Does converting sunlight to electricity reduce the amount of heat absorbed by the earth? If so, how many solar panels would be required to reduce the temp by 1 degree?
All will be heat after X amount of time. Where the X can be a few seconds or decades or centuries. The more interesting thing would be the light reflected by the panels (albedo factor). This could be lower or higher than the surface these panels are placed on.
Also, the emittance of the panels at thermal wavelengths is important. What you want is a panel that converts wavelengths shorter than the bandgap cutoff at high efficiency, reflects near and mid IR at longer wavelengths, but has high emissivity in the far IR at wavelengths where the atmosphere isn't too opaque.
Lighting going from 1% efficient (99% of the energy used by a traditional tungsten lightbulb is waste heat) to over 95% efficient (in many cases 99% efficient). Computers went from 200-400w continuous down to about 15w continuous. Lighting alone is responsible for a huge amount of energy drop-off.
Sorry, but these numbers are not accurate. Luminous efficiency of tungsten lightbulbs is typically around 1-3% (depends on voltage and power), and luminous efficiency of LED bulbs is around 10-30%. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy )
You forgot the part when we used 100W bulbs and now we use 10W led lights.
Efficency in the use of energy ti generate the same amount of lumens, because it would be REALLY fun to have a 100W led lamp in my bathroom mirror (my parents still have 2 of these traditional lights ).
I mean...energy conversion to lumen is fine but i think it's a little pedantic
But nuclear is not dispatchable either so what's your point? It's funny how everyone brings up the intermittance of solar and wind as a point how they can never work because they don't provide baseload and nuclear is the solution. If you read opinions from operators and incident reports you'll find that large power plants like nuclear are actually a much bigger problem for network management, because if you have to t…
It's a fair point that nuclear (and all power plants) need maintenance windows where they come offline (and occasionally unplanned outages). But this is not the same as saying nuclear is not dispatchable, that's just incorrect.
nuclear isn't dispatch-able for a different reason: you don't turn it off. Nuclear is relatively expensive, and those expenses are roughly 100% capex cost, so if you consider a reactor with a 10 billion construction cost and a 50 year lifespan, every hour you turn off the reactor costs at least ~$25k (or more if you assume the reactor was intending to do better than break-even.
Firm refers to the generation profile of the power source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation Batteries are not cost or resource efficient for winter where I live. Less than 8 hours of sunlight is not enough to heat a house during the day let alone night. There simply isn't enough solar generation even when overprovisioned to last.
Yes, solar power won't work in Svalbard winters. This is known.
well I'm sure those 2530 people can find another power source.
At some point, the glass, frame and wiring will dominate the cost of solar panels, and when we hit that point, the price will likely stop falling. I don't know if we'll ever get as low as $4 with our current approach.
that is already the case; solar panels have been cheaper than window glass per square meter for years now. that's why the article says: > Is there a floor for these costs? > > Solar manufacturers are investing hundreds of billions in expanded capacity in an all out war for market share against a background of panel price drops of 15-25% per year. There is an extreme economic forcing function towards rapid improvement…
Perovskite films on microgrooved plastic film, offset printed roll to roll and rolled out mounted vertically like windbreak netting in orchards.
> I intend to buy undeveloped land far from civilization I'm always intrigued by this notion, I know plenty of Americans have this kind of plan, but it's never quite as remote as they think, because, y'know you're still in America somewhere. Unless you're thinking of somewhere in northern Canada. I'd love to know where is considered 'far from civilization' on the continental US.
> I'd love to know where is considered 'far from civilization' on the continental US. There are many interpretations and levels of remoteness. In my case, I want to be away from the sights and sounds and crowds of anything that would be considered urban or suburban. My prime criteria is that I don't want to see another person unless I choose to. I don't want to see a road with cars on it, I don't want to see another…
The further north you go, the larger the seasonal variation in sunlight. I've watched some video's of people living off grid in BC, they need a diesel generator for the winter months to get by.
Does converting sunlight to electricity reduce the amount of heat absorbed by the earth? If so, how many solar panels would be required to reduce the temp by 1 degree?
No because when the electricity is used it creates heat.
Heat is just a frequency in the spectrum right? What percent of emissions in an LED comes out as infrared?
The trouble with this logic is that public utility commissions across the country have measured the impact that solar has on the grid, and found that not only does it not impose a cost, but it confers a benefit, in some studies up to 33 cents per kilowatt hour. I completely agree with your core point, which is that there need to be costs associated with impact on the grid, to make sure that there's no incentivization…
Source please? I'm aware of the large costs in the opposite direction due to the freeloading you mention: https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2024/04/22/californias-ex...
This is from the Maine PUC, other PUCs across the country do their own studies. Maine is on the high side, but all but one PUC that I'm aware of have calculated positive values.
The trouble with this logic is that public utility commissions across the country have measured the impact that solar has on the grid, and found that not only does it not impose a cost, but it confers a benefit, in some studies up to 33 cents per kilowatt hour. I completely agree with your core point, which is that there need to be costs associated with impact on the grid, to make sure that there's no incentivization…
I think the utilities are moving very early with their flat rate charges but I don't think they're wrong in the long term that a flat rate will be required to fund the grid in the future. I'm thinking about the point where a large majority of customers have sufficient solar generation to cover their entire energy usage for the day on average, those people still need generation or storage of power during the night whe…
So as I mentioned in my previous comment, public utilities commissions across the country have all run their own independent studies of the value of bringing solar on the grid measured against its costs and generally found it to be a net positive rather than a negative. Those studies encompass things that you're talking about such time base rates, cost of mobilizing peaking and base load production, efficiencies from consuming power on site instead of having to send it through the transmission and distribution system, etc
Does converting sunlight to electricity reduce the amount of heat absorbed by the earth? If so, how many solar panels would be required to reduce the temp by 1 degree?
Depending on the surface being covered it may actually increase the heat. Any electricity produced will eventually become heat. Solar panels will absorb more heat than surfaces with a high albedo where a lot is reflected back into space.