Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Norbert]

If you want an understandable demonstration in your garage this winter.

Experiment 1:
Put a radiative heater facing down.
Turn on heater on high for 6 hours.
Turn off heater.
Place a thermometer on the garage floor and measure the temp.

Experiment 2:
Put a radiative heater facing down.
Put a folding table between the heater and the floor (so it absorbs and radiates heat while shielding the floor from heating, just like a solar panel).
Turn on heater on high for 6 hours.
Turn off heater.
Place a thermometer on the garage floor and measure the temp.

In Exp.2 I'd expect the garage to be warmer after the heater is turned off because the garage floor retains more heat.
In Exp.1 I'd expect the garage to be warmer before the heater is turned off, because less heat is lost to the garage floor.
That is consistent with my earlier interpretation of your point, and would mean that the solar panel results in higher temperatures during the day (assuming a scenario where it it is located directly above ground with airflow in between).

I thought maybe I make a list of some heat effects sorted by relevance:

1. Heat effect caused by CO2 trapping heat on the planet, caused by CO2 from burning fossil fuel. (Significant)
2. Heat effect from CO2 caused by manufacturing lots of solar panels. (Much much less significant, even less so if using renewable energy)
3. Heat effect from the additional heat directly caused by the inefficiency of burning fossil fuel in power plants or cars. (Insignificant)
4. Heat effect from the sunlight absorbtion of lots of solar panels. (Very insignicant)
5. Stuff that we have been discussing, excluding (3.), since it was excluded in the original post. (Completely insignificant)

 

[eevee-fan]

In Exp.2 I'd expect the garage to be warmer after the heater is turned off because the garage floor retains more heat.
In Exp.1 I'd expect the garage to be warmer before the heater is turned off, because less heat is lost to the garage floor.
That is consistent with my earlier interpretation of your point, and would mean that the solar panel results in higher temperatures during the day (assuming a scenario where it it is located directly above ground with airflow in between).

I thought maybe I make a list of some heat effects sorted by relevance:

1. Heat effect caused by CO2 trapping heat on the planet, caused by CO2 from burning fossil fuel. (Significant)
2. Heat effect from CO2 caused by manufacturing lots of solar panels. (Much much less significant, even less so if using renewable energy)
3. Heat effect from the additional heat directly caused by the inefficiency of burning fossil fuel in power plants or cars. (Insignificant)
4. Heat effect from the sunlight absorbtion of lots of solar panels. (Very insignicant)
5. Stuff that we have been discussing, excluding (3.), since it was excluded in the original post. (Completely insignificant)

And what about if the garage has no roof, like it would be in a city? Then the cycle is repeated for 30 days?

 

[Norbert]

And what about if the garage has no roof, like it would be in a city? Then the cycle is repeated for 30 days?

Same thing except on a much smaller scale since a lot of energy is wasted. I'd recommend turning the heater off, so to speak.

 

[mspohr]

Understanding albedo may help sort this out

The albedo effect

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Albedo in Solar Panels – Amerisolar

 

[eevee-fan]

There needs to be a mandate that carbonated beverages get their CO2 from the air. LOL

 

[Norbert]

Understanding albedo may help sort this out

The albedo effect

blogs.scientificamerican.com

https://www.weamerisolar.eu/albedo-...lly,incident from any astronomical body.[/URL

These blogs / internet articles aren't really in-depth studies of the "albedo effect", as they call it.

They seem to confuse, or at least don't clearly distinguish, the percentage of reflected light and the percentage converted into electricity.
"Albedo", in general, usually refers to the precentage of light that is reflected by a surface back into the sky or the surroundings, and so I would think that there are 3 percentages to distinguish when looking at a solar panel as a whole:

- the percentage of light that is converted into electricity
- the percentage of light that is reflected by the surface back into the sky or the surroundings
- the percentage of light that is converted into heat

I woudn't expect the percentage of light reflected by the surface to be completely zero, even though there is an anti-reflection layer. Unfortunetely, in quick searches I couldn't find any info on that.

So to me something seems wrong if they designate "albedo" as the part that is converted into electricity, both in naming and in the numeric values. However I haven't found any more satisfying info yet.

Then, the first blog, for example, writes:

"This is comparable to the albedo of standard asphalt shingles, so for most people, installing solar panels doesn’t have a net heating effect. But I had just restored my 1868-vintage tin roof and painted it white, giving it an albedo of about 5/6. So my panels do warm the planet."

So what would be meaningful is to estimate the average albedo of the surfaces beneath solar panels, and then to compare it to the average albedo (reflection) of solarpanels. Without that, you are left with speculation regarding how large the overall effect is, if it is relevant at all. Who knows, maybe there is a point in painting the rest of the roof in white. Unless you want the heat effect in winter. Paint it white in the summer and black in winter.

I think it is worth pointing out that this possible increase does not occur once per lifetime of the panel, but only once in total. When old panels are replaced with new panels, there is no additional effect. So if we will use solar for a long time, that will become an increasingly small percentage. And if the panels are some day de-installed (or painted over in white), this effect will immediately revert.

In contrast, the effect of CO2 will grow each year as new CO2 is added each year if fossil fuel is burnt, and it will remain for hundreds of years even if the burning stops.

And last but not least, if some day we develop technology or a process that will remove CO2 from the atmosphere before the 300 - 1000 years that it apparently stays up there naturally (in a cycle through the ocean), then solar panels will help to remove the excess CO2 that has already accumulated in the atmosphere, and so even the one-time cost will be negated many times over.

 

[mspohr]

Albedo - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Surface albedo is defined as the ratio of radiosity Je to the irradiance Ee (flux per unit area) received by a surface.[1] The proportion reflected is not only determined by properties of the surface itself, but also by the spectral and angular distribution of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface.[2] These factors vary with atmospheric composition, geographic location, and time (see position of the Sun). While bi-hemispherical reflectance is calculated for a single angle of incidence (i.e., for a given position of the Sun), albedo is the directional integration of reflectance over all solar angles in a given period. The temporal resolution may range from seconds (as obtained from flux measurements) to daily, monthly, or annual averages.

Unless given for a specific wavelength (spectral albedo), albedo refers to the entire spectrum of solar radiation.[3] Due to measurement constraints, it is often given for the spectrum in which most solar energy reaches the surface (between 0.3 and 3 μm). This spectrum includes visible light (0.4–0.7 μm), which explains why surfaces with a low albedo appear dark (e.g., trees absorb most radiation), whereas surfaces with a high albedo appear bright (e.g., snow reflects most radiation).

Solar photovoltaic effects
Albedo can affect the electrical energy output of solar photovoltaic devices. For example, the effects of a spectrally responsive albedo are illustrated by the differences between the spectrally weighted albedo of solar photovoltaic technology based on hydrogenated amorphous silicon (a-Si:H) and crystalline silicon (c-Si)-based compared to traditional spectral-integrated albedo predictions. Research showed impacts of over 10%.[27] More recently, the analysis was extended to the effects of spectral bias due to the specular reflectivity of 22 commonly occurring surface materials (both human-made and natural) and analyzes the albedo effects on the performance of seven photovoltaic materials covering three common photovoltaic system topologies: industrial (solar farms), commercial flat rooftops and residential pitched-roof applications.[28]

 

[Norbert]

Here is another quote from the first article about the "Albedo effect":

Silicon solar cells convert about 1/6 of incident sunlight into electricity and dissipate most of the remaining 5/6 as heat. So in terms of their direct climate effect, they have an albedo, or reflectivity, of 1/6. This is comparable to the albedo of standard asphalt shingles, so for most people, installing solar panels doesn’t have a net heating effect.

I think a better way to to say this (in terms of physics) would be this:

Solar panels have very small albedo (reflection of light), but they convert about 1/6 of the energy into electricity instead of heat, so their heat effect is similar to surfaces they replace, since these surfaces typically have an albedo of about 1/6 (reflected light).

However if solar panels also reflected some noticeable amount of light (perhaps blue panels), then they might reduce direct heat a bit, if they replace somewhat dark surfaces. However that would still be small compared to the direct heat from burning fossil fuel, and tiny compared to the CO2 effects of burning fossil fuel.

 

[eevee-fan]

Here is another quote from the first article about the "Albedo effect":



I think a better way to to say this (in terms of physics) would be this:

Solar panels have very small albedo (reflection of light), but they convert about 1/6 of the energy into electricity instead of heat, so their heat effect is similar to surfaces they replace, since these surfaces typically have an albedo of about 1/6 (reflected light).

However if solar panels also reflected some noticeable amount of light (perhaps blue panels), then they might reduce direct heat a bit, if they replace somewhat dark surfaces. However that would still be small compared to the direct heat from burning fossil fuel, and tiny compared to the CO2 effects of burning fossil fuel.

The article talks theoretical. Remember, this only describes when sun is shining perpendicular to the panels and only if you ignore the glass surface that I would think reflects some light back. Also, most of the day, sun's rays are angled vs the glass surface, so lots more of the energy is reflected vs asphalt surface. So, I would disagree that it's the same.

 

[mspohr]

Meat, monopolies, mega farms: how the US food system fuels climate crisis

Among the bill’s many provisions are billions of dollars in subsidies and insurance payments for farmers, the majority to support highly polluting industrial commodity agriculture. Almost half of the $424bn doled out between 1995 and 2020 went to just three crops: corn, wheat and soybeans.o

We wildly overproduce food and a lot of it doesn’t feed people. The US intentionally produces a vast surplus of food. The country’s food supply, what is grown and imported, amounts to about 4,000 calories a day for every adult, child and infant. “There’s no reason why we should be growing all that food,” Nestle said. “It’s not for us anyway – it’s for animals or automobiles.” Not only do tons of US crops get turned into livestock feed but a staggering proportion (40% of corn, which accounts for the vast majority of the nation’s crops) is used to make gas for cars – despite the fact the world is supposed to be ushering in the electric car era. The government mandates that ethanol, a renewable fuel typically made from corn, be mixed into gasoline to displace a portion of fossil fuels. The goal is to reduce fuel emissions, but when you factor in the ecological impact of raising more corn to meet ethanol demand, research has found that the math doesn’t check out. That as much or more corn goes to making ethanol than either feeding people or animals is “clearly bonkers”, said Patel.

 

[DrGriz]

Meat, monopolies, mega farms: how the US food system fuels climate crisis

Among the bill’s many provisions are billions of dollars in subsidies and insurance payments for farmers, the majority to support highly polluting industrial commodity agriculture. Almost half of the $424bn doled out between 1995 and 2020 went to just three crops: corn, wheat and soybeans.o

We wildly overproduce food and a lot of it doesn’t feed people. The US intentionally produces a vast surplus of food. The country’s food supply, what is grown and imported, amounts to about 4,000 calories a day for every adult, child and infant. “There’s no reason why we should be growing all that food,” Nestle said. “It’s not for us anyway – it’s for animals or automobiles.” Not only do tons of US crops get turned into livestock feed but a staggering proportion (40% of corn, which accounts for the vast majority of the nation’s crops) is used to make gas for cars – despite the fact the world is supposed to be ushering in the electric car era. The government mandates that ethanol, a renewable fuel typically made from corn, be mixed into gasoline to displace a portion of fossil fuels. The goal is to reduce fuel emissions, but when you factor in the ecological impact of raising more corn to meet ethanol demand, research has found that the math doesn’t check out. That as much or more corn goes to making ethanol than either feeding people or animals is “clearly bonkers”, said Patel.

There's a lot of opportunity to evolve away from where we are. Subsidized corporate farming should have a target on it's back.

 

[mspohr]

Why are we feeding crops to our cars when people are starving? | George Monbiot

What can you say about governments that, in the midst of a global food crisis, choose instead to feed machines? You might say they were crazy, uncaring or cruel. But these words scarcely suffice when you seek to describe the burning of food while millions starve. There’s nothing complicated about the effects of turning crops into biofuel. If food is used to power cars or generate electricity or heat homes, either it must be snatched from human mouths, or ecosystems must be snatched from the planet’s surface, as arable lands expand to accommodate the extra demand. But governments and the industries that they favour obscure this obvious truth. They distract and confuse us about an evidently false solution to climate breakdown.

 

[mspohr]

EU countries reach climate crisis deal after late-night talks

EU countries clinched deals on proposed laws to combat the climate crisis in the early hours of Wednesday, backing a 2035 phase-out of new fossil-fuel car sales and a multibillion-euro fund to shield poorer citizens from the costs of carbon dioxide emissions.

The climate proposals aim to ensure the EU – the world’s third-biggest greenhouse gas emitter – reaches its 2030 target of reducing net emissions by 55% from 1990 levels. Doing so will require governments and industries to invest heavily in cleaner manufacturing, renewable energy and electric vehicles. Ministers backed a new EU carbon market to impose CO2 costs on polluting fuels used in transport and buildings, though they said it should launch in 2027, a year later than initially planned.

 

[cpa]

Supreme Court curbs EPA's ability to fight climate change

The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global...

www.cnn.com

This is like death by a thousand cuts. Dusting off the "major questions" doctrine.

Maybe we should just let all the wildfires rage until they burn themselves out. Let all the rivers flood until they subside. Let all the wild animals and plants go extinct.

 

[Norbert]

The article talks theoretical. Remember, this only describes when sun is shining perpendicular to the panels and only if you ignore the glass surface that I would think reflects some light back. Also, most of the day, sun's rays are angled vs the glass surface, so lots more of the energy is reflected vs asphalt surface. So, I would disagree that it's the same.

I would think that as well, but so far haven't found any actual measurements confirming that.

 

[DrGriz]

Supreme Court curbs EPA's ability to fight climate change

The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global...

www.cnn.com

This is like death by a thousand cuts. Dusting off the "major questions" doctrine.

Maybe we should just let all the wildfires rage until they burn themselves out. Let all the rivers flood until they subside. Let all the wild animals and plants go extinct.

It's just horrible. Congress (and president) make a law creating an agency to administer a specified area of responsibility. SCOTUS says that they cannot act without congress writing a law for each decision.

Maybe next it should apply to the military. Congress has to vote on every battlefield decision and make a law before there's a move.

 

[Norbert]

Supreme Court curbs EPA's ability to fight climate change

The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global...

www.cnn.com

This is like death by a thousand cuts. Dusting off the "major questions" doctrine.

Maybe we should just let all the wildfires rage until they burn themselves out. Let all the rivers flood until they subside. Let all the wild animals and plants go extinct.

If this gets celebrated by members of Congress with the argument that such decisions should be made by Congress, then I wonder why Congress does't actually make them, considering that for example a strong majority of voters of both parties is in favor of more solar power.

What is supposedly a win for "elected officials" is actually a loss for voters.

 

[cpa]

If this gets celebrated by members of Congress with the argument that such decisions should be made by Congress, then I wonder why Congress does't actually make them, considering that for example a strong majority of voters of both parties is in favor of more solar power.

What is supposedly a win for "elected officials" is actually a loss for voters.

Yes. But Manchin has major interests in coal in West Virginia. I am sure that there are plenty of the likes of the Koch Bros. and other greedy individuals who grease the palms of Congress to do their bidding.

Those people don't have to live among the unwashed masses or even work in the places they want to exploit. They are insulated from the ugliness of the world in their exquisite mansions or penthouses or other residences in very exclusive areas.

And, it is cheaper in the long run (just ask PG&E) to skimp on doing things right because the chances of being caught are small. And if caught, you can bargain your way out.

 

[Norbert]

Yes. But Manchin has major interests in coal in West Virginia. I am sure that there are plenty of the likes of the Koch Bros. and other greedy individuals who grease the palms of Congress to do their bidding.

Those people don't have to live among the unwashed masses or even work in the places they want to exploit. They are insulated from the ugliness of the world in their exquisite mansions or penthouses or other residences in very exclusive areas.

And, it is cheaper in the long run (just ask PG&E) to skimp on doing things right because the chances of being caught are small. And if caught, you can bargain your way out.

Manchin claims that he is obliged to West Virginia's economic dependence on coal. However, since Republican senators vote en bloc, including the senators of states where a majority of republican voters are in favor of solar power, Manchins causes his position to be extrememly over-represented in the Senate. He is effectively abusing his swing vote to sabotage not only his party, but more importantly also a strong majority of voters of both parties.

 

[mspohr]

If this gets celebrated by members of Congress with the argument that such decisions should be made by Congress, then I wonder why Congress does't actually make them, considering that for example a strong majority of voters of both parties is in favor of more solar power.

What is supposedly a win for "elected officials" is actually a loss for voters.

You assume we have a democracy and not a corrupt kleptocracy