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

[Toddsterpatriot]

The decreased albedo led to photons being converted into electricity not more heat being radiated by PV cells.

It's like you're claiming that a refridgerator cools the planet, because look at the ice cubes you made.
While ignoring the heat coming off the coils in the back.

It's hilarious.

 

[ding]

It's like you're claiming that a refridgerator cools the planet, because look at the ice cubes you made.
While ignoring the heat coming off the coils in the back.

It's hilarious.

Incorrect.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again... incrementally there is no change in waste heat from replacing fossil fuels with solar.

But there is a change in waste heat from the much, much lower albedo of the panel.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's not much mass to solar panels. Their ability to absorb solar radiation is limited by their mass. And when they give it back they cool down quickly because there's not much mass.

Give it back? To what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are the one who went down the rabbit hole of waste heat

Rabbit hole......because you only looked at half the system. LOL!

 

[ding]

But there is a change in waste heat from the much, much lower albedo of the panel.

Incorrect.

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.

The decreased albedo led to photons being converted into electricity not more heat being radiated by PV cells.

 

[ding]

Give it back? To what?

If you don't know that you shouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You tell me.

Your silly, pointless claim, what more is there to tell?

 

[ding]

Rabbit hole......because you only looked at half the system. LOL!

Incorrect. That would be you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Run away. LOL!

 

[ding]

Your silly, pointless claim, what more is there to tell?

It's not my claim. It's been measured.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or convert photons - which would have otherwise cause the surface of the planet to warm - into electricity.

You've got 95% of the incoming photons warming the planet versus 70%.
That extra 25% is warming, not cooling the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again... that would depend upon how much solar radiation gets converted into electricity.

So how much? Give me a percentage.

 

[ding]

Run away. LOL!

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.

The decreased albedo led to photons being converted into electricity not more heat being radiated by PV cells. That's why they measured cooler temperatures above six solar farms.

 

[ding]

You've got 95% of the incoming photons warming the planet versus 70%.
That extra 25% is warming, not cooling the planet.

The decreased albedo led to photons being converted into electricity not more heat being radiated by PV cells. That's why they measured cooler temperatures above six solar farms.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cooler daytime and nighttime temperatures above six solar farms say otherwise.

More heat being carried away by the atmosphere doesn't mean the planet is cooler, just that some of the heat moved away from the solar farms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet is different depending upon the generating source.

With solar, more is absorbed.

 

[ding]

So how much? Give me a percentage.

Why?

 

[ding]

More heat being carried away by the atmosphere doesn't mean the planet is cooler, just that some of the heat moved away from the solar farms.

It's an incremental comparison. With solar panels and without solar panels. So, no. It doesn't mean that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Incorrect.

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.

Hey, look, I moved 100 watts out of the refridgerator. The planet is cooler.
Hey, look, I moved 100 watts out of the solar farm. The planet is cooler.

Hilarious!