Why Solar Energy Will Make Things Worse

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The sun inundates us with zillions of joules of energy daily.

Some of that energy warms the planet directly.

Some of that energy is used by plants to do what plants do.

Most of the rest of it bounces off and has no warming effect.

The main problems we face these days involve more of that energy being absorbed and warming us directly - for example from loss of reflective ice cover on land and sea - and the increased capture of that energy due to increases in CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gasses.

But what if we go into solar energy in a huge way. A great idea because there's so much free energy to be poached. But doesn't that mean even less energy is reflected and even more heat is ultimately added to the environment? We're reflecting less (because solar panels are capturing it). It has to go somewhere.

Is this something to worry about? If not, why not?

If the increased capture of energy due to greenhouse gasses is dangerous, wouldn't the increased capture of energy due to solar also be dangerous?

 

[Huey Grey]

Depends on how large scale we're talking about here.

 

[IACub]

No. The absorbed energy doesn't heat the atmosphere, it is converted to electricity.

 

[The Tradition]

With some exceptions (rooftops, bare desert land, etc)., solar farms are going to capture sunlight that otherwise would have been captured by plants. No net difference (except for the fact that plants absorb CO2 and produce O2 while solar power panels do not).

 

[The Tradition]

No. The absorbed energy doesn't heat the atmosphere, it is converted to electricity.

You don't think a large solar farm would have an urban "heat island" effect?

 

[IACub]

You don't think a large solar farm would have an urban "heat island" effect?

No. Do you think a stealth bomber emits a large amount of absorbed radar waves?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Part of the answer would be the value of the tradeoffs. If you use solar instead of fossil fuels, you begin to change the O2-CO2 ratio. Less CO2 means more of the solar energy that isn't captured by direct heating, plants and solar is reflected. Does that exceed the increased capture by solar? I certainly don't know. But somebody probably does.

It's sort of like natural gas. If we replace coal or oil with carefully extracted natural gas, things get better. If we supplement coal and oil with natural gas, things get worse. Maybe not as much worse as adding more energy from coal or oil, but worse than the status quo.

I have no reason to believe going heavily solar would be a net bad. But it isn't necessarily all good. And like the natural gas case, if we keep using (and even increasing) fossil energy, adding solar could add to our problems. Probably not as much as adding an equivalent amount of energy from coal or oil or even natural gas, but still contributing to the acceleration of global warming.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No. Do you think a stealth bomber emits a large amount of absorbed radar waves?

Huh?

 

[IACub]

Huh?

Bad analogy.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

No. The absorbed energy doesn't heat the atmosphere, it is converted to electricity.

Well, that energy eventually devolves into heat at some point but it's just replacing current that would have been generated by other means so no net change.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Well, that energy eventually devolves into heat at some point but it's just replacing current that would have been generated by other means so no net change.

That's my point. If we are only converting the solar that would have been captured by other means, then there's no net change. But if we are capturing more solar that would otherwise have been reflected back into space, then we have a net increase.

This is an empirical question. I imagine it's already been figured out. You measure the incident and reflected energy of a patch of land and you remeasure after installing solar panels. You are either reflecting more, less, or the same. If you are reflecting less, then you are capturing more. And, as you say, that eventually converts to heat.

 

[The Tradition]

Okay, you have a big field that used to feature light colored ground and some grasses, shrubbery and what not. Then you cover this field with black solar collectors. Obviously, the area will be warmer than it was before.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

BTW, I assume that solar does, in fact, capture more energy and therefor adds more heat than doing nothing. But I also assume that solar adds significantly less heat than if we produced the same amount of usable energy from fossil fuels. These are questions that can and should be answered.

I sort of expect Joe's or fsureed or one of our other climate change gurus to jump in with a link to the answer.

 

[The Tradition]

BTW, I assume that solar does, in fact, capture more energy and therefor adds more heat than doing nothing. But I also assume that solar adds significantly less heat than if we produced the same amount of usable energy from fossil fuels. But these are questions that can be answered.

The question is, how much CO2 would have been absorbed by native plants had they not been displaced in favor of solar panels, compared to how much CO2 from fossil fuels is not burned due to additional solar power provided to the grid? Also consider that no O2 is being produced by the now non-existent plant life.

 

[IACub]

Okay, you have a big field that used to feature light colored ground and some grasses, shrubbery and what not. Then you cover this field with black solar collectors. Obviously, the area will be warmer than it was before.

 

[The Tradition]

We've paid plenty of attention here at KCET to the problems caused for desert tortoises when their habitat is replaced with renewable energy facilities. But now one scientist is saying that big solar facilities in the Mojave could seal the desert tortoise's fate in a way you might not expect.

According to Barry Sinervo, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Cruz, current solar projects in the California desert intended to slow global warming, including two approved just last week by the Interior Department, could actually make the desert too hot for tortoises to survive past the end of the century.

In fact, suggests Sinervo, solar projects' effect on desert climates may speed the extinction of desert tortoises by as much as 50 years.

The desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizi, is a federally listed Threatened species.

Sinervo's comments came in the form of a presentation at the Annual Meeting And Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, held in Ontario, California the weekend of February 21-23. An abstract of Sinervo's presentation, along with others made over the weekend, is available online. Sinervo's presentation modeled the likely effects of climate change on the tortoise, and concluded that if humankind embarks on reasonable measures to lower its emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along the lines of the IPCC's "B Scenarios" (described briefly here,) then desert tortoises might still be able to hang on in two important habitat areas in the California desert as late as 2080, giving the species a shot to survive into the next century.

The bad news is that both those areas -- California City and the Ivanpah Valley -- are targeted for intensive solar development. In a particularly timely example, the U.S. Department of the Interior just last week approved several thousand acres of new photovoltaic arrays for the Ivanpah Valley. Projects like those, say Sinervo, could deprive the tortoise of its last best chance for survival by making the reptile's potential refuges too warm.

At issue is the so-called "urban heat island" effect, in which human-made structures that absorb solar energy can significantly raise nearby temperatures. The effect holds true even when the setting isn't urban, as is the case with large remote desert solar installations. After all, the purpose of solar panels is to absorb as much solar energy as they can. About a fifth of that energy is turned into electricity under optimum conditions: the rest is released into the surrounding environment as heat.

http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/r...s-may-make-deserts-too-hot-for-tortoises.html

 

[Joes Place]

Okay, you have a big field that used to feature light colored ground and some grasses, shrubbery and what not. Then you cover this field with black solar collectors. Obviously, the area will be warmer than it was before.

Concrete and asphalt are far better 'urban heat island' effect sources.

Why?

Specific heat. Those structures not only absorb the solar energy, they are also very thermally (and structurally) massive, and have a very high specific heat content. Thus, they warm up and retain LOTS of thermal energy during the day, and are then able to maintain that heat overnight (and warm their surroundings by emitting that energy when the area cools down).

In contrast, solar panels are much much lighter (less massive), and cannot retain nearly as much heat as concrete/roads/asphalt, or buildings. They may absorb more heat than vegetation would, but once they warm up a bit, they re-radiate that heat immediately to the surroundings, rather than store it like massive, high-specific-heat structures do.

The amount of additional heat they absorb is insignificant compared with roads and buildings and other infrastructure.

Burning fossil fuels (coal/oil/etc) generates much more heat than anything a massive solar panel infrastructure would ever absorb from the sun. Most of those fossil-fuel-burning engines (cars, power plants, etc) are not very efficient (your car engine is maybe 10-20% efficient, with most of the waste energy going to heat). And the amount of waste heat we generate from burning fossil fuels is mostly insignificant compared with solar heating of the planet by the sun. And solar panels are a mere fraction of that fossil fuel waste heat we already generate.

 

[The Tradition]

Concrete and asphalt are far better 'urban heat island' effect sources.

Why?

Specific heat. Those structures not only absorb the solar energy, they are also very thermally (and structurally) massive, and have a very high specific heat content. Thus, they warm up and retain LOTS of thermal energy during the day, and are then able to maintain that heat overnight (and warm their surroundings by emitting that energy when the area cools down).

In contrast, solar panels are much much lighter (less massive), and cannot retain nearly as much heat as concrete/roads/asphalt, or buildings. They may absorb more heat than vegetation would, but once they warm up a bit, they re-radiate that heat immediately to the surroundings, rather than store it like massive, high-specific-heat structures do.

The amount of additional heat they absorb is insignificant compared with roads and buildings and other infrastructure.

Burning fossil fuels (coal/oil/etc) generates much more heat than anything a massive solar panel infrastructure would ever absorb from the sun. Most of those fossil-fuel-burning engines (cars, power plants, etc) are not very efficient (your car engine is maybe 10-20% efficient, with most of the waste energy going to heat). And the amount of waste heat we generate from burning fossil fuels is mostly insignificant compared with solar heating of the planet by the sun. And solar panels are a mere fraction of that fossil fuel waste heat we already generate.

You don't think there are other "massive" structures around a large solar power plant? I imagine they're all mounted on concrete pads, there will be a transformer somewhere nearby, and access roads and maintenance buildings at the very least.

Why do you hate the desert tortoise?

 

[Joes Place]

You don't think there are other "massive" structures around a large solar power plant? I imagine they're all mounted on concrete pads, there will be a transformer somewhere nearby, and access roads and maintenance buildings at the very least.

Compared with any other man-made structures? No. The effect is negligible.

 

[B1GDeal]

The poles are in the ground... so at most it would be like the concrete around your deck footings. Very minimal surface concrete.

 

[The Tradition]

The poles are in the ground... so at most it would be like the concrete around your deck footings. Very minimal surface concrete.

Tell that to the desert tortoises.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

My thoughts for a long time have been that we need a massive push to have green rooftops, or solar panels on roofs, to help offset the oven that is created by concrete and asphalt.

I don't like the thought of these massive solar fields covering up what once was vegetation. Grass, particularly turfgrass, is a very efficient absorber of CO2 and producer of O2. I understand the thought process behind having these huge solar fields to create a large volume of electricity, but it seems like a "cut off the nose to spite the face" thing. We need as much greenspace as we can.

 

[moral_victory]

I'm just afraid birds will think they are waterpools and die when they try to land or be instantly slowly cooked to death. The wind turbines are already killing billions of birds daily and soon there will be no birds. The increased worm population will likely make worms start to adapt and evolve which will likely create a tremors type scenario.

 

[BioHawk]

I'm a much bigger fan of using solar power on roof tops than the massive solar farms people are putting up. I think we can accomplish more if we just start putting solar panels on the roof of every building we make. We won't be taking up other land and we'd probably end up covering more area anyway.

 

[B1GDeal]

My thoughts for a long time have been that we need a massive push to have green rooftops, or solar panels on roofs, to help offset the oven that is created by concrete and asphalt.

I don't like the thought of these massive solar fields covering up what once was vegetation. Grass, particularly turfgrass, is a very efficient absorber of CO2 and producer of O2. I understand the thought process behind having these huge solar fields to create a large volume of electricity, but it seems like a "cut off the nose to spite the face" thing. We need as much greenspace as we can.

I agree with this. I most places in lived in both Arizona and Europe the panels were on the roof, not taking up additional space. Also, a lot of places in Europe use the green rooftops. We should do far more of that here as well.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Go check out the array of solar panels set up at the new Johnson County Secondary Road Department west of Iowa City on the IWV road. Of course it seems only government entities can afford to invest in these types of boondoggles. It's taken them 2 years to rebuild from a shop fire and its not done yet. A private developer would have gone broke by now with the same construction schedule. It's been cloudy 19 of the last 24 days BTW.

 

[Joes Place]

I agree with this. I most places in lived in both Arizona and Europe the panels were on the roof, not taking up additional space. Also, a lot of places in Europe use the green rooftops. We should do far more of that here as well.

The added advantage is that the power is generated closest to the areas it is also consumed. Thus, you have very low transmission losses and minimize the need for large power grid lines, as well as large areas for 'solar farms'.

The biggest challenge to this is storage, so that you can generate 10-20% more energy than you actually need and then store the rest for when the sun isn't shining. Storage costs are also coming down, and the next big economic boon will come with creating 'storage zones' in cities and connecting them to existing grids, and managing the electricity flow for seamless integration.

In AZ and CA, solar is very economical as a buffer on hot days when everyone is running their AC units; peak power costs are far higher than solar, and solar output is at its maximum when peak needs hit.

 

[IACub]

Go check out the array of solar panels set up at the new Johnson County Secondary Road Department west of Iowa City on the IWV road. Of course it seems only government entities can afford to invest in these types of boondoggles. It's taken them 2 years to rebuild from a shop fire and its not done yet. A private developer would have gone broke by now with the same construction schedule. It's been cloudy 19 of the last 24 days BTW.

So governments are inefficient? Gotcha. WTF does this have to do with solar energy?

 

[unIowa]

The sun is causing global warming. BOMB THE SUN!

 

[IACub]

The sun is causing global warming. BOMB THE SUN!

 

[Joes Place]

The sun is causing global warming. BOMB THE SUN!

Lolwut?