Could Enough PV Significantly Cool the Desert?

[Bret Cahill]

Could 28% efficient PV in the desert transfering the energy by HVDC
transmission lines to cities cool the desert significantly?

Yes, if the PV covered most of the valley and was supplying every city
in the U.S.


Bret Cahill

[$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto]

Whose going to pay the $0.65-$0.75/kWh it will cost (5 x normal
rates?). Let me guess...

[Bret Cahill]

> > Could 28% efficient PV in the desert transfering the energy by HVDC
> > transmission lines to cities cool the desert significantly?
>
> > Yes, if the PV covered most of the valley and was supplying every city
> > in the U.S.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Whose going to pay the $0.65-$0.75/kWh it will cost (5 x normal
> rates?).

Over a 20 year life time the cost is 3 cents/kW-hr -- about 1/5th
current rates.


Bret Cahill

[Desertphile]

Deserts globally are getting warmer and drier; I very much doubt
photovoltaic cell panels will have enough of a cooling effect to
offset that warming.


--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant,
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." -- H. L. Menckin

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 13:30:44 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:51:31 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
><Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Could 28% efficient PV in the desert transfering the energy by HVDC
>> transmission lines to cities cool the desert significantly?
>>
>> Yes, if the PV covered most of the valley and was supplying every city
>> in the U.S.
>
>Deserts globally are getting warmer and drier; I very much doubt
>photovoltaic cell panels will have enough of a cooling effect to
>offset that warming.

If they keep the sun off the surface, it
means irrigation can be used, and crops
grown to create soil suitable for growing.

And the panels are sure to reflect some.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:

> If they keep the sun off the surface, it
> means irrigation can be used, and crops
> grown to create soil suitable for growing.

The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.




--
Jim Pennino

[Unum]

Prove it. Everything you post is utter crap.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

See any book on gardning, fuckwit.



--
Jim Pennino

[emoneyjoe]

The panels can be placed to provide any
number of hours of sun wanted.

Also, AFAIK, clouds opposite the sun
do reflect UV back toward you, so I think
it is possible to get a tan staying in the
shade on a cloudy day.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:16:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If they keep the sun off the surface, it
>>> means irrigation can be used, and crops
>>> grown to create soil suitable for growing.
>>
>>The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.
>
> The panels can be placed to provide any
> number of hours of sun wanted.

Most crops want about 10 hours of direct sunlight. Where would there be
any day time left to generate solar power?

> Also, AFAIK, clouds opposite the sun
> do reflect UV back toward you, so I think
> it is possible to get a tan staying in the
> shade on a cloudy day.

Irrlevant gibberish.

It is impossible to have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground
level.

Growing crops requires lots of direct sunlight.



--
Jim Pennino

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 01:40:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:16:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If they keep the sun off the surface, it
>>>> means irrigation can be used, and crops
>>>> grown to create soil suitable for growing.
>>>
>>>The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.
>>
>> The panels can be placed to provide any
>> number of hours of sun wanted.
>
>Most crops want about 10 hours of direct sunlight. Where would there be
>any day time left to generate solar power?

And some do not want that much sun,
especially when there isn't much rain.

>> Also, AFAIK, clouds opposite the sun
>> do reflect UV back toward you, so I think
>> it is possible to get a tan staying in the
>> shade on a cloudy day.
>
>Irrlevant gibberish.

No, just rational thought compared to your
extremism all or nothing approach.

>It is impossible to have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground
>level.

Learn a little geometry.

>Growing crops requires lots of direct sunlight.

No, it doesn't, with enough water, sunlight
is beneficial, but there are places where plants
grow without sun, like in living rooms and kitchens.

http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/understory/understory.htm

http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/floor/forestfloor.htm

http://www.daleysfruit.com.au/Shop/Understory-Plants.html

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>      If they keep the sun off the surface, it
> >>> means irrigation can be used, and crops
> >>> grown to create soil suitable for growing.
>
> >>The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.
>
> >        The panels can be placed to provide any
> > number of hours of sun wanted.
>
> Most crops want about 10 hours of direct sunlight. Where would there be
> any day time left to generate solar power?
>
> >        Also, AFAIK, clouds opposite the sun
> > do reflect UV back toward you, so I think
> > it is possible to get a tan staying in the
> > shade on a cloudy day.
>
> Irrlevant gibberish.
>
> It is impossible to have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground
> level.
>
> Growing crops requires lots of direct sunlight.

Only in the winter here in the desert.

In the summer the sun evaporates asphalt and the only crop they grow
in the summer here is hay and prickley pear.

A little PV cooling could really expand the lettuce $eason.


Bret Cahill

[Unum]

Lol, you can't even spell gardening.

Prove that "The only crop that grows in the shade
is mushrooms"

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 01:40:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:16:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If they keep the sun off the surface, it
>>>>> means irrigation can be used, and crops
>>>>> grown to create soil suitable for growing.
>>>>
>>>>The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.
>>>
>>> The panels can be placed to provide any
>>> number of hours of sun wanted.
>>
>>Most crops want about 10 hours of direct sunlight. Where would there be
>>any day time left to generate solar power?
>
> And some do not want that much sun,
> especially when there isn't much rain.

Wrong again.

Never had a back yard garden, did you?

Try gowing some tomatoes in the shade and see how far you get.

>>> Also, AFAIK, clouds opposite the sun
>>> do reflect UV back toward you, so I think
>>> it is possible to get a tan staying in the
>>> shade on a cloudy day.
>>
>>Irrlevant gibberish.
>
> No, just rational thought compared to your
> extremism all or nothing approach.

Nope, total nonsense.

UV does penatrate clouds though your reasoning is nonsense.

>>It is impossible to have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground
>>level.
>
> Learn a little geometry.

To have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground, the clouds
would have to be in the ground.

>>Growing crops requires lots of direct sunlight.
>
> No, it doesn't, with enough water, sunlight
> is beneficial, but there are places where plants
> grow without sun, like in living rooms and kitchens.

Yeah, SOME plants grow with little direct sunlight, but not CROPS unless
you think you can eat philodendrons.

> http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/understory/understory.htm
>
> http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/floor/forestfloor.htm
>
> http://www.daleysfruit.com.au/Shop/Understory-Plants.html

Do you understand the difference between ornamental and crop plants?

Crops are things you can eat, idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Utter nonsense.

Many crops can not take the temperatures in desert areas, but they all
require direct sunlight to grow.

Try growing some lettuce in the shade and see how far you get.


--
Jim Pennino

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 04:56:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 01:40:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:16:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If they keep the sun off the surface, it
>>>>>> means irrigation can be used, and crops
>>>>>> grown to create soil suitable for growing.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.
>>>>
>>>> The panels can be placed to provide any
>>>> number of hours of sun wanted.
>>>
>>>Most crops want about 10 hours of direct sunlight. Where would there be
>>>any day time left to generate solar power?
>>
>> And some do not want that much sun,
>> especially when there isn't much rain.
>
>Wrong again.
>
>Never had a back yard garden, did you?

Yeah, back in the 1930s.

>Try gowing some tomatoes in the shade and see how far you get.

Lettuce does pretty good will little sun.

>>>> Also, AFAIK, clouds opposite the sun
>>>> do reflect UV back toward you, so I think
>>>> it is possible to get a tan staying in the
>>>> shade on a cloudy day.
>>>
>>>Irrlevant gibberish.
>>
>> No, just rational thought compared to your
>> extremism all or nothing approach.
>
>Nope, total nonsense.
>
>UV does penatrate clouds though your reasoning is nonsense.
>
>>>It is impossible to have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground
>>>level.
>>
>> Learn a little geometry.
>
>To have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground, the clouds
>would have to be in the ground.

Come on, with the sun in the east and fair
weather clouds to the west of you, they can
be very bright and do reflect the sun toward you.

>>>Growing crops requires lots of direct sunlight.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, with enough water, sunlight
>> is beneficial, but there are places where plants
>> grow without sun, like in living rooms and kitchens.
>
>Yeah, SOME plants grow with little direct sunlight, but not CROPS unless
>you think you can eat philodendrons.
>
>> http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/understory/understory.htm
>>
>> http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/floor/forestfloor.htm
>>
>> http://www.daleysfruit.com.au/Shop/Understory-Plants.html
>
>Do you understand the difference between ornamental and crop plants?
>
>Crops are things you can eat, idiot.

There is a market for almost anything, shade
does protect the soil if there isn't enough rain,
shade is at a premium in deserts, in fact, it
would be beneficial to just have metal roofs
like car ports in places around deserts.

There are enough solar installations
since the 1970s there should be data
and experience.

[Bret Cahill]

> Many crops can not take the temperatures in desert areas, but they all
> require direct sunlight to grow.

Only the red wavelengths. Most of the energy in sunlight is green
which can be used by PV.

Neither the plants nor the PV need the entire spectrum, and in the
desert, neither _want_ the entire spectrum as it provides undesirable
heat.

You would know this if you didn't flunk out of middle school.


Bret Cahill

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

unless they are (say) water-cooled,
they are urban-heat-islanders-in-the-desert.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

If you think there is a crop that grows in the shade, name it.

A few that won't; corn, beans, lettuce, squash, tomatoes, potatoes, wheat,
oats, cucumbers, carrots, eggplant, peppers, onions, broccoli, artichoke,
asparagus, beets, cabbaage, cataloupe, celery, melons, parships, peanuts,
radish, soybean, turnips.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 04:56:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 01:40:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:16:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they keep the sun off the surface, it
>>>>>>> means irrigation can be used, and crops
>>>>>>> grown to create soil suitable for growing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.
>>>>>
>>>>> The panels can be placed to provide any
>>>>> number of hours of sun wanted.
>>>>
>>>>Most crops want about 10 hours of direct sunlight. Where would there be
>>>>any day time left to generate solar power?
>>>
>>> And some do not want that much sun,
>>> especially when there isn't much rain.
>>
>>Wrong again.
>>
>>Never had a back yard garden, did you?
>
> Yeah, back in the 1930s.

That explains it; you've gone forgotten everything about it.

>>Try gowing some tomatoes in the shade and see how far you get.
>
> Lettuce does pretty good will little sun.

If you like thin, spindling lettuce, which is what you get from most crop
plants in the shade, if they will grow at all.

>>>>> Also, AFAIK, clouds opposite the sun
>>>>> do reflect UV back toward you, so I think
>>>>> it is possible to get a tan staying in the
>>>>> shade on a cloudy day.
>>>>
>>>>Irrlevant gibberish.
>>>
>>> No, just rational thought compared to your
>>> extremism all or nothing approach.
>>
>>Nope, total nonsense.
>>
>>UV does penatrate clouds though your reasoning is nonsense.
>>
>>>>It is impossible to have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground
>>>>level.
>>>
>>> Learn a little geometry.
>>
>>To have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground, the clouds
>>would have to be in the ground.
>
> Come on, with the sun in the east and fair
> weather clouds to the west of you, they can
> be very bright and do reflect the sun toward you.

That is not "opposite"; opposite would be 180 degress apart.

Learn a little geometry.

Irrelevant to your original gibberish anyway as the reason you can tan
on a cloudy day is clouds are mostly transparent to UV.

Solar panels, however, are not.

>>>>Growing crops requires lots of direct sunlight.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't, with enough water, sunlight
>>> is beneficial, but there are places where plants
>>> grow without sun, like in living rooms and kitchens.
>>
>>Yeah, SOME plants grow with little direct sunlight, but not CROPS unless
>>you think you can eat philodendrons.
>>
>>> http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/understory/understory.htm
>>>
>>> http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/floor/forestfloor.htm
>>>
>>> http://www.daleysfruit.com.au/Shop/Understory-Plants.html
>>
>>Do you understand the difference between ornamental and crop plants?
>>
>>Crops are things you can eat, idiot.
>
> There is a market for almost anything, shade
> does protect the soil if there isn't enough rain,
> shade is at a premium in deserts, in fact, it
> would be beneficial to just have metal roofs
> like car ports in places around deserts.

Gibberish.

Prey tell us the value of pothos, philodendron, and fern futures.

> There are enough solar installations
> since the 1970s there should be data
> and experience.

More gibberish.

No one is stupid enough to try to plant crops under a solar installation.




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Many crops can not take the temperatures in desert areas, but they all
>> require direct sunlight to grow.
>
> Only the red wavelengths. Most of the energy in sunlight is green
> which can be used by PV.

Irrelevant.

All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel, whether they are used
or not.

> Neither the plants nor the PV need the entire spectrum, and in the
> desert, neither _want_ the entire spectrum as it provides undesirable
> heat.

Irrelevant.

All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel, whether they are used
or not.

> You would know this if you didn't flunk out of middle school.

You would know all wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel if your
brain hadn't been fried by the desert heat.



--
Jim Pennino

[Bret Cahill]

> >> Many crops can not take the temperatures in desert areas, but they all
> >> require direct sunlight to grow.
>
> > Only the red wavelengths.   Most of the energy in sunlight is green
> > which can be used by PV.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel, whether they are used
> or not.
>
> > Neither the plants nor the PV need the entire spectrum, and in the
> > desert, neither _want_ the entire spectrum as it provides undesirable
> > heat.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel,

How would that stop anyone from using filters to transmit red to the
plants while reflecting green to the PV?

Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >      Come on, with the sun in the east and fair
> > weather clouds to the west of you, they can
> > be very bright and do reflect the sun toward you.
>
> That is not "opposite"; opposite would be 180 degress apart.
>
> Learn a little geometry.
>
> Irrelevant to your original gibberish anyway as the reason you can tan
> on a cloudy day is clouds are mostly transparent to UV.
>
> Solar panels, however, are not.

And don't need to be transparent to reflect red light over to the
plants.


Bret Cahill

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

As solar panels are pointed to within a few degrees of the Sun, the only
direction they can reflect sunlight is to within a few more degrees of the
Sun.

Or maybe technical words like "degrees" are too complex for you to understand,
so in simple terms, solar panels point up and can only reflect up.

The ground is what we call "down" relative to the panels.





--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> Many crops can not take the temperatures in desert areas, but they all
>> >> require direct sunlight to grow.
>>
>> > Only the red wavelengths.   Most of the energy in sunlight is green
>> > which can be used by PV.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel, whether they are used
>> or not.
>>
>> > Neither the plants nor the PV need the entire spectrum, and in the
>> > desert, neither _want_ the entire spectrum as it provides undesirable
>> > heat.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel,
>
> How would that stop anyone from using filters to transmit red to the
> plants while reflecting green to the PV?

The realities of how reflection works and the fact that solar panels
point up say this is utter nonsense.

A red filter would absorb green and there would be nothing to reflect
even if this scheme didn't violate every rule of geometry and reflection.

> Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?

Perhaps it is time for you to come out of the desert sun as it appears
your brain has been fried.


--
Jim Pennino

[emoneyjoe]

Probably not because the panels do reflect
some sunlight.

The thing is, if an average of 50% of the
area is shaded during the day, it may be
worthwhile to irrigate, and many crops
will grow with 5 or 6 hours of sun.

Without the reduced number of
hours of direct sun, irrigation is
probably a wasted effort.

Proper placement, spacing, and
guidance if employed has to be
planned to get the near 50% hours.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >      Come on, with the sun in the east and fair
> >> > weather clouds to the west of you, they can
> >> > be very bright and do reflect the sun toward you.
>
> >> That is not "opposite"; opposite would be 180 degress apart.
>
> >> Learn a little geometry.
>
> >> Irrelevant to your original gibberish anyway as the reason you can tan
> >> on a cloudy day is clouds are mostly transparent to UV.
>
> >> Solar panels, however, are not.
>
> > And don't need to be transparent to reflect red light over to the
> > plants.
>
> As solar panels are pointed to within a few degrees of the Sun

Only if you are too stoopid to figger out how to use reflectors &
refraction grating.

Care to try again?

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> Many crops can not take the temperatures in desert areas, but they all
> >> >> require direct sunlight to grow.
>
> >> > Only the red wavelengths.   Most of the energy in sunlight is green
> >> > which can be used by PV.
>
> >> Irrelevant.
>
> >> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel, whether they are used
> >> or not.
>
> >> > Neither the plants nor the PV need the entire spectrum, and in the
> >> > desert, neither _want_ the entire spectrum as it provides undesirable
> >> > heat.
>
> >> Irrelevant.
>
> >> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel,
>
> > How would that stop anyone from using filters to transmit red to the
> > plants while reflecting green to the PV?
>
> The realities of how reflection works

Which are?

> and the fact that solar panels
> point up

Yoiu think "solar panels point up" anywhere outside of the tropics?

. . .

> A red filter would absorb green

Or reflect green if you weren't as stoopid as a plate of spaghetti


. . .

> > Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
>
> Perhaps it is time for you

Here, try again:

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:57:01 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 04:56:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 01:40:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:16:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If they keep the sun off the surface, it
>>>>>>>> means irrigation can be used, and crops
>>>>>>>> grown to create soil suitable for growing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The panels can be placed to provide any
>>>>>> number of hours of sun wanted.
>>>>>
>>>>>Most crops want about 10 hours of direct sunlight. Where would there be
>>>>>any day time left to generate solar power?
>>>>
>>>> And some do not want that much sun,
>>>> especially when there isn't much rain.
>>>
>>>Wrong again.
>>>
>>>Never had a back yard garden, did you?
>>
>> Yeah, back in the 1930s.
>
>That explains it; you've gone forgotten everything about it.

I haven't forgotten anything, I said
I have turtle recall.

>>>Try gowing some tomatoes in the shade and see how far you get.
>>
>> Lettuce does pretty good will little sun.
>
>If you like thin, spindling lettuce, which is what you get from most crop
>plants in the shade, if they will grow at all.

Nobody is talking about all day shade,
I don't understand how you think the
solar farms are laid out.

After I published the booklet that
had a chart of the possible wattage
of large segmented solar energy
concentrating mirrors in 1973 and
established the rule of thumb of
1000 watts per square meter, the
government had Solar One built,
the image of it shows that only
a portion of the ground is shaded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project

It might look like all PV farms have near
100% ground coverage, but a closer look
at all the images show that is not true
in all cases.

http://gigaom.com/2011/04/01/photos-the-nichols-solar-concentrating-pv-farm/

>>>>>> Also, AFAIK, clouds opposite the sun
>>>>>> do reflect UV back toward you, so I think
>>>>>> it is possible to get a tan staying in the
>>>>>> shade on a cloudy day.
>>>>>
>>>>>Irrlevant gibberish.
>>>>
>>>> No, just rational thought compared to your
>>>> extremism all or nothing approach.
>>>
>>>Nope, total nonsense.
>>>
>>>UV does penatrate clouds though your reasoning is nonsense.
>>>
>>>>>It is impossible to have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground
>>>>>level.
>>>>
>>>> Learn a little geometry.
>>>
>>>To have "clouds opposite the sun" with respect to ground, the clouds
>>>would have to be in the ground.
>>
>> Come on, with the sun in the east and fair
>> weather clouds to the west of you, they can
>> be very bright and do reflect the sun toward you.
>
>That is not "opposite"; opposite would be 180 degress apart.
>
>Learn a little geometry.
>
>Irrelevant to your original gibberish anyway as the reason you can tan
>on a cloudy day is clouds are mostly transparent to UV.

I am not talking about UV through the
clouds, I said reflect, I don't understand
why you don't know what reflect off white
surfaces means.

>Solar panels, however, are not.

They usually do not cover 100% of
the area, some shield more percentage
at certain times of the day than others.

>>>>>Growing crops requires lots of direct sunlight.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't, with enough water, sunlight
>>>> is beneficial, but there are places where plants
>>>> grow without sun, like in living rooms and kitchens.
>>>
>>>Yeah, SOME plants grow with little direct sunlight, but not CROPS unless
>>>you think you can eat philodendrons.
>>>
>>>> http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/understory/understory.htm
>>>>
>>>> http://mrsgebauer.com/rainforestweb/floor/forestfloor.htm
>>>>
>>>> http://www.daleysfruit.com.au/Shop/Understory-Plants.html
>>>
>>>Do you understand the difference between ornamental and crop plants?
>>>
>>>Crops are things you can eat, idiot.
>>
>> There is a market for almost anything, shade
>> does protect the soil if there isn't enough rain,
>> shade is at a premium in deserts, in fact, it
>> would be beneficial to just have metal roofs
>> like car ports in places around deserts.
>
>Gibberish.
>
>Prey tell us the value of pothos, philodendron, and fern futures.

Did you check the list of plants for sale
on the last url above, there may be fruit
and edible flowers there in addition to
some vegetables.

>> There are enough solar installations
>> since the 1970s there should be data
>> and experience.
>
>More gibberish.
>
>No one is stupid enough to try to plant crops under a solar installation.

http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/10/farm-grows-veggies-with-a-side-of-solar-power/

Why don't you try a search engine before
mouthing off?

http://aciar.gov.au/files/node/13992/to_mix_or_not_to_mix_evidences_for_the_unexpected_19701.pdf

http://www.citeulike.org/article/9188712

http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/details.xqy?uri=/09601481/v36i0010/2725_csppaflutnas.xml

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:56:24 -0700 (PDT), 1treePetrifiedForestLane
> <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>unless they are (say) water-cooled,
>>they are urban-heat-islanders-in-the-desert.
>>
>>> Most of the energy in sunlight is green
>>> which can be used by PV.
>>>
>>> Neither the plants nor the PV need the entire spectrum, and in the
>>> desert, neither _want_ the entire spectrum as it provides undesirable
>>> heat.
>
> Probably not because the panels do reflect
> some sunlight.

And transmit none, which is the whole point you keep missing.

> The thing is, if an average of 50% of the
> area is shaded during the day, it may be
> worthwhile to irrigate, and many crops
> will grow with 5 or 6 hours of sun.

Just plain idiotic on some many levels.

> Without the reduced number of
> hours of direct sun, irrigation is
> probably a wasted effort.

Then why does the San Joaquin Valley, which is a desert, supply about 13%
of all US crops? Did you know the largest single cotton farm in the world
is in the San Joaquin Valley?

Think it might have something to do with the irrigation bringing massive
amounts of water from the Sacrament Delta?

> Proper placement, spacing, and
> guidance if employed has to be
> planned to get the near 50% hours.

All childish nonsense with no foundation in reality.

If there were water in your desert area, people would already be growing
crops there like they do in the San Joaquin Valley.

Putting in solar panels is not going to make canals and pipelines for
water magically appear.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

That one is so insanely stupid it had me rolling on the floor for a while.

I can just see it: giant Taj Mahal's of mirrors, gratings, and solar
panels scattered across the landscape with enough room between them to
get the farm machinery to the crops you are going to grow in a place that
has no water in the first place.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> >> Many crops can not take the temperatures in desert areas, but they all
>> >> >> require direct sunlight to grow.
>>
>> >> > Only the red wavelengths.   Most of the energy in sunlight is green
>> >> > which can be used by PV.
>>
>> >> Irrelevant.
>>
>> >> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel, whether they are used
>> >> or not.
>>
>> >> > Neither the plants nor the PV need the entire spectrum, and in the
>> >> > desert, neither _want_ the entire spectrum as it provides undesirable
>> >> > heat.
>>
>> >> Irrelevant.
>>
>> >> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel,
>>
>> > How would that stop anyone from using filters to transmit red to the
>> > plants while reflecting green to the PV?
>>
>> The realities of how reflection works
>
> Which are?

For starters, the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence.

>> and the fact that solar panels
>> point up
>
> Yoiu think "solar panels point up" anywhere outside of the tropics?

Unless you know of somewhere where the Sun is underground, yes.

>> A red filter would absorb green
>
> Or reflect green if you weren't as stoopid as a plate of spaghetti

I'll bite, what are you going to use to make this magic filter?

>> > Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
>>
>> Perhaps it is time for you
>
> Here, try again:
>
> Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?

Have you always been a clown with comic book schemes to save the world?




--
Jim Pennino

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/7/13 3:57 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> That one is so insanely stupid it had me rolling on the floor for a while.

Hope you didn't hurt yourself down on the floor, jimp. Solar cells
don't have to be normal to the sunlight to be useful! :-o

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> >      Come on, with the sun in the east and fair
> >> >> > weather clouds to the west of you, they can
> >> >> > be very bright and do reflect the sun toward you.
>
> >> >> That is not "opposite"; opposite would be 180 degress apart.
>
> >> >> Learn a little geometry.
>
> >> >> Irrelevant to your original gibberish anyway as the reason you can tan
> >> >> on a cloudy day is clouds are mostly transparent to UV.
>
> >> >> Solar panels, however, are not.
>
> >> > And don't need to be transparent to reflect red light over to the
> >> > plants.
>
> >> As solar panels are pointed to within a few degrees of the Sun
>
> > Only if you are too stoopid to figger out how to use reflectors &
> > refraction grating.
>
> That one is so insanely stupid

Are you projecting or fessin' up that you are too stoopid to figger
out how to use reflectors?

Care to try again?

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> >> Many crops can not take the temperatures in desert areas, but they all
> >> >> >> require direct sunlight to grow.
>
> >> >> > Only the red wavelengths.   Most of the energy in sunlight is green
> >> >> > which can be used by PV.
>
> >> >> Irrelevant.
>
> >> >> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel, whether they are used
> >> >> or not.
>
> >> >> > Neither the plants nor the PV need the entire spectrum, and in the
> >> >> > desert, neither _want_ the entire spectrum as it provides undesirable
> >> >> > heat.
>
> >> >> Irrelevant.
>
> >> >> All wavelengths are blocked by the solar panel,
>
> >> > How would that stop anyone from using filters to transmit red to the
> >> > plants while reflecting green to the PV?
>
> >> The realities of how reflection works
>
> > Which are?
>
> For starters, the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence.

You'll need to do more than "starters" to explain how that would stop

anyone from using filters to transmit red to the plants while
reflecting green to the PV

Care to try again?

> >> and the fact that solar panels
> >> point up
>
> > Yoiu think "solar panels point up" anywhere outside of the tropics?
>
> Unless you know of somewhere where the Sun is underground, yes.

Where are these solar panels that point up?

> >> A red filter would absorb green
>
> > Or reflect green if you weren't as stoopid as a plate of spaghetti
>
> I'll bite, what are you going to use to make this magic filter?

Are you openly admitting you are so ignorant you haven't heard of
grating that reflects some wavelengths and transmit others?

> >> > Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
>
> >> Perhaps it is time for you
>
> > Here, try again:
>
> > Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
>
> Have you always

Stop dodgin' 'n dodgin.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

No, they don't have to be normal, you just have to put up with the sin (theta)
loss.





--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Care to try again?

OK, how's this?

You are a babbling idiot full of cartoon ideas that won't work in the
real world.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:57:01 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 04:56:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>>If you like thin, spindling lettuce, which is what you get from most crop
>>plants in the shade, if they will grow at all.
>
> Nobody is talking about all day shade,
> I don't understand how you think the
> solar farms are laid out.

I don't understand how you think you can build a solar plant somewhere
there is no water and then grow crops in the shade.

> After I published the booklet that
> had a chart of the possible wattage
> of large segmented solar energy
> concentrating mirrors in 1973 and
> established the rule of thumb of
> 1000 watts per square meter, the
> government had Solar One built,
> the image of it shows that only
> a portion of the ground is shaded.

Solar One doesn't use panels so it has nothing to do with anything you
have said so far.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project
>
> It might look like all PV farms have near
> 100% ground coverage, but a closer look
> at all the images show that is not true
> in all cases.
>
> http://gigaom.com/2011/04/01/photos-the-nichols-solar-concentrating-pv-farm/

Yeah, right.

Look at your own pictures; nothing growing under there, not even weeds.

>>Irrelevant to your original gibberish anyway as the reason you can tan
>>on a cloudy day is clouds are mostly transparent to UV.
>
> I am not talking about UV through the
> clouds, I said reflect, I don't understand
> why you don't know what reflect off white
> surfaces means.

So again you are talking nonsense; as clouds are fairly transperant to UV,
they reflect very little.

>>Solar panels, however, are not.
>
> They usually do not cover 100% of
> the area, some shield more percentage
> at certain times of the day than others.

So you are going to put these things far enough apart to get the farm
machinery into the crops you are going to grow someplace where there
are no crops growing because there is no water there in the first place?

You do know the definition of the word "desert", don't you?

It does NOT mean someplace that is hot.

<snip>

>>Prey tell us the value of pothos, philodendron, and fern futures.
>
> Did you check the list of plants for sale
> on the last url above, there may be fruit
> and edible flowers there in addition to
> some vegetables.

That is your job as you are the one making the claim that crops grow
in the shade.

Name some.

>>> There are enough solar installations
>>> since the 1970s there should be data
>>> and experience.
>>
>>More gibberish.
>>
>>No one is stupid enough to try to plant crops under a solar installation.
>
> http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/10/farm-grows-veggies-with-a-side-of-solar-power/

Oh, whooppee! Somebody got a government grant to do a study.

Anything other than a hobby gargen requires farm machinery and you aren't
getting farm machinery into that thing.

Watch the papers for the bankruptcy announcement for this wet dream.

<snip remaining babble as I am tired of reading stupidity>




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

<snip>

> You'll need to do more than "starters" to explain how that would stop
> anyone from using filters to transmit red to the plants while
> reflecting green to the PV
>
> Care to try again?

Ok, you are a babbling clown with cartoon ideas.

Are you aware that the Sun moves during the day?

>
>> >> and the fact that solar panels
>> >> point up
>>
>> > Yoiu think "solar panels point up" anywhere outside of the tropics?
>>
>> Unless you know of somewhere where the Sun is underground, yes.
>
> Where are these solar panels that point up?
>
>> >> A red filter would absorb green
>>
>> > Or reflect green if you weren't as stoopid as a plate of spaghetti
>>
>> I'll bite, what are you going to use to make this magic filter?
>
> Are you openly admitting you are so ignorant you haven't heard of
> grating that reflects some wavelengths and transmit others?

No, I am asking you what are you going to use to make this magic filter?

Arm waving about gratings is not an answer.

<snip remaining clown babble>


--
Jim Pennino

[Bret Cahill]

> > Care to try again?
>
> OK, how's this?

So you are admitting you are too stoopid to use reflectors so that PV
panels may be oriented in any direction??


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> > That one is so insanely stupid it had me rolling on the floor for a while.
>
>    Hope you didn't hurt yourself down on the floor, jimp. Solar cells
>    don't have to be normal to the sunlight to be useful!  :-o

The price of solar PV is dropping so fast soon no one will bother
with tracking mechanisms and other nonsense unless land is at such a
premium they need dual use of the sun:

Red light for crops and green light for solar PV.

The arguments for dual use aren't complicated:

1. Most solar energy is green and useless to crops. Why not use it
for PV?

2. Plants won't grow in the summer desert sun. Crops only grow in
the winter when there is _less light_, 30% shorter days, etc. Why not
extend the growing season into the summer by sending unwanted solar
energy to PV?

3. The same goes for PV as for plants. Why not keep the PV cool by
sending the excess solar to the plants?

Using green light for solar PV is green in more ways than one.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >> That one is so insanely stupid it had me rolling on the floor for a while.
>
> >   Hope you didn't hurt yourself down on the floor, jimp. Solar cells
> >   don't have to be normal to the sunlight to be useful!  :-o
>
> No, they don't have to be normal, you just have to put up with the sin (theta)
> loss.

So what is the sin theta loss of a panel facing 45 degrees to the
horizontal _downward_ receiving green light that has been reflected or
refracted upward 45 degrees with the horizontal?

[Bret Cahill]

> Are you aware that the Sun moves during the day?

Are you aware that trackers can follow the sun during the day?

> >> >> and the fact that solar panels
> >> >> point up
>
> >> > Yoiu think "solar panels point up" anywhere outside of the tropics?
>
> >> Unless you know of somewhere where the Sun is underground, yes.
>
> > Where are these solar panels that point up?

No answer?

> >> >> A red filter would absorb green
>
> >> > Or reflect green if you weren't as stoopid as a plate of spaghetti
>
> >> I'll bite, what are you going to use to make this magic filter?
>
> > Are you openly admitting you are so ignorant you haven't heard of
> > grating that reflects some wavelengths and transmit others?
>
> No, I am asking you what are you going to use to make this magic filter?

They are already doing it with grating.

Are you too stoopid to google or what?

[Bret Cahill]

> >No one is stupid enough to try to plant crops under a solar installation.
>

> http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/10/farm-grows-veggies-with-a-side-o...

>
>       Why don't you try a search engine before
> mouthing off?

Like most deniers he's too stoopid to use search engines.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> So you are going to put these things far enough apart to get the farm
> machinery into the crops you are going to grow someplace where there
> are no crops growing because there is no water there in the first place?
>
> You do know the definition of the word "desert", don't you?

With irrigation canals a desert can be enormously productive. Nothing
can go wrong! In fact, rain just messes up farm operations.

Just a couple hours ago I cycled past a fragrant broccoli field. It
smelled so good. Later a carrot truck passed me. The carrots and
earth smelled so good. In a couple more months the onions will be
harvested and a few will fall off the trucks onto the road. The
onions then get crushed by motorists and they smell so good.


Bret Cahill

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Who give a shit?

The cost of all the required machinery to do this would be so high the
scheme is guaranteed to lose money no matter what.




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>> > That one is so insanely stupid it had me rolling on the floor for a while.
>>
>>    Hope you didn't hurt yourself down on the floor, jimp. Solar cells
>>    don't have to be normal to the sunlight to be useful!  :-o
>
> The price of solar PV is dropping so fast soon no one will bother
> with tracking mechanisms and other nonsense unless land is at such a
> premium they need dual use of the sun:

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

> Red light for crops and green light for solar PV.

You forget the blue-violet also needed by green plants.

> The arguments for dual use aren't complicated:

Just cartoonish.

> 1. Most solar energy is green and useless to crops. Why not use it
> for PV?

You mean other than the enormous cost of all that machinery?

> 2. Plants won't grow in the summer desert sun.

Plants grow just fine in the summer desert sun of the San Joaquin Valley.

Of course, there is a HUGE system to get the needed water there.

<snip clown babble>


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Nope, that you are too childish to understand the huge cost of all that
machinery to grow crops where there is no water in the first place or
there would already be crops there.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>> So you are going to put these things far enough apart to get the farm
>> machinery into the crops you are going to grow someplace where there
>> are no crops growing because there is no water there in the first place?
>>
>> You do know the definition of the word "desert", don't you?
>
> With irrigation canals a desert can be enormously productive.

Sure they can, just look at the San Joaquin Valley.

Then look at the enourmous cost of that water system.

Then open your eyes an realize no one has the money to build another one
anywhere else.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> That one is so insanely stupid it had me rolling on the floor for a while.
>
> >> >   Hope you didn't hurt yourself down on the floor, jimp. Solar cells
> >> >   don't have to be normal to the sunlight to be useful!  :-o
>
> >> No, they don't have to be normal, you just have to put up with the sin (theta)
> >> loss.
>
> > So what is the sin theta loss of a panel facing 45 degrees to the
> > horizontal _downward_ receiving green light that has been reflected or
> > refracted upward 45 degrees with the horizontal?
>
> Who give a shit?

"You are vexed therefore I am right about you."

-- Nietzsche

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>> Are you aware that the Sun moves during the day?
>
> Are you aware that trackers can follow the sun during the day?
>
>> >> >> and the fact that solar panels
>> >> >> point up
>>
>> >> > Yoiu think "solar panels point up" anywhere outside of the tropics?
>>
>> >> Unless you know of somewhere where the Sun is underground, yes.
>>
>> > Where are these solar panels that point up?
>
> No answer?

Everywhere the Sun is in the sky and not in the ground.

<snip remaining clown babble as it is getting too boring to deal with>



--
Jim Pennino

[Bret Cahill]

> >> > Care to try again?
>
> >> OK, how's this?
>
> > So you are admitting you are too stoopid to use reflectors so that PV
> > panels may be oriented in any direction??
>
> Nope,

OK, then show how it's possible.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> Are you aware that the Sun moves during the day?
>
> > Are you aware that trackers can follow the sun during the day?
>
> >> >> >> and the fact that solar panels
> >> >> >> point up
>
> >> >> > Yoiu think "solar panels point up" anywhere outside of the tropics?
>
> >> >> Unless you know of somewhere where the Sun is underground, yes.
>
> >> > Where are these solar panels that point up?
>
> > No answer?
>
> Everywhere the Sun is in the sky and not in the ground.

Well? Where are they?

[Last Post]

On Sunday, March 17, 2013 12:51:31 PM UTC-4, Bret Cahill wrote:

> Could 28% efficient PV in the desert transfering the energy by HV
> transmission lines to cities cool the desert significantly? >
> Yes, if the PV covered most of the valley and was supplying every city
> in the U.S.
>
Ø —— Typical idiocy from Betsy Cahill

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>> >> >> That one is so insanely stupid it had me rolling on the floor for a while.
>>
>> >> >   Hope you didn't hurt yourself down on the floor, jimp. Solar cells
>> >> >   don't have to be normal to the sunlight to be useful!  :-o
>>
>> >> No, they don't have to be normal, you just have to put up with the sin (theta)
>> >> loss.
>>
>> > So what is the sin theta loss of a panel facing 45 degrees to the
>> > horizontal _downward_ receiving green light that has been reflected or
>> > refracted upward 45 degrees with the horizontal?
>>
>> Who give a shit?
>

<snip>

Since you won't let it go...

The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.

If you have two relflecting surfaces, you have .9 X .9 X .707 X .707, so
you wind up losing 59.5% of the energy from this scheme assuming the panel
is normal to the last reflector.

If the panel is at an angle, multiply .405 by the sine of that angle and
that is what you would have left.

In reality the mirrors will get dirty so they are going to reflect a lot
less than 90% once the system has been in place a day or two.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why?

It may be possible, but it is highly impractical because of all the sin (theta)
and reflection losses plus the cost of all the tracking mechanisms required
to get anything at all out of it.

Then there is the issue of you are attempting to minimize shadowing by putting
up 2 to 3 times the area of "stuff" to create shadows.

And lastly there is the issue of there being no water in the first place or
there would already be crops growing.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

--
Jim Pennino

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/8/13 11:40 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.

My diagonal mirror has reflectivity is above 99% over the entire 4000
to 7000 � photo-visual range, jimp.

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/8/13 11:45 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Everywhere the Sun is in the sky and not in the ground.

How profound!

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/8/13 11:40 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.
>
> My diagonal mirror has reflectivity is above 99% over the entire 4000

> to 7000 Å photo-visual range, jimp.

The unstated and obvious condition is that we are talking about commercial
grade mirrors ass hat, not hughly expensive labratory grade mirrors.

In any case whether the mirror is 99% or 90% is moot once it has been
exposed to the elements for a couple of days.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

So we have yet another idiot that can't understand that from ground level
the Sun is "up", i.e. has a positive elevation angle.





--
Jim Pennino

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/8/13 12:57 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/8/13 11:40 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.
>>
>> My diagonal mirror has reflectivity is above 99% over the entire 4000

>> to 7000 � photo-visual range, jimp.

>
> The unstated and obvious condition is that we are talking about commercial

> grade mirrors ass hat, not hughly (sic} expensive labratory (sic) grade mirrors.

>
> In any case whether the mirror is 99% or 90% is moot once it has been
> exposed to the elements for a couple of days.
>

Wrong again, jimp!

[Sam Wormley]

Depends on the coordinate system used, jimp!

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/13 12:57 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/8/13 11:40 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.
>>>
>>> My diagonal mirror has reflectivity is above 99% over the entire 4000

>>> to 7000 Å photo-visual range, jimp.

>>
>> The unstated and obvious condition is that we are talking about commercial
>> grade mirrors ass hat, not hughly (sic} expensive labratory (sic) grade mirrors.
>>
>> In any case whether the mirror is 99% or 90% is moot once it has been
>> exposed to the elements for a couple of days.
>>
>
> Wrong again, jimp!

Nope, not unless you are constantly cleaning all these tracking mirrors.

I guess you missed the part where the clown is talking about a PV system
with multiple reflecters where the losses are already going to be very
high.





--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/13 12:59 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/8/13 11:45 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Everywhere the Sun is in the sky and not in the ground.
>>>
>>> How profound!
>>
>> So we have yet another idiot that can't understand that from ground level
>> the Sun is "up", i.e. has a positive elevation angle.
>>
>
> Depends on the coordinate system used, jimp!

For most sane people not on drugs, the reference for elevation angle is
0 degrees for horizontal, 90 degrees for straight up and -90 degrees for
staight down.


--
Jim Pennino

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>> The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.
>
> >>>    My diagonal mirror has reflectivity is above 99% over the entire 4000
> >>>    to 7000 Å photo-visual range, jimp.
>
> >> The unstated and obvious condition is that we are talking about commercial
> >> grade mirrors ass hat, not hughly (sic} expensive labratory (sic) grade mirrors.
>
> >> In any case whether the mirror is 99% or 90% is moot once it has been
> >> exposed to the elements for a couple of days.
>
> >   Wrong again, jimp!
>
> Nope, not unless you are constantly cleaning all these tracking mirrors.

How is that any worse than cleaning PV panels?

> I guess you missed the part where the clown is talking about a PV system
> with multiple reflecters where the losses are already going to be very
> high.

What losses?

This would allow cultivation in the summer in places where it is
impossible now.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >> > Care to try again?
>
> >> >> OK, how's this?
>
> >> > So you are admitting you are too stoopid to use reflectors so that PV
> >> > panels may be oriented in any direction??
>
> >> Nope,
>
> > OK, then show how it's possible.
>
> Why?
>
> It may be possible, but it is highly impractical because of all the sin (theta)
> and reflection losses plus the cost of all the tracking mechanisms required
> to get anything at all out of it.

Other than being somewhat thicker how would you even be able to tell
the difference between conventional tracking PV and tracking PV
designed to transmit red?


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.

And HVAC power lines lose 10% of their energy to resistance heating
over just 200 miles.

What's your point? That it was a mistake to build transmission lives?

Anyway the plant problem in the summer here is _too much_ solar energy
frying the leaves.

The concentrating PV problem is _too much_ solar energy [with the
wrong wavelengths] frying the panels.

It's the perfect dovetail: Just send the red and maybe a little blue
light to the plants and just send the green light to the panels.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>> Everywhere the Sun is in the sky and not in the ground.
>
> >>>    How profound!
>
> >> So we have yet another idiot that can't understand that from ground level
> >> the Sun is "up", i.e. has a positive elevation angle.
>
> >   Depends on the coordinate system used, jimp!
>
> For most sane people not on drugs, the reference for elevation angle is
> 0 degrees for horizontal, 90 degrees for straight up and -90 degrees for
> staight down.

How doies that make it impossible to separate wavelengths, sending red
to plants and green to tracking PV panels?


Bret Cahill

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >>>> The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.
>>
>> >>>    My diagonal mirror has reflectivity is above 99% over the entire 4000
>> >>>    to 7000 Å photo-visual range, jimp.
>>
>> >> The unstated and obvious condition is that we are talking about commercial
>> >> grade mirrors ass hat, not hughly (sic} expensive labratory (sic) grade mirrors.
>>
>> >> In any case whether the mirror is 99% or 90% is moot once it has been
>> >> exposed to the elements for a couple of days.
>>
>> >   Wrong again, jimp!
>>
>> Nope, not unless you are constantly cleaning all these tracking mirrors.
>
> How is that any worse than cleaning PV panels?

Because the losses are multiplicative, not additive.

If you have two things that are 80% efficient, you wind up with 64% of
what you started with.

>> I guess you missed the part where the clown is talking about a PV system
>> with multiple reflecters where the losses are already going to be very
>> high.
>
> What losses?

The sin (theta) losses and the reflective losses, which multiply together.

> This would allow cultivation in the summer in places where it is
> impossible now.

If it is impossible now, it is because there is not enough water.

There are LOTS of crops that just love the full heat of the desert if you
can get enough water to them.

PV panels will not make water magically appear.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Because your system started out with added mirrors and such to separate
light and send it to different places, or did you forget that?




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.
>
> And HVAC power lines lose 10% of their energy to resistance heating
> over just 200 miles.

Utter nonsense.

> What's your point? That it was a mistake to build transmission lives?

Mostly that you are a clown.

> Anyway the plant problem in the summer here is _too much_ solar energy
> frying the leaves.

Nope, the problem with crops in the desert is the availability of water.

There are LOTS of crops that like really high temperatures if they have
enough water.

Yet again, see the San Joaquin Valley happily growing about 13% of US
crops in over 100 degree F heat.

> The concentrating PV problem is _too much_ solar energy [with the
> wrong wavelengths] frying the panels.

The solution to that is to just not concentrate.

> It's the perfect dovetail: Just send the red and maybe a little blue
> light to the plants and just send the green light to the panels.

It is a cartoon scheme that does nothing for the base problem, i.e. not
enough water.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

It doesn't.

It just ignores all the other problems like system cost, system loses,
and the lack of water to grow crops in the first place.

BTW, you need to learn the difference between "impossible" and "impractical".



--
Jim Pennino

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >>>> The best of mirrors reflect about 90% when they are nice and clean.
>
> >> >>>    My diagonal mirror has reflectivity is above 99% over the entire 4000
> >> >>>    to 7000 Å photo-visual range, jimp.
>
> >> >> The unstated and obvious condition is that we are talking about commercial
> >> >> grade mirrors ass hat, not hughly (sic} expensive labratory (sic) grade mirrors.
>
> >> >> In any case whether the mirror is 99% or 90% is moot once it has been
> >> >> exposed to the elements for a couple of days.
>
> >> >   Wrong again, jimp!
>
> >> Nope, not unless you are constantly cleaning all these tracking mirrors.
>
> > How is that any worse than cleaning PV panels?
>
> Because the losses are multiplicative, not additive.
>
> If you have two things that are 80% efficient,

Where did the 80% figure come from?

Besides, it's as easy to clean 2 surfaces as one.

> you wind up with 64% of
> what you started with.
>
> >> I guess you missed the part where the clown is talking about a PV system
> >> with multiple reflecters where the losses are already going to be very
> >> high.
>
> > What losses?
>
> The sin (theta) losses and the reflective losses, which multiply together.

You don't think tracking is possible with grating or reflectors?

> > This would allow cultivation in the summer in places where it is
> > impossible now.
>
> If it is impossible now, it is because there is not enough water.

That wasn't true even back before 35 cent/watt PV.

> There are LOTS of crops that just love the full heat of the desert if you
> can get enough water to them.

Only alfalfa & hay. Nothing humans eat except napolitos.

> PV panels will not make water magically appear.

PV + reverse osmosis = fresh water.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

Here, try again:

Other than being somewhat thicker how would you even be able to tell
the difference between conventional tracking PV and tracking PV
designed to transmit red?

Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

OK, how does that make it impractical to separate wavelengths, sending

red to plants and green to tracking PV panels?

Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>> Everywhere the Sun is in the sky and not in the ground.
>
> >>>    How profound!
>
> >> So we have yet another idiot that can't understand that from ground level
> >> the Sun is "up", i.e. has a positive elevation angle.
>
> >   Depends on the coordinate system used, jimp!
>
> For most sane people not on drugs, the reference for elevation angle is
> 0 degrees for horizontal, 90 degrees for straight up and -90 degrees for
> staight down.

How does that make it impractical to separate wavelengths, sending red

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > How is that any worse than cleaning PV panels?
>>
>> Because the losses are multiplicative, not additive.
>>
>> If you have two things that are 80% efficient,
>
> Where did the 80% figure come from?

It is an example, as is indicated by the sentence starting with the word "if".

> Besides, it's as easy to clean 2 surfaces as one.

No, it obviously takes twice the effort somewhere, either in machinery
to do it automatically or labor to do it manually.

>> you wind up with 64% of
>> what you started with.
>>
>> >> I guess you missed the part where the clown is talking about a PV system
>> >> with multiple reflecters where the losses are already going to be very
>> >> high.
>>
>> > What losses?
>>
>> The sin (theta) losses and the reflective losses, which multiply together.
>
> You don't think tracking is possible with grating or reflectors?

Once again, you need to learn the difference between "possible" and
"practical".

>> > This would allow cultivation in the summer in places where it is
>> > impossible now.
>>
>> If it is impossible now, it is because there is not enough water.
>
> That wasn't true even back before 35 cent/watt PV.

The price of PV panels has nothing to do with the availability of water.

Are you on drugs?

>> There are LOTS of crops that just love the full heat of the desert if you
>> can get enough water to them.
>
> Only alfalfa & hay. Nothing humans eat except napolitos.

Well, actually there are lots of things humans eat that grow just fine in
very hot places. And there is also cotton, which is a major crop by itself.

>> PV panels will not make water magically appear.
>
> PV + reverse osmosis = fresh water.

Neither PV panels nor reverse osmosis will make water magically appear
where there is none to start with.

Are you on drugs?



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Other than being somewhat thicker how would you even be able to tell
> the difference between conventional tracking PV and tracking PV
> designed to transmit red?

It is not just thicker, it has more total obscured area because you are
adding mirrors and gratings as well as their support and tracking
structures.




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Total construction costs, including the system to get water to someplace
where there currently isn't any water, just for starters.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Again, it has nothing to do with that at all.

What makes it impractical for starters is the huge system cost, which
includes the stuff necessary to get water to a place where there currently
isn't any water.

Are you on drugs?



--
Jim Pennino

[Bret Cahill]

> > Other than being somewhat thicker how would you even be able to tell
> > the difference between conventional tracking PV and tracking PV
> > designed to transmit red?
>
> It is not just thicker, it has more total obscured area

What is "obscured area"?

Are you having difficulty understanding that a m^2 of sunlight can
suppy a m^2 of red light to algae and a m^2 of green light to PV?

Did you flunk out of middle school geometry or what?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

don't you recall the "white roofs program?"

now, if someone has actually farmed a PV field,
taht would be interesting, because it's going to a hard
nut to stomp.

>       Probably not because the panels do reflect
> some sunlight.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > Other than being somewhat thicker how would you even be able to tell
>> > the difference between conventional tracking PV and tracking PV
>> > designed to transmit red?
>>
>> It is not just thicker, it has more total obscured area
>
> What is "obscured area"?

An area obscured from the Sun, moron.

> Are you having difficulty understanding that a m^2 of sunlight can
> suppy a m^2 of red light to algae and a m^2 of green light to PV?

Where did algae come from all of a sudden?

Are you having difficulty understanding that your whole scheme is Rube
Goldberg at best, economically insane, and the basic premise of growing
crops around your Rube Goldberg scheme is idiotic because there is no water
there in the first place?

> Did you flunk out of middle school geometry or what?

[Surfer]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 01:00:17 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>> On 4/6/2013 7:16 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If they keep the sun off the surface, it
>>>> means irrigation can be used, and crops
>>>> grown to create soil suitable for growing.
>>>
>>> The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.
>>
>> Prove it. Everything you post is utter crap.
>
>See any book on gardning, fuckwit.
>
So you can't offer evidence to prove your claim.

And in fact it is wrong, as this link describes how coffee is grown in
shade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade-grown_coffee

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

it is an understory plant of the jungle. so,
are there any extant designs for a "PV/coffee plantation?"

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

OK, that's one.

However coffee requires lots of water to grow and there is no water in the
first place.




--
Jim Pennino

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>>       If they keep the sun off the surface, it
> >>>> means irrigation can be used, and crops
> >>>> grown to create soil suitable for growing.
>
> >>> The only crop that grows in the shade is mushrooms.
>
> >> Prove it. Everything you post is utter crap.
>
> >See any book on gardning, fuckwit.
>
> So you can't offer evidence to prove your claim.
>
> And in fact it is wrong, as this link describes how coffee is grown in
> shade.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade-grown_coffee

Irrelavant where crop plants get too much sunlight to live in the
summer.


Bret Cahill

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Irrelevant to your Rube Goldberg scheme to grow things where there is no

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

stop the presses; read the God-am box on p18,
April Physics Today, Giant Gap in Water Vapor Spectrum Found &
Plugged.

now, I am not saying that suchlike will not also be found
for dioxygen carbon, although I still doubt that
it will be found to be anything much more that
"an absolute requirement of plant nutrition."

> water in the first place.

thus:
there are no critters, what ever, on Greenland,
nor on Antarctica icesheets, other than scientists,
other than coastally.

he -- not a male bear -- was probably the precipitating factor
in the collapse of the Larsen B Iceshelf!

> I doubt if any froze to death, there is some
> other factor here, there probably never was
> any Polar Bears on the mile thick ice sheets,

thus:
in spite of these sea-surface anomalies,
beneath the thermohaline it is just "almost frozen."

thus:
see this month's Physics Today p18 box,
"Water dimer yields to spectroscopic study....
But dimers had never been spectrally characterized
at ambient temperatures, so...."

> the equally vast role of clouds, optically & thermally and
> biologically, whereas CO2 is almost just a "required nutrient"
> or fertilizer.

> > if you read more, you'll need glasses »

I pooh on your lapel, sir ... "pooh!"