar PV panels were superconducting.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> I didn't realize modern solar PV panels were superconducting.


I’m guessing you don’t know how PV cells produce electricity or how photons warm the surface of the planet absent PV cells.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.*
> 
> What about a few seconds later? Or do only fossil fuel electrons heat things up?
> Solar power electrons are magic?


So dumb.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2022)

ding said:


> So dumb.



I know.
Despite all my efforts.
But I still have hope for you.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

ding said:


> I’m guessing you don’t know how PV cells produce electricity or how photons warm the surface of the planet absent PV cells.


Unfortunately for you, I know both.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 25, 2022)

ding said:


> I’m guessing you don’t know how PV cells produce electricity or how photons warm the surface of the planet absent PV cells.



Or how photons warm the planet, even with PV cells.


----------



## there4eyeM (Oct 25, 2022)

There is a lot of hot air doing a share of warming.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know.
> Despite all my efforts.
> But I still have hope for you.


Textbook dunning effect


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> Unfortunately for you, I know both.


Please enlighten me.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or how photons warm the planet, even with PV cells.


Please enlighten me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

ding said:


> Textbook dunning effect



Still hope for you......but dimming rapidly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

ding said:


> Please enlighten me.



I have to explain the FLoT again?


----------



## Crick (Oct 28, 2022)

ding said:


> Please enlighten me.


No my yob, man.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still hope for you......but dimming rapidly.


Still the dunning effect.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I have to explain the FLoT again?


The next time you explain your misuse of it will be the first time you explained your misuse of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

ding said:


> The next time you explain your misuse of it will be the first time you explained your misuse of it.



*Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.*

Why not?


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.*
> 
> Why not?


When you understand how photons produce heat then you will know why.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

ding said:


> When you understand how photons produce heat then you will know why.



When you understand that using electricity produces heat, you'll realize your error.


----------



## ding (Oct 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When you understand that using electricity produces heat, you'll realize your error.


Or does work.  But whatever waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source.  So replacing fossil fuels with solar power doesn’t change the amount of waste heat from electricity usage. But solar does produce an incremental cooling effect at the solar farm because photons - which would have otherwise produced heat - was converted into electricity instead.

So the error is all yours and you know it.


----------



## Crick (Oct 29, 2022)

ding said:


> Or does work.  But whatever waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source.  So replacing fossil fuels with solar power doesn’t change the amount of waste heat from electricity usage. But solar does produce an incremental cooling effect at the solar farm because photons - which would have otherwise produced heat - was converted into electricity instead.
> 
> So the error is all yours and you know it.


Have you considered that the use of electricity and the generation of electricity are two different processes taking place at different times and different locations?  Also, if you're attempting to use the Law of Conservation of Waste Heat, you've failed to read all the provisos...


----------



## abu afak (Oct 29, 2022)

Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?​It turns out there’s a lot of inertia built into the energy system.
Oct 8, 2021





Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?​The cost of renewable energy, and solar in particular, has plummeted in the last decade. So why has there not been a green revolution?



www.popsci.com

""Solar, in particular, has cheapened at a blistering pace. Just 10 years ago, it was the most expensive option for building a new energy development. Since then, that cost has dropped by 90%, according to data from the Levelized Cost of Energy Report and as highlighted recently by Our World in Data. *Utility-scale solar arrays are now the least costly option to build and operate.*"









`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2022)

ding said:


> Or does work.  But whatever waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source.  So replacing fossil fuels with solar power doesn’t change the amount of waste heat from electricity usage. But solar does produce an incremental cooling effect at the solar farm because photons - which would have otherwise produced heat - was converted into electricity instead.
> 
> So the error is all yours and you know it.



*Or does work. But whatever waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source.*

_Can't capture the electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time._

So you're finally admitting your error.

The waste heat from solar means you can capture electricity for later use and heat the surface of the planet at the same time.

*But solar does produce an incremental cooling effect at the solar farm because photons - which would have otherwise produced heat - was converted into electricity instead.*

Moving heat from a solar farm to my microwave doesn't cool the planet, does it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Solar power got cheap. So why aren’t we using it more?​It turns out there’s a lot of inertia built into the energy system.
> Oct 8, 2021
> 
> 
> ...



*The cost of renewable energy, and solar in particular, has plummeted in the last decade. So why has there not been a green revolution?*

Unreliable, low capacity renewable energy is expensive....when you need 24-7 power.


----------



## Crick (Oct 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The cost of renewable energy, and solar in particular, has plummeted in the last decade. So why has there not been a green revolution?*
> 
> Unreliable, low capacity renewable energy is expensive....when you need 24-7 power.


The cost of dealing with the effects of unchecked global warming will trump every other expense the human race has ever suffered by an order of magnitude.  At least.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2022)

Crick said:


> The cost of dealing with the effects of unchecked global warming will trump every other expense the human race has ever suffered by an order of magnitude.  At least.



Obviously.
When you count every storm, every flood as caused by AGW, it adds up quickly.


----------



## Flash (Oct 29, 2022)

Solar and wind power are for queers and dumbasses to stupid too understand basic Physics.


----------



## Crick (Oct 29, 2022)

Flash said:


> Solar and wind power are for queers and dumbasses to stupid too understand basic Physics.


Which basic physics would that be?


----------



## ding (Nov 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Have you considered that the use of electricity and the generation of electricity are two different processes taking place at different times and different locations?  Also, if you're attempting to use the Law of Conservation of Waste Heat, you've failed to read all the provisos...


I can’t think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar power in the middle of an ice age.


----------



## ding (Nov 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Moving heat from a solar farm to my microwave doesn't cool the planet, does it?


No incremental change in waste heat from electricity usage. Waste heat is the same regardless of the generating technology.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2022)

ding said:


> No incremental change in waste heat from electricity usage. Waste heat is the same regardless of the generating technology.



So the farm cooling isn't net cooling of the planet?


----------



## ding (Nov 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So the farm cooling isn't net cooling of the planet?


Photons are energy. Heat is energy. But photons are not heat. Photons produce heat by striking atoms and causing atoms to excite and move. It is the movement of the atoms that the photons struck that produces the heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2022)

ding said:


> Photons are energy. Heat is energy. But photons are not heat. Photons produce heat by striking atoms and causing atoms to excite and move. It is the movement of the atoms that the photons struck that produces the heat.



*"Any solar radiation that is used to produce energy is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. If you reduce the solar radiation the planet receives it will result in a net cooling effect"*

How does that net cooling effect work?


----------



## ding (Nov 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *"Any solar radiation that is used to produce energy is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. If you reduce the solar radiation the planet receives it will result in a net cooling effect"*
> 
> How does that net cooling effect work?


Why do you want the planet to be colder in the middle of an ice age?


----------



## The Duke (Nov 1, 2022)

myself said:


> How much will it cost when we destroy the world with human caused global warming.  Also, I have mentioned here and there how much more cheaply workers in China can make things than we can here in the U.S.  But I think that part of the reason they can do so as cheaply is that the government houses them.  To whatever degree, feeds and cloths them.  As well as educate them, etc.  With that much of their living expenses being taken care of, it's no wonder that they can make things cheaper than us.  So as far as solar panels here in the U.S. goes, it would basically cost as much as the government wanted to pay for them.  If they depend on private capitalist industry to do the job, it will cost up the ass.  And probably then some.


Stupid fucks like you are willing to sacrifice all of humanity in the name of global warming. There won't be any clothes, or farmed

food, vehicles, or electricity if you retards get your way. Civilization will be reduced to a few illiterate nomadic tribes.

Fuckin' tards. You're out to destroy the progress, cultures, and records of every civilization ever.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2022)

ding said:


> Why do you want the planet to be colder in the middle of an ice age?



How does moving some heat from solar farm to city make the planet colder?
Especially when the lower albedo means more heat retained near the surface.


----------



## ding (Nov 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does moving some heat from solar farm to city make the planet colder?
> Especially when the lower albedo means more heat retained near the surface.


Waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source. So replacing fossil fuels with solar power doesn’t change the amount of waste heat from electricity usage. But solar does produce an incremental cooling effect at the solar farm because photons - which would have otherwise produced heat - was converted into electricity instead.


----------



## ding (Nov 1, 2022)

less infrared heat emitted at the solar farms after the panels were installed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2022)

ding said:


> Waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source. So replacing fossil fuels with solar power doesn’t change the amount of waste heat from electricity usage. But solar does produce an incremental cooling effect at the solar farm because photons - which would have otherwise produced heat - was converted into electricity instead.



*Waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source. *

If only that was your original claim......instead of your FLoT error...."*Any solar radiation that is used to produce energy is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet*"


----------



## ding (Nov 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source. *
> 
> If only that was your original claim......instead of your FLoT error...."*Any solar radiation that is used to produce energy is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet*"


less infrared heat emitted at the solar farms after the panels were installed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2022)

ding said:


> less infrared heat emitted at the solar farms after the panels were installed.



more infrared heat emitted at the city after the electricity is used.


----------



## ding (Nov 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> more infrared heat emitted at the city after the electricity is used.


Or does work. But whatever waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source. So replacing fossil fuels with solar power doesn’t change the amount of waste heat from electricity usage. But solar does produce an incremental cooling effect at the solar farm because photons - which would have otherwise produced heat - was converted into electricity instead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2022)

ding said:


> Or does work. But whatever waste heat generated from electricity use is independent of the generating source. So replacing fossil fuels with solar power doesn’t change the amount of waste heat from electricity usage. But solar does produce an incremental cooling effect at the solar farm because photons - which would have otherwise produced heat - was converted into electricity instead.



If only that was your original claim......instead of your FLoT error...."*Any solar radiation that is used to produce energy is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet*"


----------



## ding (Nov 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If only that was your original claim......instead of your FLoT error...."*Any solar radiation that is used to produce energy is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet*"


Less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. 

Toddsterpatriot jc456 and Crick have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation. Back radiation adds 340.3 W/m^2.  For an incoming grand total of 503.6 W/m^2. 

398.2 W/m^2 is outgoing from the surface of the land. Another 18.4 W/m^2 is outgoing from conduction/convection. And another 86.4 W/m^2 outgoing from evapotranspiration. For an outgoing grand total of 503.0 W/m^2.

Subtracting the outgoing from the incoming (503.6 - 503.0) gives a 0.6 W/m^2 of net energy absorbed by the landmass surface of the planet.  Correct?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

So if the net energy absorbed by the land mass surface of the planet is 0.6 W/m^2 and the incoming solar radiation is 163.3 W/m^2, how much of a reduction of incoming solar radiation would be required to lower the present 0.6 W/m^2 of net warming to a -0.1 W/m^2 net cooling?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

It’s just math people.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Here’s a clue.  45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

So how much energy from photons would have to be converted into electricity to turn a net warming of 0.6 W/m^2 into a net cooling of -0.1 W/m^2?

It’s just math.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Turns out to be pretty simple math.  We only need to decrease solar radiation from photons by 0.7 W/m^2.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

So how much area of the earth’s landmasses would have to be covered with PV cells to result in a 0.7 W/m^2 reduction in net energy absorbed by the landmass of the planet?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

That too turns out to be pretty simple math.

The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation.

45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).

So since 45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light) we divide the 0.7 W/m^2 needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling by 0.45.  0.7 W/m^2 divided by 0.45 equals 1.56 W/m^2. 

1.56 W/m^2 divided by 163.3 W/m^2 we get 0.0096 or 0.96%.

So covering 1% of the planet’s  landmass with PV cells will result in a net cooling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.



The much lower albedo of the solar panels results in a warmer planet, even if the electricty produced resulted in no waste heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> So if the net energy absorbed by the land mass surface of the planet is 0.6 W/m^2 and the incoming solar radiation is 163.3 W/m^2, how much of a reduction of incoming solar radiation would be required to lower the present 0.6 W/m^2 of net warming to a -0.1 W/m^2 net cooling?



Ding thinks lowering the albedo of the surface results in a "reduction of incoming solar radiation"

Hilarious!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> So how much area of the earth’s landmasses would have to be covered with PV cells to result in a 0.7 W/m^2 reduction in net energy absorbed by the landmass of the planet?



76 is still larger than 60. LOL!
Even ignoring more heat absorbed by the atmosphere.
Even ignoring more back radiation from waste heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The much lower albedo of the solar panels results in a warmer planet, even if the electricty produced resulted in no waste heat.


Incorrect. Less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> That too turns out to be pretty simple math.
> 
> The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation.
> 
> ...



*45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).*

100% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons, moron.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ding thinks lowering the albedo of the surface results in a "reduction of incoming solar radiation"
> 
> Hilarious!!!


The lower albedo was more than offset by the conversion of photons into electricity. Which is why less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect. Less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.



I already explained that air circulation over, under, between solar panel installations carries away heat faster than heat is carried away from bare ground.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The lower albedo was more than offset by the conversion of photons into electricity. Which is why less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.



Moving energy to the city doesn't "offset" the increase in retained energy. 
It's a First Law thing.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ding thinks lowering the albedo of the surface results in a "reduction of incoming solar radiation"
> 
> Hilarious!!!


Ding believes that converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise resulted in producing warming reduces the energy that warms the surface of the planet and that’s why less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Moving energy to the city doesn't "offset" the increase in retained energy.
> It's a First Law thing.


I believe the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.   

You believe that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I already explained that air circulation over, under, between solar panel installations carries away heat faster than heat is carried away from bare ground.


The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. 

You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).*
> 
> 100% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons, moron.


Incorrect. 

Of the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface, 54% is already heat (infrared), 45% is visible light, and about 1% at shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet).









						Thermal Energy from Light
					

Modern society is built on the consumption of fossil fuels, mostly petroleum (oil), natural gas, and coal. The decaying of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago created these fossil fuels. As the ...



					serc.carleton.edu


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Ding believes that converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise resulted in producing warming reduces the energy that warms the surface of the planet and that’s why less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.



Retaining 35% more solar energy means a warmer planet.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Todd practices the time honored cultural Marxist practice of critical theory. 

He doesn’t have beliefs he only can criticize what he doesn’t believe. 

He can’t actually state what something is in a sequential logical fashion. He can only state what he believes it isn’t.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Retaining 35% more solar energy means a warmer planet.


Less infrared heat measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed says otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.
> 
> You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.
> 
> ...



*You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.*

If the waste heat from electricity heats the air, how does that help your claim that the planet 
is cooler?

*A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total*

How large a portion? Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Of the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface, 54% is already heat (infrared), 45% is visible light, and about 1% at shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet).
> 
> ...



*Of the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface, 54% is already heat (infrared), 45% is visible light, and about 1% at shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet).*

54% + 45% + 1% = 100% photons.

DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Todd practices the time honored cultural Marxist practice of critical theory.
> 
> He doesn’t have beliefs he only can criticize what he doesn’t believe.
> 
> He can’t actually state what something is in a sequential logical fashion. He can only state what he believes it isn’t.








Show me on this doll where the Marxist touched you.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.*
> 
> If the waste heat from electricity heats the air, how does that help your claim that the planet
> is cooler?
> ...


The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. 

You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Of the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface, 54% is already heat (infrared), 45% is visible light, and about 1% at shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet).*
> 
> 54% + 45% + 1% = 100% photons.
> 
> DURR


The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. 

You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Of the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface, 54% is already heat (infrared), 45% is visible light, and about 1% at shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet).*
> 
> 54% + 45% + 1% = 100% photons.
> 
> DURR


The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. 

You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Less infrared heat measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed says otherwise.



Moving electricity to the city or warming the air near the panels doesn't reduce the amount of energy retained.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 729129
> 
> Show me on this doll where the Marxist touched you.


The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. 

You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

When ding starts repeating himself, you know he's been defeated.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Moving electricity to the city or warming the air near the panels doesn't reduce the amount of energy retained.


The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.

You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

It will only take installing PV cells on 1% of the earth’s landmass to change the planet from net warming to net cooling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> it will only take installing PV cells on 1% of the earth’s landmass to change the planet from net warming to net cooling.



The First Law says you're wrong. Wrong, the opposite of right.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

It’s just math.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The First Law says you're wrong. Wrong, the opposite of right.


The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. 

You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.
> 
> You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.
> 
> ...



The widespread use of solar power is a fine idea in the middle of an ice age because retaining 95% of solar radiation makes the planet warmer than retaining 60% of solar radiation.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The widespread use of solar power is a fine idea in the middle of an ice age because retaining 95% of solar radiation makes the planet warmer than retaining 60% of solar radiation.


The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. 

You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ozro (Nov 21, 2022)

Because that ding-dong posted the same post 20+ times, I put the fool on ignore. What an arrogant asshole.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation. Back radiation adds 340.3 W/m^2. For an incoming grand total of 503.6 W/m^2. 

398.2 W/m^2 is outgoing from the surface of the land. Another 18.4 W/m^2 is outgoing from conduction/convection. And another 86.4 W/m^2 outgoing from evapotranspiration. For an outgoing grand total of 503.0 W/m^2.

Subtracting the outgoing from the incoming (503.6 - 503.0) gives a 0.6 W/m^2 of net energy absorbed by the landmass surface of the planet.

So how much energy from photons being converted into electricity would it take to lower the present 0.6 W/m^2 of net warming to a net cooling of -0.1 W/m^2?

The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation.

45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).

So since 45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light) we divide the 0.7 W/m^2 needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling by 0.45. 0.7 W/m^2 divided by 0.45 equals 1.56 W/m^2. 

1.56 W/m^2 divided by 163.3 W/m^2 we get 0.0096 or 0.96%.

So covering 1% of the planet’s landmass with PV cells will result in a net cooling.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2022)

ozro said:


> Because that ding-dong posted the same post 20+ times, I put the fool on ignore. What an arrogant asshole.


Me too.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> Me too.


I suspect it has more to do with your inability to reconcile why it was 2C warmer in the past than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> 45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).



100% is photons.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 100% is photons.


Incorrect. 

Of the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface, 54% is already heat (infrared), 45% is visible light, and about 1% at shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet).









						Thermal Energy from Light
					

Modern society is built on the consumption of fossil fuels, mostly petroleum (oil), natural gas, and coal. The decaying of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago created these fossil fuels. As the ...



					serc.carleton.edu


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Of the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface, 54% is already heat (infrared), 45% is visible light, and about 1% at shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet).
> 
> ...








Ding thinks infrared radiation isn't photons.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 729143
> 
> Ding thinks infrared radiation isn't photons.


Arguments of semantics is Marxist critical theory at its best.

*Solar panels mostly convert visible light into electrical energy*, and they also can make use of almost half the infrared energy.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation. Back radiation adds 340.3 W/m^2. For an incoming grand total of 503.6 W/m^2. 

398.2 W/m^2 is outgoing from the surface of the land. Another 18.4 W/m^2 is outgoing from conduction/convection. And another 86.4 W/m^2 outgoing from evapotranspiration. For an outgoing grand total of 503.0 W/m^2.

Subtracting the outgoing from the incoming (503.6 - 503.0) gives a 0.6 W/m^2 of net energy absorbed by the landmass surface of the planet.

So how much energy from photons being converted into electricity would it take to lower the present 0.6 W/m^2 of net warming to a net cooling of -0.1 W/m^2?

The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation.

45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (*light*).

So since 45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (*light*) we divide the 0.7 W/m^2 needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling by 0.45. 0.7 W/m^2 divided by 0.45 equals 1.56 W/m^2. 

1.56 W/m^2 divided by 163.3 W/m^2 we get 0.0096 or 0.96%.

So covering 1% of the planet’s landmass with PV cells will result in a net cooling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Arguments of semantics is Marxist critical theory at its best.
> 
> *Solar panels mostly convert visible light into electrical energy*, and they also can make use of almost half the infrared energy.



Is that when you say something stupid and I correct you?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that when you say something stupid and I correct you?


No. It’s what I say when you intentionally take posts out of context to try to play the gotcha game.

PV cells primarily convert visible light into electricity which is why I used visible light in my calculations.  Calculations you have yet to refute.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation. Back radiation adds 340.3 W/m^2. For an incoming grand total of 503.6 W/m^2.
> 
> 398.2 W/m^2 is outgoing from the surface of the land. Another 18.4 W/m^2 is outgoing from conduction/convection. And another 86.4 W/m^2 outgoing from evapotranspiration. For an outgoing grand total of 503.0 W/m^2.
> 
> ...















						What Is Infrared?
					

Infrared radiation is a type of electromagnetic radiation. It is invisible to human eyes, but people can feel it as heat.




					www.livescience.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> No. It’s what I say when you intentionally take posts out of context to try to play the gotcha game.



What context in your posts makes your errors.....not errors?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What context in your posts makes your errors.....not errors?


The one where PV cells primarily convert visible light into electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> 45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (*light*).



And the rest is from light (photons) outside the visible spectrum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The one where PV cells primarily convert visible light into electricity.



76% is still larger than 60%.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And the rest is from light (photons) outside the visible spectrum.


The spectrum is UV, visible and infrared.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 76% is still larger than 60%.


And yet less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. So your math is wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> No. It’s what I say when you intentionally take posts out of context to try to play the gotcha game.
> 
> PV cells primarily convert visible light into electricity which is why I used visible light in my calculations.  Calculations you have yet to refute.



PV cells absorb more visible light than sand does. That's why they result in a warmer planet.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PV cells absorb more visible light than sand does. That's why they result in a warmer planet.


Measured values at six solar farms says you  are wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The spectrum is UV, visible and infrared.



And radio waves and microwaves and x-rays and gamma rays.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> And yet less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. So your math is wrong.



Moving energy to the city and warming the air circulating over, under and between the panels 
tends to cool the panels.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And radio waves and microwaves and x-rays and gamma rays.


Sure. So what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> And yet less infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. So your math is wrong.



How is "76 is larger than 60" wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Sure. So what?








So your claim was wrong.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Moving energy to the city and warming the air circulating over, under and between the panels
> tends to cool the panels.


The widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms after PV cells were installed. 

You have argued that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 729156
> 
> So your claim was wrong.


Your response and logic is textbook Cultural Marxist Critical Theory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Your response and logic is textbook Cultural Marxist Critical Theory.



You were wrong and I corrected you....I must be a Marxist.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You were wrong and I corrected you....I must be a Marxist.


Not even close to the truth. Also a trait of CMCT.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Not even close to the truth. Also a trait of CMTC.



Ding is sad.

I must be a Marxist.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation. Back radiation adds 340.3 W/m^2. For an incoming grand total of 503.6 W/m^2. 

398.2 W/m^2 is outgoing from the surface of the land. Another 18.4 W/m^2 is outgoing from conduction/convection. And another 86.4 W/m^2 outgoing from evapotranspiration. For an outgoing grand total of 503.0 W/m^2.

Subtracting the outgoing from the incoming (503.6 - 503.0) gives a 0.6 W/m^2 of net energy absorbed by the landmass surface of the planet.

So how much energy from photons being converted into electricity would it take to lower the present 0.6 W/m^2 of net warming to a net cooling of -0.1 W/m^2?

The landmass surface of the earth absorbs 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation.

45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).

So since 45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light) we divide the 0.7 W/m^2 needed to change the planet from net warming to net cooling by 0.45. 0.7 W/m^2 divided by 0.45 equals 1.56 W/m^2. 

1.56 W/m^2 divided by 163.3 W/m^2 we get 0.0096 or 0.96%.

So covering 1% of the planet’s landmass with PV cells will result in a net cooling.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> 45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (*light*).
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Dude--- the photon is the force carrier for all wavelengths in the EM spectrum from radio to gamma!  Please tell me, other than the solid charged particles outgassing in the solar wind, just what the hell the other 55% of the solar radiation is that is NOT electromagnetic?!


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Dude--- the photon is the force carrier for all wavelengths in the EM spectrum from radio to gamma!  Please tell me, other than the solid charged particles outgassing in the solar wind, just what the hell the other 55% of the solar radiation is that is NOT electromagnetic?!


It’s all semantics. When they say PV cells convert photons into electricity they mean primarily visible light even though they convert some of the infrared heat into electricity. 

 So in the context of solar power I am using photons interchangeably for visible light. 

SMH at all the nitpicking going on.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).

I even have light in parenthesis.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> It’s all semantics. When they say PV cells convert photons into electricity they mean primarily visible light even though they convert some of the infrared heat into electricity.


They're all photons so the statement is true.



ding said:


> So in the context of solar power I am using photons interchangeably for visible light.  SMH at all the nitpicking going on.
> 
> 
> ding said:
> ...



No nitpicking going on.  Just trying to get clear what we are saying here since I can only go by the strict scientific meaning of "photons" and "light;"  after all, if light referred only to visible light, no one would say "visible light."  Some animals and insects SEE those "invisible" frequencies!

So in other worlds, you're saying that 55% of the solar output is in the form of charged particles and not electromagnetic itself?  I'm asking because I don't specifically know the value but it sounds reasonable if we overlook the fact that one is matter in the form of plasma while the other is massless, so two different units of measure must somehow be combined.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> They're all photons so the statement is true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The point of the post is that widespread use of solar will have an impact on the climate because capturing energy that would have warmed the planet and converting it into electricity instead directly impacts the earth’s energy budget.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Dude--- the photon is the force carrier for all wavelengths in the EM spectrum from radio to gamma!  Please tell me, other than the solid charged particles outgassing in the solar wind, just what the hell the other 55% of the solar radiation is that is NOT electromagnetic?!



He's an idiot.

Have you seen the rest of his errors?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's an idiot.
> 
> Have you seen the rest of his errors?


You should probably mention that this all stems from me schooling you on fractional reserves and you’ve been chasing me around ever since.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's an idiot.


Textbook dunning effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> You should probably mention that this all stems from me schooling you on fractional reserves and you’ve been chasing me around ever since.



You were wrong about fractional reserves too?

Based on your weak math skills, I'm not surprised.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You were wrong about fractional reserves too?
> 
> Based on your weak math skills, I'm not surprised.


Said the guy who said solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet and then couldn’t explain how using electricity to run an electric overhead crane heated the surface of the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Said the guy who said solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet and then couldn’t explain how using electricity to run an electric overhead crane heated the surface of the planet.



Said the guy who won't admit 0.05 albedo panels heat the planet more than 0.40 albedo sand.

And that IR isn't photons.

Damn!!


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Said the guy who won't admit 0.05 albedo panels heat the planet more than 0.40 albedo sand.
> 
> And that IR isn't photons.
> 
> Damn!!



Powering the US with solar panels is a bad idea because converting solar radiation into electricity creates an incremental cooling effect at the solar farms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Powering the US with solar panels is a bad idea because converting solar radiation into electricity creates an incremental cooling effect at the solar farms.



And "the spectrum is UV, visible and infrared"

I mean, shit, you prove your ignorance with almost every post.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And "the spectrum is UV, visible and infrared"
> 
> I mean, shit, you prove your ignorance with almost every post.


A study was conducted at six solar farms comparing the infrared radiation before and after PV cells were installed.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot 

The study found that infrared radiation was less after PV panels were installed. The study found that the incremental cooling occurred during daytime hours when the PV cells were generating electricity.  The study found that nighttime temperatures were similar. The study concluded that the cause of the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures was because solar radiation was being converted into electricity.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot

A second study was performed to model the potential climate impact of solar farms. Their model predicted a regional cooling effect should occur at solar farms. The authors of this study also concluded that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which cannot heat the surface of the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Toddsterpatriot
> 
> A second study was performed to model the potential climate impact of solar farms. Their model predicted a regional cooling effect should occur at solar farms. The authors of this study also concluded that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which cannot heat the surface of the planet.



*Their model* predicted *a regional cooling effect* should occur at solar farms.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Their model* predicted *a regional cooling effect* should occur at solar farms.


Powering the US with solar power is a bad idea. The planet is less than 2C away from extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere. The earth’s energy balance is only 0.7 W/m^2 away from net cooling.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The point of the post is that widespread use of solar will have an impact on the climate because capturing energy that would have warmed the planet and converting it into electricity instead directly impacts the earth’s energy budget.



Do you have any sort of DATA to support that?  Because sunlight striking a solar panel does convert some of the inherent electric energy of the light into causing a photoelectric effect is the semiconductor, the rest is absorbed and re-released as heat, so some of the original energy was changed in form to electricity while the rest was changed to heat and since a solar panel is darker than most other things, probably less of it was reflected back out into the sky, the net effect being that about the same amount of energy was trapped, stored or converted----  it is debatable how much loss or change to the climate there really is, multiplied by the fact that the solar panels on the roof contribute to a slightly cooler roof now by blocking/absorbing much of the Sun thus likely somewhat lowering the home's cooling needs reducing power consumption saving coal, NG or whatever generates the electricity elsewhere benefiting the climate, times the fact that if all solar panels were put together in this country, my best guess from the available data on the web is that they would constitute an area of about 45 square miles (an average home has about 300 sq./ft of panels and there are an estimated 4 million solar homes).

So, if we assume the USA comprises about 1/12 the total area by all inhabited land mass and probably around HALF of all solar panels in the world, are you really expecting a climate effect from an area of the Earth of maybe 100 sq./mi covered in solar panels, of which, probably most of the energy in the original sunlight is still returned to the environment directly or indirectly anyway?  Remember, even much of that lost to the generation of electricity comes back to the climate indirectly in the work done by however that electricity is used.

You see, the Earth is largely a closed system with an exchange between the Sun and space in a FB equilibrium---  if slightly less solar energy is inputted directly to the climate thru the use of PV panels slightly cooling the Earth, this also slightly reduces the outward pressure of the Earth then in resisting further incoming solar energy!  So, there is likely a slight net increase of solar input!

Do you really think that could result in a measurable cooling of the climate, and if it did reduce it by 1/100th of a degree, might that not be a good thing?


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's an idiot.  Have you seen the rest of his errors?



Well, I'm not prepared to say Ding is an idiot. Maybe just a difference of opinion?  I mean error wise, even Einstein got some physics and math wrong.  Albert was not an idiot.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Do you have any sort of DATA to support that?


A study was conducted at six solar farms comparing the infrared radiation before and after PV cells were installed. The study found that infrared radiation was less after PV panels were installed. The study found that the incremental cooling occurred during daytime hours when the PV cells were generating electricity. The study found that nighttime temperatures were similar. The study concluded that the cause of the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures was because solar radiation was being converted into electricity.



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


A different study modeled the potential climate impact of solar farms. Their model predicted a regional cooling effect should occur at solar farms. The authors of this study also concluded that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation which cannot heat the surface of the planet.



			https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> are you really expecting a climate effect from an area of the Earth of maybe 100 sq./mi covered in solar panels


What I am saying is that there will be an incremental cooling effect from converting solar radiation into electricity which would have otherwise produced heat and warmed the surface of the planet. And that the magnitude of the impact will be directly proportional to the amount of solar installed. 

I calculate that it will take PV cells being installed on 1% of the landmass of the planet to take the planet from net warming  (0.6 W/m^2) to net cooling (-0.1 W/m^2).


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> the original sunlight is still returned to the environment directly or indirectly anyway


But it’s not. Certainly not in the way solar radiation does at least.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do which strikes the surface of the planet.  Waste heat from electricity usage radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Well, I'm not prepared to say Ding is an idiot. Maybe just a difference of opinion?  I mean error wise, even Einstein got some physics and math wrong.  Albert was not an idiot.


Thanks. I appreciate that. I’m assuming you are aware of how close we are to extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere, right?  

It’s one of the reasons I think capturing solar radiation is a bad idea. The earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures.  Most of the last 3 million years have been much colder.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> A study was conducted at six solar farms comparing the infrared radiation before and after PV cells were installed. The study found that infrared radiation was less after PV panels were installed. The study found that the incremental cooling occurred during daytime hours when the PV cells were generating electricity. The study found that nighttime temperatures were similar. The study concluded that the cause of the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures was because solar radiation was being converted into electricity.



That is fine except most solar panels are on homes and the study didn't even look at that or the effects there, nor does it take into account the downstream effect of generating that electricity from sunlight back into the environment in other forms and places when that electricity is used.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> You see, the Earth is largely a closed system with an exchange between the Sun and space in a FB equilibrium--- if slightly less solar energy is inputted directly to the climate thru the use of PV panels slightly cooling the Earth, this also slightly reduces the outward pressure of the Earth then in resisting further incoming solar energy! So, there is likely a slight net increase of solar input!


Actually I see the earth as being in a constant state of trying to maintain  equilibrium. But the landmass distribution and resulting ocean circulation system are configured for bipolar glaciation and colder temperatures. With the northern hemisphere playing a dominant role in temperature of the planet because it has a higher threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the southern pole (mostly landlocked ocean parked over the pole vs continent parked over the pole) but more land for glaciers to advance once the glaciation threshold is reached (-2C from present) than the southern pole (only ocean surrounding Antarctica). 

The southern pole moderates the earth’s temperature because it has a lower threshold for glaciation and because once glaciated the ocean moderates its advancement. 

So I believe I see the earth as it is.  Which is a bipolar glaciated planet which is currently configured for much colder temperatures.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> That is fine except most solar panels are on homes and the study didn't even look at that or the effects there…


I’m only considering large solar farms here. If we are going to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind and still intend to have a power grid, it seems like a good assumption.   I can’t imagine a world where everyone was required to produce their own energy.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> nor does it take into account the downstream effect of generating that electricity from sunlight back into the environment in other forms and places when that electricity is used.


Not ignoring this but I addressed it in a previous reply you probably haven’t had a chance to read yet.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> I’m assuming you are aware of how close we are to extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere, right?


All I know is that if it happens to me, it happens to everyone else.



ding said:


> The earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures.  Most of the last 3 million years have been much colder.


I know that we are geologically right about due to flip back down into the next big ice age that cycle about every 100k years, that there have been 6-7 smaller Quaternary Period ice ages + the 8200yr. cooling and little ice age, but that might be right around the corner or could be thousands of years off!  I just hope that if we drop back into an ice age, that I'm still around to laugh at all of the EV/carbon-credit/AGW people.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> All I know is that if it happens to me, it happens to everyone else.
> 
> 
> I know that we are geologically right about due to flip back down into the next big ice age that cycle about every 100k years, that there have been 6-7 smaller Quaternary Period ice ages + the 8200yr. cooling and little ice age, but that might be right around the corner or could be thousands of years off!  I just hope that if we drop back into an ice age, that I'm still around to laugh at all of the EV/carbon-credit/AGW people.


Actually the last eccentricity cycle which is what seems to trigger the glacial cycle was nearly circular. So we should be in an extended interglacial cycle. I say cycle instead of period because it drives crick  crazy.

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.  We won’t need another glacial cycle to prove them wrong. Climate fluctuations are a hallmark of our bipolar glaciated world because of the northern hemisphere.  

This is worth the watch.  He goes onto a different topic about halfway through so you don’t have to watch it all. Very informative.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> I say cycle instead of period because it drives crick  crazy.


That can only be a good thing.



ding said:


> This is worth the watch.


Thanks, but I know without a doubt that there will be another ice age, and that we are likely far closer to it coming back than we are headed to further warming.  People overlook that the Earth is much like a gyroscope and that it tends to return to a state of balance after even a large disturbance, and even if somehow, pollution leads to acute climate change, this will have an adverse effect on global human activity and population (reducing both) which will reduce the input into the AGW thus restoring the Earth back into balance (but by first removing the one factor that was OUT of balance-- -- human activity).


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> That can only be a good thing.
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I know without a doubt that there will be another ice age, and that we are likely far closer to it coming back than we are headed to further warming.  People overlook that the Earth is much like a gyroscope and that it tends to return to a state of balance after even a large disturbance, and even if somehow, pollution leads to acute climate change, this will have an adverse effect on global human activity and population (reducing both) which will reduce the input into the AGW thus restoring the Earth back into balance (but by first removing the one factor that was OUT of balance-- -- human activity).


I know but his guy really paints the proper picture of our present climate isn’t normal.  That glacial cycles dominate. He said we should all know this because winter time shows just how much of the planet could be covered by glaciers.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

People think rising sea levels are bad… they ain’t seen nothing like advancing glaciers.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> our present climate isn’t normal.


I already know that.



ding said:


> That glacial cycles dominate.


They certainly have throughout much of the past three billion years except with the longest period of stability being the boring billion period of the proterozoic era about 1-2 billion years ago during the transition from a methane-dominant to an oxygen-dominant world before the great Ediacaran explosion began.

Life has been throwing Mother Earth a curve ball ever since.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> People think rising sea levels are bad… they ain’t seen nothing like advancing glaciers.



I'd like to see the sea rise another 100 feet.  Most everyone who has caused the problems we all face today all live within 100 feet of the ocean.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> I'd like to see the sea rise another 100 feet.  Most everyone who has caused the problems we all face today all live within 100 feet of the ocean.


Me too!

Don’t you find it odd that the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycle was 2C warmer than today with 26 ft higher seas than today but had 120 ppm *less* atmospheric CO2 than today?  

I do.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Don’t you find it odd that the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycle was 2C warmer than today with 26 ft higher seas than today but had 120 ppm *less* atmospheric CO2 than today?



No, I don't follow all that stuff as closely as you do, but I'd love to have a link where I can read more about that because if what you say is true, that is proof positive that the entire climate change/EV/carbon credit crisis scare of the left is nothing but BULLSHIT meaning they are either idiots or totally gaming us for money and power.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Well, I'm not prepared to say Ding is an idiot. Maybe just a difference of opinion?



Maybe. But his claim about solar is so ridiculous.

Let's look at the numbers. If the surface's albedo is 0.40, the 100 watts of solar energy that hits our parcel turns into 60 watts of heat and 40 watts returns to space. If a fairly typical solar panel is on that parcel and has an albedo of 0.05, only 5 watts returns to space.

95 watts are left and let's assume the efficiency of the solar cell is 20%.
19 watts become electricity and 76 watts are heat.
I'll do the math for ding (because it looks like he needs the help).

Earth returns 40 watts to space, 60 watts remain as heat.
Solar panel returns 5 watts, 76 watts is heat and 19 watts is electricity.
I'm gonna say that most (or all) of the 19 watts will eventually turn into heat.
Ding claims that the 19 watts of electricity "offsets" the extra 35 watts that are retained.

Does his claim sound good to you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 21, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> That is fine except most solar panels are on homes and the study didn't even look at that or the effects there, nor does it take into account the downstream effect of generating that electricity from sunlight back into the environment in other forms and places when that electricity is used.















						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
				




The first author, Aixue Hu, is one of ding's primary sources for his "solar panel cooling" claim.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Let's look at the numbers. If the surface's albedo is 0.40, the 100 watts of solar energy that hits our parcel turns into 60 watts of heat and 40 watts returns to space. If a fairly typical solar panel is on that parcel and has an albedo of 0.05, only 5 watts returns to space.


That's what albedo basically means, sans all other factors.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> 95 watts are left and let's assume the efficiency of the solar cell is 20%.
> 19 watts become electricity and 76 watts are heat.
> I'll do the math for ding (because it looks like he needs the help).
> 
> ...


I assume you mean as I2R losses.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ding claims that the 19 watts of electricity "offsets" the extra 35 watts that are retained.  Does his claim sound good to you?


I don't have enough information about how you mean "offsets" to say either way. Generally, I like to steer clear of expecting simple arithmetic to model complex dynamics, but I think I agree that while solar panels may show LOCAL cooling effects, I'm not so sure that really represents an actual loss in solar heating (cooling the Earth) instead of merely showing widespread redistributing of the paths of where all the energy went!  In other words, a little energy lost one place just means a little more showing up elsewhere.

Kind of a reinterpretation of the Norton Effect.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 729380
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I'll reserve judgement on their claim that this redistributes global weather, but nice to know that I basically formulated in my head the same conclusion that took NASA teams of scientists spending millions of dollars!

Put simply, this all really comes back to the conservation of energy and you cannot "lose" energy just because a solar panel took part of an energy input and changed the form of some portion of it!

That energy still exists and eventually must be realized through some form of WORK.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> That energy still exists and eventually must be realized through some form of WORK.


Exactly… energy is being used to perform work.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe. But his claim about solar is so ridiculous.
> 
> Let's look at the numbers. If the surface's albedo is 0.40, the 100 watts of solar energy that hits our parcel turns into 60 watts of heat and 40 watts returns to space. If a fairly typical solar panel is on that parcel and has an albedo of 0.05, only 5 watts returns to space.
> 
> ...


Does this claim sound good? No. Because it doesn’t explain the incremental cooling effect that was measured at not one but six solar farms. That and the numbers are made up. The incremental cooling was measured by satellites.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm gonna say that most (or all) of the 19 watts will eventually turn into heat.


Most?  You criticized me for saying a large percentage of electricity is used to perform work and you are using the phrase most now?

At least I have a basis for arguing a large portion of electricity used performs work which doesn’t produce heat. Any one who has ever calculated power requirements knows that you calculate the amount of work you perform and then divide that by 90% for new equipment or 80% for used equipment to account for losses. It’s the losses which produce heat not the work performed. So by inspection 80% to 90% of electricity used to perform kinetic work or store potential energy.  The other 10% to 20% are losses or heat. Does 10% to 20% sound like most to you?

Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do which strikes the surface of the planet. Waste heat from electricity usage radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm gonna say that most (or all) of the 19 watts will eventually turn into heat.


What heat that is generated after subtracting the work performed doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. That heat radiates in all directions and warms the surrounding air. Which isn’t how solar radiation heats the surface of the planet. Solar radiation strikes the surface of the planet.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

Energy is conserved.

 Total energy used = work performed + losses (heat).

Work performed = 80% to 90%
Losses (heat) = 10% to 20%


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> That's what albedo basically means, sans all other factors.
> 
> 
> I assume you mean as I2R losses.
> ...



*I don't have enough information about how you mean "offsets" to say either way. *

He means offsets. Somehow the "cooling" from moving 19 watts of heat from the solar farm to 
the point of use more than compensates for the extra 35 watts that aren't reflected back into space immediately. He thinks it more than offsets the extra 35 watts because he thinks it results in net cooling of the planet. 

*In other words, a little energy lost one place just means a little more showing up elsewhere.*

Exactly. Best case, it's a wash.....if you can ignore that pesky decrease in albedo.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Because it doesn’t explain the incremental cooling effect that was measured at not one but six solar farms. That and the numbers are made up. The incremental cooling was measured by satellites.



Did the satellites measure the warmer air that carried away some of the heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Most? You criticized me for saying a large percentage of electricity is used to perform work and you are using the phrase most now?



Yes. I said most. Yes, I criticized you. Now if you have a source that shows what percentage of electricity doesn't end as waste heat, post it already.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> So by inspection 80% to 90% of electricity used to perform kinetic work or store potential energy.



How would that work for a Tesla, for example?

How much of the electricity used by a Tesla performs this "non-heating" work?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> That heat radiates in all directions and warms the surrounding air. Which isn’t how solar radiation heats the surface of the planet. Solar radiation strikes the surface of the planet.



After the solar radiation warms the surface, the surface heats the air.
After the electricity causes waste heat, it heats the air.

Are you claiming the difference between the two is enough to trigger an advance of glaciers?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Energy is conserved.
> 
> Total energy used = work performed + losses (heat).
> 
> ...



Link?


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Somehow the "cooling" from moving 19 watts of heat from the solar farm to the point of use more than compensates for the extra 35 watts that aren't reflected back into space immediately. He thinks it more than offsets the extra 35 watts because he thinks it results in net cooling of the planet.



But that contradicts physical law.  For there to be an overall net cooling means that energy was destroyed or lost which is impossible.  Solar panels merely convert a portion of the solar energy to a different form to be used elsewhere.

This reminds me a bit of my stereo:  in it, I use a 5500 watt window air conditioner to cool banks of bipolar (current-driven) transistors.  The AC merely takes room air and chills it, blowing the cold air through the amps to keep them from getting too hot, but the net effect is that the room doesn't get colder because that cold air merely offsets the warming caused by the AC itself + whatever heat is added by the amplifiers.  It just removes the heat FROM the amplifiers to the room where it is dissipated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> But that contradicts physical law.  For there to be an overall net cooling means that energy was destroyed or lost which is impossible.  Solar panels merely convert a portion of the solar energy to a different form to be used elsewhere.
> 
> This reminds me a bit of my stereo:  in it, I use a 5500 watt window air conditioner to cool banks of bipolar (current-driven) transistors.  The AC merely takes room air and chills it, blowing the cold air through the amps to keep them from getting too hot, but the net effect is that the room doesn't get colder because that cold air merely offsets the warming caused by the AC itself + whatever heat is added by the amplifiers.  It just removes the heat FROM the amplifiers to the room where it is dissipated.
> 
> ...



*But that contradicts physical law. For there to be an overall net cooling means that energy was destroyed or lost which is impossible. *

Exactly. 

I compared his claim to saying my fridge was going to trigger an Ice Age, because the temperature measured inside is cooler.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> But that contradicts physical law.  For there to be an overall net cooling means that energy was destroyed or lost which is impossible.  Solar panels merely convert a portion of the solar energy to a different form to be used elsewhere.
> 
> This reminds me a bit of my stereo:  in it, I use a 5500 watt window air conditioner to cool banks of bipolar (current-driven) transistors.  The AC merely takes room air and chills it, blowing the cold air through the amps to keep them from getting too hot, but the net effect is that the room doesn't get colder because that cold air merely offsets the warming caused by the AC itself + whatever heat is added by the amplifiers.  It just removes the heat FROM the amplifiers to the room where it is dissipated.
> 
> ...


His example doesn’t represent my claim.  My claim is in my posts.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> For there to be an overall net cooling means that energy was destroyed or lost which is impossible.


Or performed work (kinetic or storing potential energy). 

But what electricity  that was converted into heat did not heat the surface of the planet.  It radiated in all directions and warmed the surrounding air. Which is not the same as photons striking the surface of the planet. Which do heat the surface of the planet. Solar panels literally affect earth’s energy budget by effectively reducing incoming solar radiation. Install enough of them (1% of the landmass’ surface area) and the planet goes from net warming to net cooling.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Or performed work (kinetic or storing potential energy).



Well, sooner or later, mustn't all energy perform work?  And whatever that work is, heat-energy is returned to the system maintaining equilibrium?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Or performed work (kinetic or storing potential energy).
> 
> But what electricity  that was converted into heat did not heat the surface of the planet.  It radiated in all directions and warmed the surrounding air. Which is not the same as photons striking the surface of the planet. Which do heat the surface of the planet. Solar panels literally affect earth’s energy budget by effectively reducing incoming solar radiation. Install enough of them (1% of the landmass’ surface area) and the planet goes from net warming to net cooling.


*
Or performed work (kinetic or storing potential energy).*


What would happen with a Tesla, for example?

How much of the electricity used by a Tesla performs this "non-heating" work?

*But what electricity  that was converted into heat did not heat the surface of the planet.  It radiated in all directions and warmed the surrounding air.*

The heated surface of the planet radiated and warmed the surrounding air.

* Solar panels literally affect earth’s energy budget by effectively reducing incoming solar radiation.*

They have no impact on incoming solar radiation. How could they?

They do reflect much less back into space than bare desert sand. That extra retained heat
certainly could change the energy budget. That change would make the planet warmer, not cooler.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Well, sooner or later, mustn't all energy perform work?  And whatever that work is, heat-energy is returned to the system maintaining equilibrium?


Work is the transfer of energy by a force acting on an object as it is displaced.

So no. Using electricity to perform work (kinetic energy and potential energy) does not return heat to the system.  The only heat generated in performing work would be the losses due to friction. Which are small in comparison to the energy used to perform the work. 

Take an overhead crane for example. The crane transfers the energy from electricity into the work required to lift the object. The only heat being generated is due to friction. 

Eff= work performed/total energy used

Total energy used = work performed + losses.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Work is the transfer of energy by a force acting on an object as it is displaced.


I suppose so, if you only consider "work" done by machinery.  Work comes in many forms.



ding said:


> So no. Using electricity to perform work (kinetic energy and potential energy) does not return heat to the system.


It has to and does.  That electricity you generate from sunlight (work) generates heat then is conveyed by wires with I2R losses (work) which then might power your refrigerator or TV (work).  Heat is generated in all work and that heat is returned to the earth system.  Energy is changed in form and conveyed in location but none is lost.



ding said:


> Take an overhead crane for example. The crane transfers the energy from electricity into the work required to lift the object. The only heat being generated is due to friction.


No.  Heat is generated sending power to the electric crane, heat is generated within the crane motor due to resistive loss, magnetic hysteresis, flux loss and eddy currents and friction, then heat is generated in the stretching and tensioning of the cables and moving parts, while further heat is created by mechanical friction (bearings, pulleys and things).  All of that energy does work that returns to the Earth system.  None is lost.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> It has to and does. That electricity you generate from sunlight (work) generates heat then is conveyed by wires with I2R losses (work) which then might power your refrigerator or TV (work). Heat is generated in all work and that heat is returned to the earth system. Energy is changed in form and conveyed in location but none is lost.


Electricity that is generated from PV cells isn’t work. Work is defined as the transfer of energy by a force acting on an object as it is displaced; kinetic energy and potential energy.  PV cells convert photons in the visible light spectrum into electricity before those photons produce heat by striking the surface of the planet. 

Yes, there are line losses through all transmission lines. They aren’t considered to be work. They are heat. And they don’t heat the surface of the planet they heat the surrounding air. And the losses compared to the total energy transmitted are low. 

This is true for all electricity converted into kinetic energy and potential energy.  

Now compare that to how photons heat the surface of the planet. Imagine reducing solar radiation the planet receives by 1%… installing solar panels on 1% of the planet’s landmass has the same effect.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> No. Heat is generated sending power to the electric crane, heat is generated within the crane motor due to resistive loss, magnetic hysteresis, flux loss and eddy currents and friction, then heat is generated in the stretching and tensioning of the cables and moving parts, while further heat is created by mechanical friction (bearings, pulleys and things). All of that energy does work that returns to the Earth system. None is lost.


You need to think in terms of an energy balance. What was the total amount of energy from electricity that was converted into potential energy and kinetic energy?  What were the total losses in heat through lines, the motor and cable friction through the pulleys?  Because no one operates any electrical powered machinery that isn’t at least 80% efficient.

You are ignoring the largest use of electricity.  Converting electricity into kinetic energy and potential energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> PV cells convert photons in the visible light spectrum into electricity before those photons produce heat by striking the surface of the planet.



With what level of efficiency?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Imagine reducing solar radiation the planet receives by 1%… installing solar panels on 1% of the planet’s landmass has the same effect.



Imagine 1% of the planet bouncing 87% less energy back to space.


----------



## Crick (Nov 22, 2022)

Criminittlies!  We're DOOMED ! ! ! !


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Electricity that is generated from PV cells isn’t work.


Wrong again, Ding, an inorganic photovoltaic cell is accomplishing work in the strictly pure sense in the production of generating electricity from incoming light much like an organic plant leaf accomplishes work chemically using sunlight to combine with soil and air to produce plant substance.  The work is the result of where that sunlight goes in being diverted from its original path and nature not contributing as much local heat to where it landed, in this case, the work here being done by the production and flow of electrons from the silicon or sulfides and arsenides.



ding said:


> Work is defined as the transfer of energy by a force acting on an object as it is displaced; kinetic energy and potential energy.


All of that applies to the photo-electric process.  There is a force acting and a transfer of energy thru the kinetic energy imparted by the photons.



ding said:


> Yes, there are line losses through all transmission lines. They aren’t considered to be work.


In the context of this thread they can be regarded as having accomplished work since that entails a conveyance of energy from one place to the other.



ding said:


> And they don’t heat the surface of the planet they heat the surrounding air.


Same difference.  It all goes back into the heat pump that is the Earth.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> You need to think in terms of an energy balance.



No I don't.  You are getting lost in semantics instead of reducing this to the simplest form of physical process necessary.  Don't make it overly-complicated trying to justify a desired conclusion instead of reaching one purely from the known facts.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Criminittlies!  We're DOOMED ! ! ! !


Science denier!


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> No I don't.  You are getting lost in semantics instead of reducing this to the simplest form of physical process necessary.  Don't make it overly-complicated trying to justify a desired conclusion instead of reaching one purely from the known facts.


The simplest form says electricity converted into kinetic energy and potential energy don’t add much heat.  It adds motion or stored energy.  And must be accounted for in the energy balance.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Wrong again, Ding, an inorganic photovoltaic cell is accomplishing work in the strictly pure sense in the production of generating electricity from incoming light much like an organic plant leaf accomplishes work chemically using sunlight to combine with soil and air to produce plant substance. The work is the result of where that sunlight goes in being diverted from its original path and nature not contributing as much local heat to where it landed, in this case, the work here being done by the production and flow of electrons from the silicon or sulfides and arsenides.


What’s your definition of work?

  In physics work is defined as the transfer of energy by a force acting on an object as it is displaced; kinetic energy and potential energy.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> All of that applies to the photo-electric process. There is a force acting and a transfer of energy thru the kinetic energy imparted by the photons.


What is being displaced?

Work is defined as the transfer of energy by a force acting on an object as it is displaced.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> In the context of this thread they can be regarded as having accomplished work since that entails a conveyance of energy from one place to the other.


That’s not correct. Work requires a force to act on an object and to displace that object. When that object is said to be displaced it means the object that the force was applied to was put in motion.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Same difference. It all goes back into the heat pump that is the Earth.


But it isn’t the same. Not even close.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 23, 2022)

ding said:


> What’s your definition of work?
> 
> 
> ding said:
> ...



Look, Ding, I'm not going to go back and forth with you ad nauseam.  I think my explanations were quite clear and verifiable.  I don't think you realize how narrow your definition of work is, so we will agree to disagree---  you think putting solar panels up somehow takes energy from the Sun and it gets lost somehow subtracted from the total net energy storage of the planet despite it reappearing elsewhere as electric power and that this power does not accomplish any work unless it moves or turns something, and I've explained that is all quite wrong and impossible. Your arguments are all theoretical while mine are practical, and I'll leave it at that rather than keep going around in circles.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Look, Ding, I'm not going to go back and forth with you ad neaseum.  I think my explanations were quite clear and verifiable.  I don't think you realize how narrow your definition of work is, so we will agree to disagree---  you think putting solar panels up somehow takes energy from the Sun and it gets lost somehow subtracted from the total net energy storage of the planet despite it reappearing elsewhere as electric power and that this power does not accomplish any work unless it moves or turns something, and I've explained that is all quite wrong and impossible. Your arguments are all theoretical while mine are practical, and I'll leave it at that rather than keep going around in circles.


It’s not my definition. It’s literally how work is accounted for in the energy balance. You guys keep harping on the FLoT.  Work performed is part of the energy balance of the FLoT.  The energy required to perform work must be accounted for in the energy balance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2022)

ding said:


> It’s not my definition. It’s literally how work is accounted for in the energy balance. You guys keep harping on the FLoT.  Work performed is part of the energy balance of the FLoT.  The energy required to perform work must be accounted for in the energy balance.



It's not even that complicated.
Bouncing back 5% of incoming energy to space is going to heat up the planet a lot more than 
bouncing back 40%. Even if you pretend that none of the electricity generated by the panels 
creates any waste heat.

You never said how much non-heating work is performed by a Tesla.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 23, 2022)

I must leave for a bit but I just asked Merriam-Webster to define WORK for me:

















So now, even by a common, internet dictionary, we have determined that work can be:

to perform a task
an exertion
to function according to a plan or design
to provide a desired result or effect
to set into operation or cause to produce
to make use of
to carry on an operation or perform a job
to create a desired product
a specific task achieving a desired result
something that results from the use of a desired material
the transference of energy or energy expended
I submit that converting sunlight into electricity and transmitting it to run, supply or operate electrical devices all meets the definition of work.  Further, energy inefficiencies in the conversion or transference process CANNOT result in the total loss of that energy or the work done by it, but merely it getting and doing so at the originally intended point of application.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> I must leave for a bit but I just asked Merriam-Webster to define WORK for me:
> 
> View attachment 729864
> View attachment 729865
> ...











						Work (physics) - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				












						Work | Definition, Formula, & Units
					

work,  in physics, measure of energy transfer that occurs when an object is moved over a distance by an external force at least part of which is applied in the direction of the displacement. If the force is constant, work may be computed by multiplying the length of the path by the component of...



					www.britannica.com
				












						6.2: Work- The Scientific Definition
					

Work is the transfer of energy by a force acting on an object as it is displaced. The work \(W\) that a force \(F\) does on an object is the product of the magnitude \(F\) of the force, times the …




					phys.libretexts.org
				




What It Means to Do Work​The scientific definition of work differs in some ways from its everyday meaning. Certain things we think of as hard work, such as writing an exam or carrying a heavy load on level ground, are not work as defined by a scientist. *The scientific definition of work reveals its relationship to energy—whenever work is done, energy is transferred. For work, in the scientific sense, to be done, a force must be exerted and there must be motion or displacement in the direction of the force.*


----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> I must leave for a bit but I just asked Merriam-Webster to define WORK for me:
> 
> View attachment 729864
> View attachment 729865
> ...


If you'd like to see a long dictionary entry, look up "RUN".  The movement of atoms and molecules, driven by energy supplied by the sun that take place in the photosynthetic process, qualifies as work.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> If you'd like to see a long dictionary entry, look up "RUN".  The movement of atoms and molecules, driven by energy supplied by the sun that take place in the photosynthetic process, qualifies as work.


*The scientific definition of work reveals its relationship to energy—whenever work is done, energy is transferred. For work, in the scientific sense, to be done, a force must be exerted and there must be motion or displacement in the direction of the force.*


----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2022)

myself said:


> Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S.  That is both day and night.  (With the stored energy for nighttime)  The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.
> 
> View attachment 538042


We could place them all in Texas and raise the national average IQ at the same time.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 24, 2022)

ding said:


> Work (physics) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I guess you didn't read your own link! It says: *"Work transfers energy from one place to another, or one form to another. The SI unit of work is the joule (J), the same unit as for energy."*

Solar panels do work then, transferring energy from one place to another and from one form to the other!  And if work is rated in Joules, 1 joule is = to 1 watt-second, and can also be converted to calories, horsepower, ergs, BTUs, foot-pounds, and many other units, all doing WORK.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> I guess you didn't read your own link! It says: *"Work transfers energy from one place to another, or one form to another. The SI unit of work is the joule (J), the same unit as for energy."*
> 
> Solar panels do work then, transferring energy from one place to another and from one form to the other!  And if work is rated in Joules, 1 joule is = to 1 watt-second, and can also be converted to calories, horsepower, ergs, BTUs, foot-pounds, and many other units, all doing WORK.


Yes. The transmission. The generating of electricity from solar, no.

Does that mean you accept that work performed must be accounted for in the energy balance?

And that the conversion of energy into kinetic and potential energy don’t produce heat other than friction which is small in comparison to the work performed?


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 24, 2022)

ding said:


> Yes. The transmission. The generating of electricity from solar, no.



Sorry, wrong.  YOUR OWN LINK CLEARLY STATES that *work transfers energy from one form to another.*


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Sorry, wrong.  YOUR OWN LINK CLEARLY STATES that *work transfers energy from one form to another.*


So you don’t have to account for kinetic and potential energy in the energy balance?


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 24, 2022)

ding said:


> So you don’t have to account for kinetic and potential energy in the energy balance?



Dude, why do you keep trying to change the conversation?  Quit trying to feed me this gobbledygook psycho-climate babble.  Climate and weather are PHYSICS, they don't get to obey unique sets of laws!  First you send me links defining work, then when I point out that your own link defines work as exactly what solar panels do (along with dropping a ball and other things), you try to deflect onto another direction.

When sunlight strikes a solar panel, work is accomplished. Period.  I don't need to account where that work goes or what it does.  It's all here on the Earth, dude.  Energy in, energy out.  Mother nature takes care of the balance.  Now get a fucking life and go baste a turkey.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Dude, why do you keep trying to change the conversation?  Quit trying to feed me this gobbledygook psycho-climate babble.  Climate and weather are PHYSICS, they don't get to obey unique sets of laws!  First you send me links defining work, then when I point out that your own link defines work as exactly what solar panels do (along with dropping a ball and other things), you try to deflect onto another direction.
> 
> When sunlight strikes a solar panel, work is accomplished. Period.  I don't need to account where that work goes or what it does.  It's all here on the Earth, dude.  Energy in, energy out.  Mother nature takes care of the balance.  Now get a fucking life and go baste a turkey.


The conversation is not all electricity usage produces heat. You keep ignoring the conversation of energy to kinetic energy and potential energy. Once you agree with that fact we can move on to what that is produced by electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air which is not the same thing as directly heating the planet like photons do which strikes the surface of the planet. Once you agree with that we can move onto replacing fossil fuels with solar doesn’t change the amount of waste heat from electricity usage but the generation of solar power does reduce the amount of energy the surface of the planet receives from solar radiation.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 24, 2022)

ding said:


> You keep ignoring the conversation of energy to kinetic energy and potential energy.


HUH?



ding said:


> Once you agree with that fact


I don't know what the fuck you are even babbling about.



ding said:


> It heats the surrounding air which is not the same thing as directly heating the planet like photons do which strikes the surface of the planet.


Warm air heats the planet just as a warm planet warms the air.  Either way, it doesn't change the WORK done by solar panels.  *WORK!*









ding said:


> Once you agree with that we can move on


I think I'm about to move on from you.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> HUH?
> 
> 
> I don't know what the fuck you are even babbling about.
> ...


I am addressing the idiotic belief that all solar radiation that is converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet. 

Conversation of electricity to kinetic and potential energy disproves that.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 24, 2022)

ding said:


> I am addressing the idiotic belief that all solar radiation that is converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet.



Bye, Ding!  And no, far from idiotic, I cannot find a single flaw in the idea as all work produces heat.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Bye, Ding!  And no, far from idiotic, I cannot find a single flaw in the idea as all work produces heat.


As long as you ignore the energy it transferred to kinetic and potential energy.

But you might as well ignore that as long as you believe there is no difference in how photons heat the surface of the planet and how waste heat from electricity usage heats the surface of the plant.


----------

