Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

[ding]

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]

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]

It’s just math.

 

[ding]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Because that ding-dong posted the same post 20+ times, I put the fool on ignore. What an arrogant asshole.

 

[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.

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]

Because that ding-dong posted the same post 20+ times, I put the fool on ignore. What an arrogant asshole.

Me too.

 

[ding]

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]

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

100% is photons.

 

[ding]

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]

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

Ding thinks infrared radiation isn't photons.

 

[ding]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

What context in your posts makes your errors.....not errors?

The one where PV cells primarily convert visible light into electricity.