Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[rruff]

seems like a bunch of fud to me to worry about anything but how much sun panels will get..

You don't think it should matter that the cost would be several times more to build panels you can drive on? And I'm being generous... I bet it's >10x more expensive; life cycle cost per energy output.

It isn't innovative, it's stupid... dumb... idiotic... impractical by a huge degree.

 

[xfia]

o well.. I dont want to argue about it..

 

[silkstone]

You don't think it should matter that the cost would be several times more to build panels you can drive on? And I'm being generous... I bet it's >10x more expensive; life cycle cost per energy output.

It isn't innovative, it's stupid... dumb... idiotic... impractical by a huge degree.

People said the same thing about the first computers.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Einstein

 

[twilyth]

Where I'm at, one place put rooves over what is at least 10 acres of parking lots. On top, they have solar panels. This seems like a much more cost effective way to exploit open space that is paved over.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

i wanted to do the math, but then i found that link:

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tec...ls-actually-contribute-to-climate-change.html

some good thoughts on albedo of solar cells

Pretty much what I said but they keep justifying solar by comparing with technologies like coal. That's a false assumption because, as repeatedly pointed out, coal is being killed off due to economic factors and solar can't exist in a grid without something like natural gas. Change the grid to 80% nuclear and 20% solar, for example, and solar is going to have a larger negative impact on climate than nuclear even though nuclear is doing the heavy lifting.

Edit: Also unlike coal and natural gas, nuclear doesn't have to vent any heat to the atmosphere (think nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier). We have to be more economical about what we do with the waste from reactors and cooling towers are a big no-no due to water vapor.

You really went off the rails! Space? We have orders of magnitude more worthless desert than would be needed. If you don't like that, they can be put them on roofs. Food? Have no idea what you are thinking there. Solar PV would not be put on arable land and would not effect food production in the slightest.

There's one really big problem with deserts: the population density is extremely low thusly their demand for energy is also low. Most of the population, no matter what country you look at, lives on the coasts followed by the rivers. Deserts tend to be devoid of both of these things (exception, lower Nile river).

New Jersey's PG&E solar facility looks like it built on land that could support crops.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that 15-20% of the incident radiation on a panel is converted to electricity rather than heat.

No, I'm not. That's coming from the 70% that is absorbed.

But lets say we go crazy and put up enough panels to supply 100% of the world's energy by 2030. Those panels would cover ~0.2% of the earth's surface. Now let's pretend they actually *do* heat the air more than if they didn't exist, by 10% of the solar energy hitting them. The earth currently absorbs ~70% of the solar energy that hits it, so this would represent .002x.1/.7= .0003 factor increase in energy absorbed. 1 in 3500. Care to guess how much that would increase the earth's temperature? It would be a complicated calculation to do properly, but you don't need to bother to know that it is infinitesimally small.

By your numbers, 100% reaches the panel from the sun - 30% reflected + 15-20% absorbed for electricity = 50-55% waste as heat. That would have to be compared to the albedo of where the panels are built to get a figure what net impact it would have warming.

We're also not figuring in that a lot of solar panels only rotate on one axis (or none) and not two. The albedo shifts dramatically as the angle changes. This 30% figure comes from the panel pointing directly at the sun.

No, it's not infinitely small because we have that problem of greenhouse gases. The more albedo is changed from background, the more they heat the atmosphere. Every little bit of human impact that isn't offset can contribute to warming.

Also, you're forgetting that 100% solar is not doable. It needs to be supplemented with at least natural gas to provide power at night.

The sun's output already varies by >3x that amount over the course of a decade, and we see no appreciable effect from it on temperature.

But everytime the sun is +/-3* you're always adding that heat could otherwise have been reflected on top of the greenhouse gases that provide positive feedback. The numbers may be small but the impact from one car is small too.

Where I'm at, one place put rooves over what is at least 10 acres of parking lots. On top, they have solar panels. This seems like a much more cost effective way to exploit open space that is paved over.

That's a prime example of how to do solar right. Makes people happy from their cars not getting hot, doesn't waste space that isn't already wasted, and likely has about equal average albedo.

I'm not saying solar has a place because it does. Just not as a major component of the grid. We shouldn't be incentivizing power companies to build solar farms. Let the people do that and as a function of the grid, the power companies have to respond to it.

 

[rruff]

People said the same thing about the first computers.

Really. They said "computers are almost getting cheap enough to be feasible... hell why don't we make computers that we can drive on and that light up at night! Wouldn't that be freakin cool!?"

They are a total joke. No one with the tiniest bit of sense regarding practical inventions and the science involved would support these things.

Einstein would shit bricks if he knew you were quoting him in defense of this nonsense.

 

[xfia]

at ces there was a remote control car pc

 

[twilyth]

I'm not saying solar has a place because it does. Just not as a major component of the grid. We shouldn't be incentivizing power companies to build solar farms. Let the people do that and as a function of the grid, the power companies have to respond to it.

I'm pretty sure that at this point no one really cares what you have to say. I don't think it matters to you how many times you're proven to be in error, you just pretend like it never happened and continue to make completely unsubstantiated statements or ones where the evidence you cite doesn't support the claim for which it is cited.

The most recent example is your response to Wizzard's post. He cited an article that completely blew your idea about solar panels contributing to atmospheric warming out of the water and this was your response.

Pretty much what I said but they keep justifying solar by comparing with technologies like coal. That's a false assumption because, as repeatedly pointed out, coal is being killed off due to economic factors and solar can't exist in a grid without something like natural gas. Change the grid to 80% nuclear and 20% solar, for example, and solar is going to have a larger negative impact on climate than nuclear even though nuclear is doing the heavy lifting.

In fact, what the article says is:

What Does All This Have To Do With Solar Panels Contributing To Climate Change?
Photovoltaic panels range from blue to black but they are smooth and have an albedo around 0.3. But it is not the albedo itself that matters, it is the relative change in albedo from the status quo. Since most solar panels are roof-mounted, and most roofs are covered in dark tar paper shingles, covering the roof with solar panels may actually represent a positive change in reflectivity.But what if the panels are mounted on a hypothetical perfectly reflective surface and the solar panels absorb 30% of the solar energy that hits them? The average insolation, or the amount of the sun's energy hitting the earth, is approximately 6 (kWh/m2)/day. This means that, on the average day in the average location, the solar panels would absorb 1.8 kWh per square meter per day. The same solar panel, assuming a 15% efficiency would generate 0.9 kWh of electricity per square meter per day.
So Solar Panels Do Contribute To Climate Change?
Well no, not exactly. Even if solar panels absorb twice as much heat energy as they generate (and keep in mind that we are using very liberal estimates and the actual amount of heat created is much less) this is not the end of the story. Electric generating plants are only about 31% efficient, meaning that 2.9 kWh worth of fuel (almost 10,000 BTU) need to be combusted to generate 0.9 kWh of electricity. So the power plant directly adds at least 1.6 times more heat to the atmosphere than the solar panels. And keep in mind that the numbers for the solar panels are overestimates, while the numbers for the power plant are much more realistic.As if that didn't totally dispel the myth, we haven't even addressed greenhouse gas emissions yet. Naturally solar panels don't generate any greenhouse gas emissions, but coal-fired power plants emit about 2 pounds of carbon dioxide for every kWh. This CO2 builds up in the atmosphere and continues to have a warming effect for a long time. So, not only do solar panels add less heat to the atmosphere, but they also don't emit any greenhouse gasses.

In other words, it calls bullshit on the claim that you spent several pages defending. And yet somehow you still seem to believe that people will take what you have to say seriously. How does that work exactly? I'm really curious to know.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

They're comparing solar to coal. Coal is a dying breed. Nuclear eliminates most of those problems by not needing to exhaust with little to no CO2 emissions.

On the points that are relevant, I could go line by line quoting where I said pretty much the exact same thing before the link was posted.

Example. Article says:

But it is not the albedo itself that matters, it is the relative change in albedo from the status quo.

I said two pages ago:

2. Enjoy some reading. Long story short: if the albedo of the panels isn't equal to or greater than the surface without the panel, they'll contribute to atmospheric warming.

 

[twilyth]

They're comparing solar to coal. Coal is a dying breed. Nuclear eliminates most of those problems by not needing to exhaust with little to no CO2 emissions.

On the points that are relevant, I could go line by line quoting where I said pretty much the exact same thing before the link was posted.

I'm sure you believe you can. Just like you believe the article is really about coal when the title is "Do Solar Panels Actually Contribute To Climate Change?" But sure, I understand.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

See edit. Virtually everything in that part of the article you quoted I either said before it was added to this thread or debated after.

The morale of that article is that solar does but coal is far worse. I wouldn't dispute that.

 

[Caring1]

Nuclear eliminates most of those problems by not needing to exhaust with little to no CO2 emissions.

Pretty sure most people would rather an increase in CO2 in their backyard and no Nuclear waste.
But if you don't mind living next to one .....

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I wouldn't because they're far safer than coal. People get sick living downwind from a coal power plant. People don't get sick living downwind from a nuclear reactor unless it ejects massive amounts of radiation which is really, really rare. Off the top of my head, I can only thing of two times this happened: Chernobyl NPP Reactor 4 and Fukushima Daiichi. That's only two plants out of 566 built as of 2011: 0.35%. The only people that got sick from the former were those working at the facility; I don't believe there's any reports of confirmed illness from Fukushima. We learned a lot from both incidents and there are means to prevent those exact same disasters from happening again.

Edit: Moreover, these disasters had little direct impact on temperature.

 

[twilyth]

See edit. Virtually everything in that part of the article you quoted I either said before it was added to this thread or debated after.

Right. Except for the part about the fact that PV does NOT contribute to global warming despite what you've said multiple times before that. Since you seem to have forgotten though, let me refresh your recollection.

Yes...my point is, of all energy sources, solar is just about the least dense because it is a function of surface area. They contribute to atmospheric warming through production as well as absorption (as opposed to reflection) of solar energy; thusly, the environmental impact is linear. About the only place where the absorption is neutralized is on asphalt roof tops with a clear view of the sun because the asphalt has the same effect. Building the solar panel itself can only be mitigated, not eliminated, through industrial and mining processes.

You then spent the next couple pages trying to defend this ridiculous idea only to be proven wrong. But of course I'm sure that I'm just misinterpreting what you actually meant, right?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

*cough*

I'm not talking about mining/manufacturing costs either.

When figuring in the mining, manufacturing, shipping, and set it up somewhere where the albedo is lower than the background, PV does contribute to warming. The author of the article was trying to justify it by comparing the electrical output to the dirtiest technology around, not the cleanest.

What you quoted from me was only talking about albedo (which is pretty clear) and that statement is still absolutely true. The EPA link and TreeHugger link confirm it.

 

[Caring1]

I wouldn't because they're far safer than coal. People get sick living downwind from a coal power plant. People don't get sick living downwind from a nuclear reactor unless it ejects massive amounts of radiation which is really, really rare. Off the top of my head, I can only thing of two times this happened: Chernobyl NPP Reactor 4 and Fukushima Daiichi. That's only two plants out of 566 built as of 2011: 0.35%. The only people that got sick from the former were those working at the facility; I don't believe there's any reports of confirmed illness from Fukushima. We learned a lot from both incidents and there are means to prevent those exact same disasters from happening again.

Edit: Moreover, these disasters had little direct impact on temperature.

So cancer clusters and increases in reported birth defects are excluded because they can't be directly correlated to the Nuclear plants?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The total death toll for nuclear energy to date is 2 if memory serves and those were they were result of Chernobyl NPP 4. Another 20-40 (I forget the exact number), also at Chernobyl, were diagnosed with "acute radiation syndrome" which is directly linked to the meltdown. Thyroid cancers can absolutely be linked to nuclear disasters as well. People need iodine supplements to fight off the radiation exposure and if they don't get it, they can get thyroid cancer. Cancer was a common killer before nuclear power was invented and it remains that way today. There is natural radiation everywhere on Earth. Inside the nuclear facility and outside of the reactor core likely have the least amount of radiation on the planet. They monitor for changes 24/7. So, if you live next to a nuclear power plant and get cancer and that reactor has never released any radiation, there is definitively no correlation. There's layers after layers of armor shielding everyone and everything from that radiation.

Bottom line is that if there is a nuclear power plant and a coal power plant right next to each other and you lived downwind from them, the coal power plant is far more likely to kill you than the nuclear power plant.


I think I've said all that needs to be said in this thread so I feel it is time that I bow out. Too much pounding on the keyboard and not enough getting done.

 

[twilyth]

*cough*

If you mine the mining, manufacturing, shipping, and set it up somewhere where the albedo is lower than the background, PV does contribute to warming. The author of the article was trying to justify it by comparing the electrical output to the dirtiest technology around, not the cleanest.

What you quoted from me was only talking about albedo (which is pretty clear) and that statement is still absolutely true. The EPA link and TreeHugger link confirm it.

Hmm, it would seem you forgot about this post which showed that the albedo of most surfaces is about the same as most solar panels.

Starting to think you are just making stuff up. For one I already showed you that only a tiny fraction of earth's surface area would be needed. This is from Sandia Labs: http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar FAQs.pdf

"Sunlight has by far the greatest theoretical potential of all earth's renewable energy sources... there is more solar energy striking the earth's surface in 90 minutes than the world wide energy consumption from all sources in one year."

Or here: http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

About 0.2% of the earth surface in solar PV could supply the projected total world energy consumption in 2030. Or maybe a figure that is easier to grasp, the same surface area that is currently covered by pavement in the US would be enough to supply all US energy.

Desert surfaces are not that reflective anyway. The albedo (reflectivity) of sand and dry dirt is in the .15-.45 range. That means it already absorbs more than it reflects. The albedo of a typical solar panel is ~.20. It's hardly any different. Plus it's converting 15-20% of the incident radiation into electricity rather than heat. So the amount of incident solar energy that would heat the air is on average less, not more than if the panel wasn't there.

But even if we didn't have that data which @rruff was kind enough to provide, the fact remains that when compared to the amount of heat generated by conventional power generation, the "heat" produced by PV panels is much more than offset. To quote from the article which *cough* agrees with you

Electric generating plants are only about 31% efficient, meaning that 2.9 kWh worth of fuel (almost 10,000 BTU) need to be combusted to generate 0.9 kWh of electricity. So the power plant directly adds at least 1.6 times more heat to the atmosphere than the solar panels.

BTW, this is the second time I'm quoting this passage so I'd appreciate it if you would at least read what is being posted before responding.

 

[Caring1]

As you said, the directly attributable death toll is around 43, but of course we all know that figure is much higher.
Nuclear plants aren't foolproof and accidents will continue to happen.
America is just one nation to have incidents occur, more will happen eventually, either by man's ineptitude or by natures intervention.
I know I would rather live near any other power generating method such as Wind farms, Hydro, Coal or Steam fired generators, or Solar as there is far less inherent danger from any of those, but this is off topic for this thread so I will leave it at that.
As for the topic at hand, there is far to much inconclusive theories prevailing as to the cause of Climate Change, at least there is a quorum in agreeance that Climate Change is real.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Hmm, it would seem you forgot about this post which showed that the albedo of most surfaces is about the same as most solar panels.


But even if we didn't have that data which @rruff was kind enough to provide, the fact remains that when compared to the amount of heat generated by conventional power generation, the "heat" produced by PV panels is much more than offset. To quote from the article which *cough* agrees with you

BTW, this is the second time I'm quoting this passage so I'd appreciate it if you would at least read what is being posted before responding.

Just throwing some facts at you...

Nuclear is 3,412 / 10,479 * 100 = 32.56% efficient on average for 2012.

Nuclear is not combusted. A single kg of uranium has 7,641,301,623,966 BTUs of energy: Source + MJ to BTU conversion.

All of the heat in a nuclear power plant is trapped inside the facility because it has no gaseous exhaust. The only way excess heat vents to the atmosphere is by way of cooling. A nuclear power plant could be built that doesn't waste this. For example, it could be used to heat homes and offices using the piping system itself as a radiator. Yes, it is introducing heat to the environment that wouldn't be otherwise but very little of it goes to waste.

 

[twilyth]

Just throwing some facts at you...
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=107&t=3
Nuclear is 3,412 / 10,479 * 100 = 32.56% efficient on average for 2012.

Nuclear is not combusted. A single kg of uranium has 7,641,301,623,966 BTUs of energy.

All of the heat in a nuclear power plant is trapped inside the facility because it has no gaseous exhaust. The only way excess heat vents to the atmosphere is by way of cooling. A nuclear power plant could be built that doesn't waste this. For example, it could be used to heat homes and offices using the piping system itself as a radiator. Yes, it is introducing heat to the environment that wouldn't be otherwise but very little of it goes to waste.

Another attempt at obfuscation I see. I know it's pointless to try to point out your mistakes - at least as far as your concerned. But I'm fairly confident I've made my point to anyone still reading this train wreck.

 

[xfia]

 

[FordGT90Concept]

No, I'm just showing how what you quoted is talking about coal (22,748 BTU/kg) and not nuclear. Nuclear fission is a completely different animal. As to the other points, I already beat them to death. I'm not going to repeat myself on those fronts. I am thorough for a reason.

 

[twilyth]

I'm not going to repeat myself on those fronts.

Promise?

 

[W1zzard]

Bottom line is that if there is a nuclear power plant and a coal power plant right next to each other and you lived downwind from them, the coal power plant is far more likely to kill you than the nuclear power plant.

+1

go look for number of coal-pollution related deaths in china

People said the same thing about the first computers.

back when computers came out, they seemed to be about as useful for the average person as a space station is for an old lady