Solar panels create more heat than energy

[Caesium]

Solar panels seem like a great idea.

Absorb energy from the sun and convert it into electricity.

There's no combustion, so no smoke, ashes, CO2 or other annoyances to deal
with during the conversion.

What's the down side?

They are poisonous to make, they are poisonous when they break. They
cannot be profitably recycled - AND - damaged panels instantly become
hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents.

Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this
classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions —
hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select
routes, etc.”

What's the other down side?

They contribute to global warming. In a big way. Solar panels are dark
and absorb sunlight generating electricity and heat. The surface heat of
solar panels can exceed 150°F.

The heat has no place to go but into the atmosphere. Yes, argues the
solar industry peddlers, but the heat does dissipate. Quite so, but the
reflective heat is still generated in massive amounts, will "reheat" air
in front of the panels and contribute to "heat islands".

The solar panel absorbs about 30% of the suns heat energy, re-emits half
out toward the sky and half toward the roof, which absorbs about 30% of
the heat emitted by the solar panel or only 5% of the sun's heat (30% of
50% of 30%).

So who benefits from this charade?

Green industry because of government subsidies mostly. Unwitting
homeowners will be stuck with hazardous cleanup costs down the road.
Obtuse tree huggers, coal / petroleum hating climatists falsely believe
their agendas are vindicated.

Every solar panel owner contributes to global warming.

Topaz Solar Farm in California contributes 7.3 square miles of reflected
150°F heat every single day during peak operation hours. Humans can
survive for approximately 10 minutes in 140°F temperatures.

Climate advocates never think things like this through.

[danny burstein]

In <tfap75$54v$1...@toxic.dizum.net> Caesium <safe...@no.not> writes:

[bumdass tihs deleted]


>
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 9/7/22 2:51 PM, Caesium wrote:
> Solar panels seem like a great idea.
>
> Absorb energy from the sun and convert it into electricity.
>
> There's no combustion, so no smoke, ashes, CO2 or other annoyances to deal
> with during the conversion.
>
> What's the down side?
>
> They are poisonous to make, they are poisonous when they break. They
> cannot be profitably recycled - AND - damaged panels instantly become
> hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents.
>
> Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this
> classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions —
> hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select
> routes, etc.”
>
> What's the other down side?
>
> They contribute to global warming. In a big way. Solar panels are dark
> and absorb sunlight generating electricity and heat. The surface heat of
> solar panels can exceed 150°F.

At 160-180°F you could distill alcohol and at 210°F you can distill
water to make clean distilled water... SO they could be cooled with sea
water that is then dumped into a water distiller to do the final heating
of 20-40°F by a solar oven type of reflector all around the coolant
pipe for concentration of sunlight. Then you use the wasted heat to
make clean water.

Having a 2nd way to use that heat (distilling water) would make it more
heat efficient and cost effective.

> The heat has no place to go but into the atmosphere.

Which is why you need a cooling system that heats the water, drawing off
all that heat to a useful project that can be a money generating way to
cool solar panels and to distill water at the same time.

> Yes, argues the
> solar industry peddlers, but the heat does dissipate. Quite so, but the
> reflective heat is still generated in massive amounts, will "reheat" air
> in front of the panels and contribute to "heat islands".
>
> The solar panel absorbs about 30% of the suns heat energy, re-emits half
> out toward the sky and half toward the roof, which absorbs about 30% of
> the heat emitted by the solar panel or only 5% of the sun's heat (30% of
> 50% of 30%).
>

You could store that heat in water and heat houses for people or Green
Houses for growing food. Stare building housing like Honey Combs so
that you have six honeycomb properties surrounding an empty honey comb
property in the center of those six properties and build a solar panel
and vacuum tube water heater combo that will heat houses in winter and
cool the solar panels and/or Air Conditioners high pressure side in the
summer heat... They make thermal electronic coolers now where you heat
on side of the electronic part and it causes the other side to get cool.

> So who benefits from this charade?
>
> Green industry because of government subsidies mostly. Unwitting
> homeowners will be stuck with hazardous cleanup costs down the road.
> Obtuse tree huggers, coal / petroleum hating climatists falsely believe
> their agendas are vindicated.

Subsidies are the enemy of truth and progress, you can't build an
economy on lies and expect it to function very well...

>
> Every solar panel owner contributes to global warming.
>
> Topaz Solar Farm in California contributes 7.3 square miles of reflected
> 150°F heat every single day during peak operation hours. Humans can
> survive for approximately 10 minutes in 140°F temperatures.
>
> Climate advocates never think things like this through.

Democrats are reaction oriented, they run on feelings not TRUTH FACT and
LOGIC.

*Democrat Policy is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*





--
-That's karma-

The result is DEMOCRATS lies about history and reality to themselves and
others means their attempts to figure-out what's wrong is an exercise in
futility, because what they think they know they really don't know, and
fixing problems without the truth... becomes a fools errand.

[Andrew T.]

On 2022-09-07, Caesium <safe...@no.not> wrote:
>
> The heat has no place to go but into the atmosphere. Yes, argues the
> solar industry peddlers, but the heat does dissipate. Quite so, but the
> reflective heat is still generated in massive amounts, will "reheat" air
> in front of the panels and contribute to "heat islands".

I've been thinking about this lately, driving past large solar farms
in our area (NY).

Normally, it seems, sunlight hits the ground (or things coupled to the
ground, like trees) and is absorbed, with the earth as a kind of giant
capacitor. That thermal mass heats up slowly and releases its heat
slowly. Temeratures are regulated.

But large arrays of ground-mount solar panels (I'm not considering
rooftop solar here) are poorly coupled to the earth by relatively thin
support hardware. Excess energy (not converted to electricity) cannot
reach the ground and be store. It can only be released into the
atmosphere. It seems to me this would lead to more volatile weather
patterns, which is what I've been noticing lately.

I'm not sure if any formal studies have considered this, as until this
post I haven't heard anyone talk about this effect as a possibility.
If there are studies, I'd like to see them. What I've written here is
largely hypothesis and conjecture, fueled by logic. Formal studies
should be done before we go too far down the road.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to solar, especially local generation
from rooftop solar and off-grid/grid-inaccessible applications. But
I'm not sure the envirnmental impacts of large-scale solar farms has
been well studied.

Just the thoughts of an insomniac...

--Andrew


--
Andrew Turnquist, New York, USA
(Remove numbers and .invalid for email address)
"Do what you can with what you have where you are." -T Roosevelt

[Lu Wei]

On 2022-9-26 13:24, Andrew T. wrote:
> On 2022-09-07, Caesium <safe...@no.not> wrote:

>> ...

The optical|thermal characteristics of silicon solar panel could be
analogized to sand desert with black color. About 4% of incident light
is reflected at the glass surface, 20% is transformed to electricity
power, and the rest 76% to heat. Comparing to another vast man-made
earth surface, concrete, with the reflectance of about 20%~30%, which
absorbs about 75% to heat, the solar panel is just at the same level
transforming sun radiation to heat.

As the main components of silicon solar panel are glass and silicon, the
heat capacity is similar to sand -- just like buildings and roads. So it
is again at the same level regarding its temperature rising and air
heating through conduction and convection. The heat radiation will be a
little higher though, because it is closer to black body. The ability to
conduct the heat to earth should also be similar, since the conducting
path of support frame (aluminum) is narrow.

So the climate effect of installing silicon solar panel is just like
building a concrete house or making sand road. And for it to be a
meaningful effect, the scale should be large enough. The electricity
generated by US is order of 1E12 Watt; if all of it be provided by
solar, about 6000 square km area of land is needed, which is about six
NY cities. That area is large, but not large enough to make climate
change if scattered across America.

--
Regards,
Lu Wei
IM: xmpp:luwe...@riotcat.org
PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA

[Alex S.]

Couldn't have said it better. Also, a lot of that heat can be used to heat
up water. Some people only get solar panels for that, and ignore the
electricity generation.