Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

[Toddsterpatriot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It’s just math people.

 

[ding]

Here’s a clue. 45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).

 

[ding]

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]

Turns out to be pretty simple math. We only need to decrease solar radiation from photons by 0.7 W/m^2.

 

[ding]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

45% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons (light).

100% of the incoming solar radiation comes from photons, moron.