Impact of solar panels on global climate

[Elthy]

Converting heat into electric energy more efficiently than steam turbines would be one of the most important discoverys ever. Even far future tech like fusion reactors wouldnt work without them...

[Bill Phil]

What we could do is heliostats that focus solar energy on either panels, or even a tank of water, which then turns to steam and drives a turbine.

[Stargate525]

We're not nearly as advanced as you give us credit for...

If you could find an efficient way to upgrade any of those steps, you could probably change the world. The closest thing would be either EM radiation > Electricity (solar) or Kinetic > Mechanical > Electricity (wind). The only issue is that they aren't a constant power source, and we don't have a good way to store excess power until it's needed.

Did I miss a step? @.@

Creating chemical energy (burning the coal) to turn it into thermal energy (heat of fire) to transfer that thermal energy into something else (make steam) to turn it into mechanical energy (spin turbine) to turn it into electrical energy (alternator for power).

Unless you want to count the water containers heating up, but eh.

And I vaguely recall there being something with helium-3 being used in such a way that it produces electric charge directly. Or am I misremembering?

[Stargate525]

Yep, we could use helium3 in a fusion reactor.

I meant that reducing the number of steps or energy transfers would change the whole game. The only 2 sources that we currently have for that are wind and solar, and neither is a constant feed of energy.

Hydroelectric. Geothermal. Tidal. Considering we have Yellowstone I'm surprised the US doesn't experiment more with geothermal energies. Its not like we're going to run out of planetary core heat any time soon, after all.

[PB666]

Hydroelectric. Geothermal. Tidal. Considering we have Yellowstone I'm surprised the US doesn't experiment more with geothermal energies. Its not like we're going to run out of planetary core heat any time soon, after all.

But think about this, global warming will heat the earths crust, if we are any good at geo thermal we will cool some of the deeper convections, this would increase siesmic activites in some places. There are some places where it likely to have little effect, such as lake yellowstone. Btw there simply is not that much energy/sec being built up in the earth, which has a dynamo we need for our survival, so its best not to drill too many hokes and start transferring energy up.

Small hydroelectric is a better choice.

[peadar1987]

But think about this, global warming will heat the earths crust, if we are any good at geo thermal we will cool some of the deeper convections, this would increase siesmic activites in some places. There are some places where it likely to have little effect, such as lake yellowstone. Btw there simply is not that much energy/sec being built up in the earth, which has a dynamo we need for our survival, so its best not to drill too many hokes and start transferring energy up.

Small hydroelectric is a better choice.

The earth already loses over double the entire energy counsumption of the human race through purely natural processes. The contribution through radioactive decay is thought to be approximately equal to our energy consumption. Geothermal energy isn't going to freeze the earth's core.

[PB666]

The earth already loses over double the entire energy counsumption of the human race through purely natural processes. The contribution through radioactive decay is thought to be approximately equal to our energy consumption. Geothermal energy isn't going to freeze the earth's core.

No but the crust is an insulative layer, radiothermal is about half and its actually not that good. Given the surface area of the crust its not that good of a source, heat in most places is rapdidly depleted once you start circulating water over it, the sun dumps far more energy on the earth than is released as heat from the core, so its better to get energy from the sun and its indirect than look to the earths mantle for energy. Of the already there stuff, small hydro is the way to go.

There are places, like iceland and Japan where geothermal is already in use and the energy bubbles up anyway, but drilling a 10 mile deep hole in Denver prospecting for hot water is probably not going to payoff, and you may end up contaminating ground water with heavy metals.

BTW if you really want geothermal, just neogeothermal, take the nuclear waste bury around a corrosion resistent piping system in some place were ground water is trapped, like the upper high plains, and use your decaying over 29000 years isotopes tobgenerate the steam you want. The brits have already declared there is an endless supply of energy in the waste, its only a manner of finding a safe way to extract it.

[PB666]

Hydroelectric is useful and under utilized, many dams are not being used . They can be used on tributaries leaving core systems and major tributaries open.

[peadar1987]

No but the crust is an insulative layer, radiothermal is about half and its actually not that good. Given the surface area of the crust its not that good of a source, heat in most places is rapdidly depleted once you start circulating water over it, the sun dumps far more energy on the earth than is released as heat from the core, so its better to get energy from the sun and its indirect than look to the earths mantle for energy. Of the already there stuff, small hydro is the way to go.

There are places, like iceland and Japan where geothermal is already in use and the energy bubbles up anyway, but drilling a 10 mile deep hole in Denver prospecting for hot water is probably not going to payoff, and you may end up contaminating ground water with heavy metals.

Yes, all this is true. You can deplete local geothermal resources by extracting too much energy from them, and yes, there are locations where hot rocks will be located too deep to be economically viable. However, that has nothing to do with solidifying the core of the earth and stopping the dynamo sustaining our magnetic field, which is what your last post implied you were worried about.

Small-scale hydro is not a particularly large resource. It might be good for some local projects, but is not going to power whole countries. It will also affect very important fluvial processes, causing far more immediate potential damage than many other power sources.

BTW if you really want geothermal, just neogeothermal, take the nuclear waste bury around a corrosion resistent piping system in some place were ground water is trapped, like the upper high plains, and use your decaying over 29000 years isotopes tobgenerate the steam you want. The brits have already declared there is an endless supply of energy in the waste, its only a manner of finding a safe way to extract it.

Not really. Decay heat will drop off exponentially over time. After a few years you will have very low energy densities (Spent reactor fuel has an energy density of about 1kW/ton after 10 years). A typical 1GWe reactor produces about 30 tonnes of spent fuel each year, and will operate for maybe 40-50 years, so if you collect all the waste in the one place, you might get 1200kW. 1.2MW will power about 500 homes. It is a tenth of one percent of the power of the original plant. It's not a long-term energy solution

[PB666]

Yes, all this is true. You can deplete local geothermal resources by extracting too much energy from them, and yes, there are locations where hot rocks will be located too deep to be economically viable. However, that has nothing to do with solidifying the core of the earth and stopping the dynamo sustaining our magnetic field, which is what your last post implied you were worried about.

Small-scale hydro is not a particularly large resource. It might be good for some local projects, but is not going to power whole countries. It will also affect very important fluvial processes, causing far more immediate potential damage than many other power sources.

Not really. Decay heat will drop off exponentially over time. After a few years you will have very low energy densities (Spent reactor fuel has an energy density of about 1kW/ton after 10 years). A typical 1GWe reactor produces about 30 tonnes of spent fuel each year, and will operate for maybe 40-50 years, so if you collect all the waste in the one place, you might get 1200kW. 1.2MW will power about 500 homes. It is a tenth of one percent of the power of the original plant. It's not a long-term energy solution

Neutrons are better conserved in large masses, and induce additional radioactivity that is lost when neutrons escape to waste pond water. Waste can even be used in breeder reactors. But the point is if you have 100 reactors in the US and generating tons of radioactivity each year and the biggest stop-sign with nuclear is getting rid of the waste, then it starts adding up quick on a single centrallized collection site, you are going to have a far better concentration of energy on waste than on geothermal, its density per surface area is magnitudes lower than the waste. Get rid of the waste and you can increase the number of reactors getting politically restrictive waste. You could even accept waste from other countries like China or Japan. lol.

[peadar1987]

Neutrons are better conserved in large masses, and induce additional radioactivity that is lost when neutrons escape to waste pond water. Waste can even be used in breeder reactors. But the point is if you have 100 reactors in the US and generating tons of radioactivity each year and the biggest stop-sign with nuclear is getting rid of the waste, then it starts adding up quick on a single centrallized collection site, you are going to have a far better concentration of energy on waste than on geothermal, its density per surface area is magnitudes lower than the waste. Get rid of the waste and you can increase the number of reactors getting politically restrictive waste. You could even accept waste from other countries like China or Japan. lol.

If you have 100 reactors in the US, you are going to get about 100MW of continuous power out of their waste. 100MW thermal, that is, probably 30-40MWe. Or about 10 decent-sized wind turbines. It would be a drop in the ocean, not a solution to anything, unfortunately.

[PB666]

If you have 100 reactors in the US, you are going to get about 100MW of continuous power out of their waste. 100MW thermal, that is, probably 30-40MWe. Or about 10 decent-sized wind turbines. It would be a drop in the ocean, not a solution to anything, unfortunately.

You are talking raw power but if you increase the neutron recapture rate by the waste it goes up markedly.

[peadar1987]

You are talking raw power but if you increase the neutron recapture rate by the waste it goes up markedly.

Have you got a source for that? I find it very hard to believe you're going to get the orders of magnitude more power you would need for this to make any sort of a difference, unless you assemble a critical mass. In which case you essentially just have a reactor that burns spent fuel, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

[GeneralVeers]

You just used circular logic to show that insects will increase warming, when it's getting warmer.

That's a lie. I showed that warmer climate results in higher CO2 emissions. That's all. BUSTED.

Em, say what now? What you have just described is a feedback loop, which is a magnifying effect, and is one of the very things that climate scientists are worried will exacerbate the problem. It literally demonstrates the exact opposite of what you were claiming earlier.

The above goes for you too. The mistake you both made is, you're still insisting that CO2 is a cause of global warming. It's not. Even the IPCC has admitted to this. Reluctantly, to be sure.......

Why can't i use a percentage ? should i try to remove 300 millions of cars from a nation that only has 10 millions?

I already explained why.

First reason: because percentages are inappropriate here. At best, they're meaningless--at worst, they're deceptive.

Second reason: because in order to halt global warming (assuming it's even a problem to begin with, which it's not) you can't merely reduce current emissions--you have to prevent future emissions. Guess what India and China are doing right now? You're not going to be able to solve this problem because you're obsessing about eliminating America's 300 million cars. China and Inda want a grand total of TWO BILLION cars. Fail to address that bit that I just boldfaced and capitalized, and the problem cannot be solved.

The wish to have a car shouldn't be limited to those who were lucky to be born in a rich county

See? There it is again. "Poor people have the right to all the same stuff rich people already have". That will cause greenhouse gas emissions to become at least eight times worse than they already are. In order to solve the problem you're going to have to give up the concepts of fairness and equality. You won't--therefore, problem not solvable.

The "so you say" i wrote in a previous post was actually a question.

One which I won't be answering, because my personal opinions don't enter into this particular ruckus.

Sounds like the hunger for better profits of some countries are the direct cause of pollution in the poor countries then.

If, by "some" you meant "poor", then yes. Otherwise you've got a typo in there.

The only choice poor nations have is, belching pollution or being even more poor than they already are. Some entities in the world have tried to help poor nations skip over the dirty part of their particular industrial revolutions, and it always fails. Usually because the money for those projects gets stolen by the recipient country and used for more pressing problems.....such as, say, lack of food.....

You know that old thing about how you rich people aren't supposed to be meddling in the affairs of other countries? Guess what. You're meddling. It's their choice whether they build dirty factories. Not yours. (leading to the same conclusion: problem not solvable)

You conviniently left out the involved timeframes. Edible plants regrow within a year while oil and coal needed thousands and thousands of years to form but are burnt in a fraction of that timeframe, releasing the concentrated carbon of centuries in a week.

Here we go with the bogus statistics again. I told you, I'm a pro with statistics. You're in a fight you can't win. (it takes several years to grow a cow to maturity, and fifteen minutes to eat a steak--therefore the world must be running out of steak, right? WRONG!)

The correct numbers to use are these: how many tons of oil and coal are being consumed per unit time, and how many tons of oil and coal are being created per unit time. And as I already said, that second number is not known.

The earth is a system that tends to equilibrium.

Of course it is. But the equilibrium point is always changing.

You're nitpicking. My point still stands. There has been no catastrophic event, no natural cause that we can see, and yet the temperature and greenhouse gas levels are rising more quickly than at any point we can find in the geological and ice core records.

Not true. Mostly because our geological and ice core records are approximations that don't accurately show the rate of change over anything less than a few million years.

We don't need to know how fast. If it was happening fast enough to sequester the carbon we are releasing, carbon dioxide levels wouldn't be rising.

Also not true. The two rates are not tied to each other.

[Bill Phil]

Last I checked there were 40 billion tonnes of CO2 released into the atmosphere, which is of course quite a lot. That's going to change some things around.

[ZetaX]

Can the self-declared "pro with statistics" [sic] finally stop posting tons of completely unsupported claims and add some actual evidence? Real statistics, studies, peer reviewed papers, this kind of things.

[Bill Phil]

Can the self-declared "pro with statistics" [sic] finally stop posting tons of completely unsupported claims and add some actual evidence? Real statistics, studies, peer reviewed papers, this kind of things.

Are you referring to me? I have never claimed that.

I'm not self declared. I seem to recall that would be you... but I'm not here to point fingers or be hostile. I'm here to contribute to a conversation, which you are not doing with your post.

This is supported. Look it up yourself. Or better yet, here's a website that links to research papers (it also happens to be written by Phil Plait):

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/20/atmospheric_co2_humans_put_40_billion_tons_into_the_air_annually.html

[PB666]

Can the self-declared "pro with statistics" [sic] finally stop posting tons of completely unsupported claims and add some actual evidence? Real statistics, studies, peer reviewed papers, this kind of things.

Oh boy here we go again, i got odds on 5 more posts and a mod intervention.

[Stargate525]

Last I checked there were 40 billion tonnes of CO2 released into the atmosphere, which is of course quite a lot. That's going to change some things around.

*ahemahem*

The total atmosphere is 5.15x10^15 tonnes in size. Your 'really that's quite a lot' is .00077% of the atmosphere.

If the atmosphere is a football field, the amount of CO2 in the air accounts for a strip about 3.5 centimeters wide. Your CO2 output there is adding less than a THIRD of a MILLIMETER to that amount.

And I'm supposed to believe that THAT is going to upset the balance of the climate so much that we're all going to die? Bull.

[Dodgey]

Are you referring to me? I have never claimed that.

I'm not self declared. I seem to recall that would be you... but I'm not here to point fingers or be hostile. I'm here to contribute to a conversation, which you are not doing with your post.

This is supported. Look it up yourself. Or better yet, here's a website that links to research papers (it also happens to be written by Phil Plait):

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/20/atmospheric_co2_humans_put_40_billion_tons_into_the_air_annually.html

Bill I'm pretty sure he is referring to the personwho said.

I told you, I'm a pro with statistics. You're in a fight you can't win.

[Bill Phil]

Bill I'm pretty sure he is referring to the personwho said.

Ahh... That explains it. Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

*ahemahem*

The total atmosphere is 5.15x10^15 tonnes in size. Your 'really that's quite a lot' is .00077% of the atmosphere.

If the atmosphere is a football field, the amount of CO2 in the air accounts for a strip about 3.5 centimeters wide. Your CO2 output there is adding less than a THIRD of a MILLIMETER to that amount.

And I'm supposed to believe that THAT is going to upset the balance of the climate so much that we're all going to die? Bull.

According to NASA it's about 400 ppm. Parts per million if you don't know (which could be). That's roughly.... 400 millionths of the atmosphere.

But despite that, it's still more than even volcanoes, yes, even counting the 5.0 on the scale.

Also, there's an extra 40 billion, BILLION, 10^9, tonnes. That's only a little bit, but the rate is increasing. And, in this world which is a delicate balancing act, even 400 ppm can be problematic, as it hasn't been that high for quite some time.

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

[GeneralVeers]

Can the self-declared "pro with statistics" [sic] finally stop posting tons of completely unsupported claims and add some actual evidence? Real statistics, studies, peer reviewed papers, this kind of things.

If you mean me? Your claim that I'm posting unsupported claims, is an unsupported claim. Everything I've posted in here is stuff that can be found without even looking at a single "peer reviewed paper". (and also there's this minor problem--when I do go out of my way to prove my case, people like you refuse to believe it and start cooking up ways to not believe it)

The amount of CO2 emitted by humans breathing? Google.

The deal about the IPCC admitting that "linking CO2 to global warming is extremely difficult"? CNN news web site. (I call that "Chinese weasel words", because "extremely difficult" is how the Chinese say "no")

The claim by peadar1987 that CO2 emissions must be countered via sequestration, or CO2 levels in the atmosphere go up? Hell, I don't even need the Internet to disprove that one. I need two words: "paper" and "plastics". Every piece of paper you touch, every plastic bottle you sip water from, is a chunk of carbon that is not in the ground AND not in plants AND not in the atmosphere--in other words, completely outside peadar's equation. And every time you recycle that piece of paper or plastic? That's carbon atoms that stay in circulation--neither in the ground nor in the atmosphere.

The scientific community has long since been poisoned by scientific witch hunts, in which anybody with a dissenting opinion is almost literally tied to a pole and set on fire. So for many years I've been looking elsewhere. I look for ways to prove or disprove things using stuff we common folk can actually get to--and read without a thesaurus.

Edit: oh, and there's also this--if you could disprove anything I said, you would have posted a link.......right?

Edited November 13, 2015 by WedgeAntilles

[Elthy]

Saying CO2 isnt causing global warning is a conspiracy theory just like thinking the moon landing is a hoax or we are controlled by reptile aliens. Conspiracy theories are afaik not tolerated in the forums for a good reason!

Edited November 13, 2015 by Elthy

[Stargate525]

But despite that, it's still more than even volcanoes, yes, even counting the 5.0 on the scale.

[citation needed] Especially since volcanism is measured by amount of physical stuff ejected, and not gasses. The most scientific numbers on those amounts are 'a whole lot.'

Actually the VEI goes up to 8. A 7 happened in 1815, which dumped enough gasses and ejecta into the atmosphere to drop the global temperature by half a degree Celsius for a decade. I find it interesting that the study of that volcanic eruption showed:

-Massive increases in all greenhouse gasses for 1815-1820.

-A surprisingly rapid drop to pre-eruption levels.

-A net cooling effect on the climate, despite the massive amounts of greenhouse gasses (offset by the particulate matter, I know, but still).

So if your assertion that we're much more deadly to the climate than volcanoes, why has the global temperature increased by such a comparatively small amount (.8C over the last 200 years.)? And why is our planet capable of handling these massive events which dump poisonous toxins, but not CO2 (which can vary at the surface by several hundred ppm based on time of day, winds, and proximity to TREES) being dispersed over a longer period of time?

If we're actually LESS dangerous than volcanoes, then there is empirical evidence our planet can survive worse with no long-term repercussions.

Saying CO2 isnt causing global warning is a conspiracy theory just like thinking the moon landing is a hoax or we are controlled by reptile aliens. Conspiracy theories are banned from the forums for a good reason!

Actually, saying that the scientific community is deliberately covering up the fact that CO2 isnt causing global warning is a conspiracy theory.

No one is asserting malice in this thread. We're asserting INCOMPETENCE.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Stargate525

[peadar1987]

That's a lie. I showed that warmer climate results in higher CO2 emissions. That's all. BUSTED.

The above goes for you too. The mistake you both made is, you're still insisting that CO2 is a cause of global warming. It's not. Even the IPCC has admitted to this. Reluctantly, to be sure.......

What you were asked to prove is that there wasn't going to be a runaway greenhouse effect. i.e. That the climate wasn't going to warm to some degree outside of our ability to stop it due to feedback loops. You have done nothing of the sort.

What you have done is the equivalent of saying that dying at the wheel of a moving vehicle doesn't cause it to crash, because car crashes cause people to die, or saying that fission of Uranium isn't caused by neutrons, because fission of uranium releases neutrons. The facts you have presented are true, but they don't prove what you are claiming.

Here we go with the bogus statistics again. I told you, I'm a pro with statistics. You're in a fight you can't win. (it takes several years to grow a cow to maturity, and fifteen minutes to eat a steak--therefore the world must be running out of steak, right? WRONG!)

The correct numbers to use are these: how many tons of oil and coal are being consumed per unit time, and how many tons of oil and coal are being created per unit time. And as I already said, that second number is not known.

You're acting like the majority of climate scientists haven't thought of this. Like I've repeatedly said, publish a paper, collect your nobel prize. I'll be in the front row cheering you on as you accept.

To use your analogy, the supply of steak is being constantly replenished, at a rate roughly the same as which we consume it. We can tell this by the fact that we are not running out of steak. The amount of sequestered carbon is not increasing. We can tell this by the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing as we burn more fossil fuels.

Of course it is. But the equilibrium point is always changing.

Yes, but not so quickly (over a period of a couple of decades) that makes forest fires not approximately carbon-neutral.

Not true. Mostly because our geological and ice core records are approximations that don't accurately show the rate of change over anything less than a few million years.

Ice cores, especially, are pretty darn accurate for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, which sees us comfortably back into the middle of the last ice age.

Also not true. The two rates are not tied to each other.

Rubbish. The rate at which carbon is sequestered and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are not tied to each other? Completely untrue.