Solar taking a dump! Here's why.........

[ding]

Only a monkey would be stupid enough to argue that that energy is returned to warm the earth when that electricity is used by an end user.

Only a monkey.

Old Rocks ???

I find it hard to believe that I am having this conversation with someone older than 10 years old. And how is that electricity used? I can tell you one use of that electricity. That is to melt scrap steel to make into new steel products. And that process will shortly be supplied with the electricity to do that melting by a very large solar farm. In other words, very simple ones so you can understand, all the electricity produced by those solar panels gets converted into heat right here on Earth.

https://www.evraz.com/en/news-and-media/press-releases-and-news/evraz-pueblo-will-use-renewable-energy-to-produce-the-greenest-steel/

And contributes absolutely nothing to earth's energy budget, dummy. Which means it is a net loss to earth's energy budget. As all solar radiation captured by solar panels reduces the solar radiation received by the earth.

I am wondering how stupid you would have to be to not grasp this concept.

View attachment 498026

It's not an intelligence thing dude....it's a thinking fcuk up. Very different things.

For some, they see something like a solar growth graph and the associated stunning numbers and get euphoric. It's real for them.....but a thinking pathology just the same. These types unable....thinking-wise...to consider any broader view. Guys like us as questions like,"Ok....as compared to what?" In this case, upon closer inspection, solar growth charts look incredibly unimpressive when measured against the entire energy landscape: fossil fuels

Notable....these same people post the same exact stuff year after year after year in here...."but the science"....yet nothing changes. Renewable energy still laughable and will be for many decades. It's not that these people refuse to see it....they CANT see it. It's a thinking fcuk up. ( a serotonin uptake issue if you want to get technical ). No amount of evidence will ever persuade...it's quite impossible.

There is a mandate to produce 100% of electric generation from renewables by 2050. So we are definitely moving in that direction. To me the question is should we. And my answer to that is that renewables have a role to play but that role is not in providing all of our electrical generation. I think that is a mistake and I think the basis for that decision is a mistake.

 

[mamooth]

Solar panels reduce the energy absorbed by the earth by capturing incoming solar radiation that would have warmed the earth and is instead used to generate electricity.

And eventually, all of that electrical energy turns into heat, aside from the completely insignificant fraction that goes out into space after being converted to visible light or radio waves. So at best, the solar panels just move a bit of heat around. I can't believe I have to explain that to a supposed grownup.

I see the "solar scam" ads constantly on Youtube, where an ad tells me how INDIANA HOMEOWNERS CAN HAVE FREE SOLAR PANELS INSTALLED!

Free? If it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. In this case, the scam company gives you a free installation of solar panels, but they retain ownership of those panels. Then they charge you a monthly fee to lease them. And being that Indiana is not prime solar territory, you probably don't break even.

 

[ding]

Solar panels reduce the energy absorbed by the earth by capturing incoming solar radiation that would have warmed the earth and is instead used to generate electricity.

And eventually, all of that electrical energy turns into heat, aside from the completely insignificant fraction that goes out into space after being converted to visible light or radio waves. So at best, the solar panels just move a bit of heat around. I can't believe I have to explain that to a supposed grownup.

I see the "solar scam" ads constantly on Youtube, where an ad tells me how INDIANA HOMEOWNERS CAN HAVE FREE SOLAR PANELS INSTALLED!

Free? If it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. In this case, the scam company gives you a free installation of solar panels, but they retain ownership of those panels. Then they charge you a monthly fee to lease them. And being that Indiana is not prime solar territory, you probably don't break even.

Are you serious? Why don't they consider that in the calculations?

Do you even earth's energy budget?

This just shows how ignorant you are about climate science.

 

[ding]

Solar panels reduce the energy absorbed by the earth by capturing incoming solar radiation that would have warmed the earth and is instead used to generate electricity.

And eventually, all of that electrical energy turns into heat, aside from the completely insignificant fraction that goes out into space after being converted to visible light or radio waves. So at best, the solar panels just move a bit of heat around. I can't believe I have to explain that to a supposed grownup.

I see the "solar scam" ads constantly on Youtube, where an ad tells me how INDIANA HOMEOWNERS CAN HAVE FREE SOLAR PANELS INSTALLED!

Free? If it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. In this case, the scam company gives you a free installation of solar panels, but they retain ownership of those panels. Then they charge you a monthly fee to lease them. And being that Indiana is not prime solar territory, you probably don't break even.

Can you show me where all that heat from the use of electrical energy is accounted for in this energy budget?

 

[mamooth]

Can you show me where all that heat from the use of electrical energy is accounted for in this energy budget?

Sweet Jeebus, you're stupid.

That energy budget is an average over the whole globe over the whole year. Moving a bit of heat from place to place on the surface doesn't change it a bit.

 

[ding]

Can you show me where all that heat from the use of electrical energy is accounted for in this energy budget?

Sweet Jeebus, you're stupid.

That energy budget is an average over the whole globe over the whole year. Moving a bit of heat from place to place on the surface doesn't change it a bit.

And is based upon the planetary blackbody temperature. They aren't measuring it or calculating how many appliances are running. According to your logic using electricity cause warming. You literally are making shit up.

No one calculates how much electricity we are using to determine the radiation emitted by the surface of the earth.

But please do show me where anyone considers heat loss from work done using electricity. I'd love to see you post a link on it.

 

[mamooth]

And is based upon the planetary blackbody temperature.

That has no relevance. Solar energy doesn't eliminate the energy of sunlight turned into electricity, it just moves it a few miles, so the average doesn't change.

No one calculates how much electricity we are using to determine the radiation emitted by the surface of the earth.

Sure they do, and they find it's not significant.

World electricity generation is about 25 TWh per year.

Solar energy hitting the earth is about 1.5 billion TWh per year.

But please do show me where anyone considers heat loss from work done using electricity. I'd love to see you post a link on it.

You're demanding a link showing that 25 is insignificant in comparison with 1.5 billion? Why? Is that something you're not capable of figuring out on your own?

 

[ding]

And is based upon the planetary blackbody temperature.

That has no relevance. Solar energy doesn't eliminate the energy of sunlight turned into electricity, it just moves it a few miles, so the average doesn't change.

No one calculates how much electricity we are using to determine the radiation emitted by the surface of the earth.

Sure they do, and they find it's not significant.

World electricity generation is about 25 TWh per year.

Solar energy hitting the earth is about 1.5 billion TWh per year.

But please do show me where anyone considers heat loss from work done using electricity. I'd love to see you post a link on it.

You're demanding a link showing that 25 is insignificant in comparison with 1.5 billion? Why? Is that something you're not capable of figuring out on your own?

I am telling you that any radiation captured by solar panels reduces the radiation received by the earth and will result in a cooling effect. That statement was published in a paper.

Install enough panels and there will be a global effect.

 

[ding]

Can you show me where all that heat from the use of electrical energy is accounted for in this energy budget?

Sweet Jeebus, you're stupid.

That energy budget is an average over the whole globe over the whole year. Moving a bit of heat from place to place on the surface doesn't change it a bit.

I think the stupid person is the one who doesn't believe that any incoming solar radiation captured by solar panels is incoming solar radiation not absorbed by the surface of the earth.

 

[miketx]

The whole "you'll save on electricity costs!" thing with solar is a big scam.

I use solar, but only when the power is out. It helps.

 

[ding]

I think people who believe that the heat lost from performing work using electricity is equivalent to the loss in solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the earth are the stupidest of all. That and dishonest.

 

[mamooth]

I think the even stupider people are the one who believes that performing work using electricity where a minuscule amount of heat is lost is equivalent to the loss in solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the earth.

It's exactly the same. That's how conservation of energy works.

Sooner or later, the dumbest of the deniers will end up even denying conservation of energy.

 

[ding]

I'm not sure what the problem is because don't you people want the planet to be colder?

 

[ding]

I think the even stupider people are the one who believes that performing work using electricity where a minuscule amount of heat is lost is equivalent to the loss in solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the earth.

It's exactly the same. That's how conservation of energy works.

Sooner or later, the dumbest of the deniers will end up even denying conservation of energy.

It's not the same. For it to be the same all of that electricity captured by solar panels would have to go to heaters.

 

[ding]

I think the even stupider people are the one who believes that performing work using electricity where a minuscule amount of heat is lost is equivalent to the loss in solar radiation that is not absorbed by the surface of the earth.

It's exactly the same. That's how conservation of energy works.

Sooner or later, the dumbest of the deniers will end up even denying conservation of energy.

So when I use electricity to vacuum my house, all of the electricity I used to run my vacuum cleaner heated the planet instead of turning an electric motor to perform work?

You do realize they don't add electrical usage to the energy budget calculation, right?

 

[mamooth]

So when I use electricity to vacuum my house, all of the electricity I used to run my vacuum cleaner heated the planet instead of turning an electric motor to perform work?

Now you're catching on. Yes, all of that work eventually turns to heat.

 

[ding]

Breaking News: According to mamooth using electricity causes global warming.

 

[ding]

So when I use electricity to vacuum my house, all of the electricity I used to run my vacuum cleaner heated the planet instead of turning an electric motor to perform work?

Now you're catching on. Yes, all of that work eventually turns to heat.

And does not heat the earth's surface.

Especially the energy that performed mechanical work.

 

[Old Rocks]

So when I use electricity to vacuum my house, all of the electricity I used to run my vacuum cleaner heated the planet instead of turning an electric motor to perform work?

Now you're catching on. Yes, all of that work eventually turns to heat.

And does not heat the earth's surface.

Especially the energy that performed mechanical work.

So when I use electricity to vacuum my house, all of the electricity I used to run my vacuum cleaner heated the planet instead of turning an electric motor to perform work?

Now you're catching on. Yes, all of that work eventually turns to heat.

There is no use in explaining conservation of energy, or the fact that all mechanical action results in that energy being turned to heat. There are some skulls so thick that no logic can penetrate. Ding is classic Dunning-Kruger.

 

[ding]

So when I use electricity to vacuum my house, all of the electricity I used to run my vacuum cleaner heated the planet instead of turning an electric motor to perform work?

Now you're catching on. Yes, all of that work eventually turns to heat.

And does not heat the earth's surface.

Especially the energy that performed mechanical work.

So when I use electricity to vacuum my house, all of the electricity I used to run my vacuum cleaner heated the planet instead of turning an electric motor to perform work?

Now you're catching on. Yes, all of that work eventually turns to heat.

There is no use in explaining conservation of energy, or the fact that all mechanical action results in that energy being turned to heat. There are some skulls so thick that no logic can penetrate. Ding is classic Dunning-Kruger.

It would be awesome if you actually understood Dunning-Kruger and the FLoT because then you might understand that not all conversions of electricity will result in heating the surface of the earth.