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

[ding]

What's the threshold?

You can see the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation from oxygen isotope data. It's between 1 to 2C cooler than today. It's not much.

 

[Paracetamol63]

When are you going to teach me what happens because of the much lower albedo of the panels?

Here's a list of standard material albedos:

(SOURCE)

An estimate of a solar farm's mean albedo works out to about 0.23 (HERE). So the albedo is still in the range of "sand" (assuming one is putting the solar farm on a sandy surface like near a desert which may be just a bit higher in albedo vide supra.) and it is almost exactly that of green grass.

Not sure if albedo is going to be as large a factor here as one may assume, but I am not an expert in this area.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can see the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation from oxygen isotope data. It's between 1 to 2C cooler than today. It's not much.

View attachment 694501

So we'd have to generate a lot of solar power in the Northern hemisphere and ship it to the Southern hemishere?

 

[ding]

Right. But what happens to the extra heat retained because of the lower albedo?

You're not forgetting the entire equation again, are you? Your math is really weak.

The lower albedo led to photons being captured. The net effect is a reduction in radiated heat. Which is why daytime and night time temperatures were incrementally cooler at the six solar farms. You don't need math to see incrementally cooler temperatures. The math explains why or at least what we think is why. But the net is actually measured. And the net says converting photons into electricity outweighed any incremental infrared from albedo. .

But again... you are arguing with something you already acknowledged.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's a list of standard material albedos:

(SOURCE)

An estimate of a solar farm's mean albedo works out to about 0.23 (HERE). So the albedo is still in the range of "sand" (assuming one is putting the solar farm on a sandy surface like near a desert which may be just a bit higher in albedo vide supra.) and it is almost exactly that of green grass.

Not sure if albedo is going to be as large a factor here as one may assume, but I am not an expert in this area.

Thanks for the link.

An estimate of a solar farm's mean albedo works out to about 0.23

Not the farm, the panel.

 

[Paracetamol63]

You can see the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation from oxygen isotope data. It's between 1 to 2C cooler than today. It's not much.

View attachment 694501

But that's the key, right? When you're talking about global averages a small value actually amounts to a pretty big change. If I were to try to shift the mean age of a very large population of people I would have to add a LOT (a lot, a lot) of young people to shift it if the population is large enough.

So, yeah, we are only about 1-2degC or so between where we were say back in the early 80's and an ice age. But the key is that we are not in any way moving in that direction. In fact we are moving in the opposite direction. As your graph shows.

We know the idea of an "ice age" as something that is totally climactically different from what we are in (I am using the terms informally here, I know this is all one giant ice age with ups and downs interglacials) what we don't really know is what will happen in the opposite direction? We have some pretty good ideas but the one thing we DO know is that it will all change. And rapid change doesn't suit humanity all that well.

 

[Paracetamol63]

Thanks for the link.

An estimate of a solar farm's mean albedo works out to about 0.23

Not the farm, the panel.

But you understand the point, correct? A single panel is hardly going to be an issue. Anymore than if someone were to pave with concrete a square that size for their kids swingset..

I believe you can also back out the individual panel albedos from this, but since I'm not a radiation physicist I'm not really qualified to do.

 

[ding]

So we'd have to generate a lot of solar power in the Northern hemisphere and ship it to the Southern hemishere?

Stop being silly. It's transitioning from one energy source that doesn't capture solar radiation to another energy source that does capture solar radiation that is responsible for the incremental cooling on a regional basis. Waste heat is the same for all cases. Not sure why you can't understand this. Several other posters have seen it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The lower albedo led to photons being captured. The net effect is a reduction in radiated heat. Which is why daytime and night time temperatures were incrementally cooler at the six solar farms. You don't need math to see incrementally cooler temperatures. The math explains why or at least what we think is why. But the net is actually measured. And the net says converting photons into electricity outweighed any incremental infrared from albedo. .

But again... you are arguing with something you already acknowledged.

The lower albedo led to photons being captured.

I know. Captured instead of reflected back to space.

That's a net warming effect for the planet.
More warming than any possible localized cooling.

You don't need math to see incrementally cooler temperatures.

You need better math to see incrementally warmer global temperatures.
Your math seems to be broken

And the net says converting photons into electricity outweighed any incremental infrared from albedo.

You're violating the FLoT again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's transitioning from one energy source that doesn't capture solar radiation to another energy source that does capture solar radiation that is responsible for the incremental cooling on a regional basis.

Solar panels aren't cooling the planet on a regional basis.
And why do you keep bringing up transition?
That wasn't your original claim.

 

[ding]

The lower albedo led to photons being captured.

I know. Captured instead of reflected back to space.

That's a net warming effect for the planet.
More warming than any possible localized cooling.

You don't need math to see incrementally cooler temperatures.

You need better math to see incrementally warmer global temperatures.
Your math seems to be broken

And the net says converting photons into electricity outweighed any incremental infrared from albedo.

You're violating the FLoT again.

You are all over the map. You aren't making any sense. Try again.

 

[ding]

Solar panels aren't cooling the planet on a regional basis.
And why do you keep bringing up transition?
That wasn't your original claim.

Not yet they aren't. Replace all fossil fuels with solar and get back to me.

You greenies will say anything to protect your pet technologies.

 

[ding]

Widespread use (i.e. replacing fossil fuels with solar) of solar is the best way to usher in the next glacial cycle.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

10,000 square miles. Yes, with just a fraction of roofs and buildings.

"22,000 square miles

Solar's abundance and potential throughout the United States is staggering: PV panels on just 22,000 square miles of the nation's total land area – about the size of Lake Michigan – could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States."

Quarterly Solar Industry Update

Each quarter, NREL conducts a presentation of technical trends within the solar industry.

www.energy.gov

However, that does not include wind and hydro power already in existence. And we will certainly be building more wind.

What if we switched to solar AND Geico??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are all over the map. You aren't making any sense. Try again.

Your solar parcel absorbs 95% and reflects 5%.
Your bare desert absorbs 70% and reflects 30%.

Move the 20% of the power that is converted to electricity anywhere you want.
Net, the planet still has 25% more of the solar radiation raising the temperature.

 

[ding]

Your solar parcel absorbs 95% and reflects 5%.
Your bare desert absorbs 70% and reflects 30%.

Move the 20% of the power that is converted to electricity anywhere you want.
Net, the planet still has 25% more of the solar radiation raising the temperature.

Now you are arguing against what you said earlier. Make up some more numbers to protect your pet technology, greenie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now you are arguing against what you said earlier. Make up some more numbers to protect your pet technology, greenie.

You're confused. Again.

 

[ding]

You're confused. Again.

Sure, greenie.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Coal works at night.

And in ice storms

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your solar parcel absorbs 95% and reflects 5%.

Whose? Link?