The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

[Toddsterpatriot]

But for isothermal processes it's no different

I accept your admission.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every single kWh generated from solar is responsible for an equivalent reduction in solar radiation striking the surface of the planet.

Not exactly.
The much lower albedo of the panels means less energy is reflected back to space.
Less reflected energy means a warmer Earth.

 

[ding]

I accept your admission.

No difference in waste heat generated from solar vs fossil fuels, dummy. Which is why your 100 watt argument is dumb.

 

[ding]

Not exactly.
The much lower albedo of the panels means less energy is reflected back to space.
Less reflected energy means a warmer Earth.

Why were measured daytime temps above solar farms cooler? Was the albedo waiting for nighttime?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much incremental waste heat is created from switching from fossil fuels to solar power? The answer is none. So incrementally there is no difference between the two cases when it comes to waste heat but the same cannot be said for reducing solar radiation. So relative to fossil fuels, solar will result in an incremental cooling effect.

How much incremental waste heat is created from switching from fossil fuels to solar power?

You can keep trying to change the subject, instead of answering the question, "If you move 100 watts from a panel to the city, how many fewer watts have heated the planet?",
but I'll keep asking.

So incrementally there is no difference between the two cases when it comes to waste heat

Your claim was using solar panels causes cooling, not that reducing fossil fuels causes cooling.
I'm still wondering why you're ignoring the lower albedo of the panels in your faulty analysis?

 

[ding]

You can keep trying to change the subject, instead of answering the question, "If you move 100 watts from a panel to the city, how many fewer watts have heated the planet?",
but I'll keep asking.

Because you keep trying to make silly arguments in a vacuum. First of all you ignore adiabatic processes. Secondly you ignore the waste heat is the same in all cases (solar vs fossil fuel). And lastly you are too stupid to recognize that cooler daytime temps above SIX solar farms while they are generating electricity means that the electrical generation was capturing photons that would have otherwise resulted in a warming effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No difference in waste heat generated from solar vs fossil fuels, dummy. Which is why your 100 watt argument is dumb.

I already accepted your admission of your error. You don't have to keep repeating it.

"waste heat generated from solar"

In case you want to repeat it, here it is. Again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why were measured daytime temps above solar farms cooler? Was the albedo waiting for nighttime?

When you ignore the 100 watts sent to the city, your totals will be wrong.

 

[ding]

Your claim was using solar panels causes cooling, not that reducing fossil fuels causes cooling.
I'm still wondering why you're ignoring the lower albedo of the panels in your faulty analysis?

It's not my claim, dummy. It's the subject of several papers and studies. That you can't understand that waste heat us exactly the same in all cases and what that means from an incremental standpoint is your problem. Not mine.

 

[ding]

When you ignore the 100 watts sent to the city, your totals will be wrong.

When you ignore measured cooler daytime temperatures above SIX solar farms, your logic is wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because you keep trying to make silly arguments in a vacuum. First of all you ignore adiabatic processes. Secondly you ignore the waste heat is the same in all cases (solar vs fossil fuel). And lastly you are too stupid to recognize that cooler daytime temps above SIX solar farms while they are generating electricity means that the electrical generation was capturing photons that would have otherwise resulted in a warming effect.

First of all you ignore adiabatic processes.

They don't matter when you're ignoring the heat moved to the city and the added heat (lower albedo) retained by the panels. Conservation of energy beats "adiabatic processes".

 

[ding]

They don't matter when you're ignoring the heat moved to the city and the added heat (lower albedo) retained by the panels. Conservation of energy beats "adiabatic processes".

Incrementally there is no change in waste heat. So waste heat is the same in all cases. The only change is the generating source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you ignore measured cooler daytime temperatures above SIX solar farms, your logic is wrong.

Conservation of energy reminds me you're ignoring the higher daytime temperatures at the point of use of the electricity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Incrementally there is no change in waste heat.

I told you many times, if you want to change your claim to this, you'll sound slightly less stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only change is the generating source.

And the much lower reflection of energy to space.

 

[ding]

Conservation of energy reminds me you're ignoring the higher daytime temperatures at the point of use of the electricity.

What part of waste heat is the same whether you are using solar or fossil fuels don't you get?

 

[ding]

I told you many times, if you want to change your claim to this, you'll sound slightly less stupid.

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar. Electricity usage and what waste heat there is stays the same regardless of the generating source. But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.

 

[ding]

And the much lower reflection of energy to space.

Keep ignoring that a significant amount of photons - that would have struck the surface of the planet - were captured in PV cells and converted into electricity.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

An area 100 miles by 100 miles would power the whole of the US with present efficiency of solar panels. That can be easily achieved with paneling every roof and building in the US with panels. You seem to forget that we have vast areas like parking lots that can easily be covered with panels that would serve double purpose. And then there is agrivoltaics that would be a vast boon for the farmers.

Not possible. Transmission losses would prevent the power from reaching many metro areas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What part of waste heat is the same whether you are using solar or fossil fuels don't you get?

How much waste heat is there from 100 watts of solar power sent to the city?