Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

[ding]

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]

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]

Energy is conserved.

Total energy used = work performed + losses (heat).

Work performed = 80% to 90%
Losses (heat) = 10% to 20%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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. 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Energy is conserved.

Total energy used = work performed + losses (heat).

Work performed = 80% to 90%
Losses (heat) = 10% to 20%

Link?

 

[toobfreak]

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]

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.


View attachment 729494

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]

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.


View attachment 729494

His example doesn’t represent my claim. My claim is in my posts.

 

[ding]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?