California first state to ban natural gas heaters and furnaces

No math. No argument.

I have shown incontrovertibly that it is not a good idea to heat your home in winter with solar panels.

 

Do tell more about this US country that's produced panels twice as efficient, I'm serious.

The rest of your post is so broad its beyond ridiculous to anyone that knows anything about solar.

 

I wonder how many people will die over the winter, around the World, because of Democrat Politicians and inflation for gas?

 

Sure sure.... you first tell me you're not aware about what cutting edge technology is around and want me to tell you more about it, and than claim I know nothing about the subject.
Personal attack noted.

 

My source contains math. You just don't like what you read.

 

You did not check your source with your own math. I did.

You cannot back up your claim. I can back up mine.

You do not understand the technology. I do.

The solar panels generate energy at a time when that energy is not in high demand. This puts a surplus on the grid that causes base load generators to reduce production. That is not good for the grid because it shifts the need for a greater amount of peaking generators during times of high demand, like the times when you want to heat your home. This reduces efficiency of the grid, and increases pollution. The grid is not like a bank. You can't store your solar energy there for later. The generators that do produce the energy when you need it are much less efficient than the ones that run all the time. Relying on the grid to produce energy when your solar panels are not producing energy increases pollution.

It's the opposite of what you want as an outcome.

If you want to use solar panels to cool your home in the summer, that's a great idea. You'll use the energy at the same time it's produced, when the sun is shining and your house is hot. You want to heat you home in the winter when the sun is not shining and your house is cold. Solar panels are not a good resource for this.

 

My source is my back up.
You never pointed out where my source got it wrong.
Your "math" is totally unrelated to my source.

Aha
You claimed solar panels cause heat = heating up the planet and so bad, but refused to compare it to how C02 heats up the planet... probably a heck of a lot more.
I had to educate you that solar panels (that we are discussing) don't need heat, but photons and it's not the same.
You were on the impression that solar power from Florida can't be used in Denver, but they can
You forgot that you could hook up solar panels to a battery.
You claimed there is only 4.5 hours sunlight in Denver, and it's more like 9.
You were on the impression that using solar panels means that you're off the grid / you're totally self reliant, but you're not and so you can overcome periods of bad weather.


That all concludes that you do not understand the first thing about this subject.

You rant on how solar panels are not good, while you sourced that it's totally a positive thing according to an expert. And so you're just regurgitating back to square 1 where you lost the argument ages ago.

 

Are you reading my posts?

You have failed to restate any of my arguments and discussions. I think this has a lot to do with your limited understanding of the technology we are discussing. When you can accurately restate what I actually argued we might be able to get somewhere.

I claimed solar panels conserve energy to the Earth. I backed this up with data. This works against the goal of cooling the Earth.
I claimed that it's not practical to generate energy with solar in one location and transmit it to a distant one.
I claimed that it's most efficient for the grid to use the solar energy the moment you generate it. I backed this up with data.
I claimed there's only 4.5 hours per day of effective sun in Denver. I backed this up with data.
I claimed that attaching solar panels to the grid makes the grid less efficient and thus more pollutant. I backed this up with data.
I claimed it's not a good idea to use solar panels to heat your house in winter. I never claimed "solar panels are not good".
I claimed you don't understand the technology. I backed this up with our discussion.

 

You're just making personal attacks, by absence of actually being able to dispute my sources.
My source how a company calculated how many solar panels you need to heat your house, and it still stands cause you failed to argue how they are wrong.
And indeed. I'm not reading your posts how you think you are right by ignoring my source. Obviously.

I already pointed out you falsely keep omitting how this compares to burning fossil fuel suggest that the alternative is FAR worse and that solar panels are by a long shot the lesser evil. And you couldn't dispute that.

I already told you that it's a claim not founded on anything, while the government of the UK is up for such a distance. And you couldn't dispute that.

You posted no data

you pushed the goalpost for it, and you couldn't dispute that.

You posted no data

You first claimed Denver isn't a good place in general, until I pointed out it's about the sunniest place of the US.
So now you moved on to a winter in Denver. That I too countered.

You mean the discussion where I've disputed you endless claims, that you could not dispute, so you kept hopping on new bandwagons....
That only shows you're the one who doesn't know enough of this subject.

 

Here is another functional problem with electric only homes in a natural gas world:
Most bay area houses have a 200Amp or less service panel (where the breakers are). In fact, the bay area lots of older homes have less 100 - 150 because everyone had gas heat, a wood burning fireplace, gas cooking, and probably a gas dryer. Fine. Discontinue gas and replace it with electricity. You are looking at a electrical upgrade which is expensive.
There will be no capacity left for electric charging. AFAIK, the electrical code does not allow for a separate “night charging only” 40 amp circuit.

 

Pointing out that you did not accurately paraphrase my argument is not a personal attack. It's the only basis by which a discussion can take place. None of the things you said I did or did not do are representative of the things I actually posted. I made qualified statements. When you remove the qualifications you completely change the statement. If that's something you are doing intentionally because you want to argue with someone else, that is evidence that you don't understand the technology. If that's something you are doing unintentionally because you don't understand what I'm saying that's even stronger evidence that you don't understand the technology.

I'll give yet another example.

I said there are only 4.5 hours of usable sun in winter. I gave you the data from an actual solar array that has been operating for over a year. The yearly averages show that the panel made 4.5KWh for every KW of capacity it has. This proves my statement. You stripped the qualifications from my statement. You removed the word usable, and are arguing against someone that thinks there are only 4.5 hours of daylight. These two concepts are completely different. Not the same. You've either misunderstood what I said, or intentionally dropped the qualifications to try and defeat an argument no one made.

You've completely forgotten things I've said, or failed to read them entirely. I can't be sure of which, but when you claim that I never made a comparison between the heat conserved by solar panels with the heat conserved by CO2, that's just completely false. We've had multiple discussions about that. CO2 absorbs a narrow band of IR. Solar panels absorb a wide band of IR. I gave you data. I gave you scientific research. I gave you evidence in extremely basic terms I thought you could understand. CO2 eats only red M&Ms. Solar panels don't care what color the M&Ms are. They eat all of them.

This discussion is just spinning in circles and it's not through lack of effort on my part. You need to actually comprehend the things I'm saying in order to get anywhere with this. This discussion began with you claiming that a person could just slap a few panels on their roof and that would replace their current, (now illegal), means of heating their home in winter. This statement is demonstrably false for quite a large section of society. And that's a huge problem because you're not the only person struggling to understand why. The real problem is that the regulators don't understand why either.

 

The Earth is warmed by the sun through waves of light. Some of this heat escapes from the Earth through waves of light. This is called radiation. Heat radiates from an object in the IR spectrum. Waves with shorter wavelengths can be slowed and this becomes heat. Waves with longer wavelengths can be sped up. This also becomes heat.

Without solar panels the radiative energy from the sun hits the Earth. Some is absorbed as heat. Some is reflected back off into space. As (notme) noted, plants absorb little of this IR. They bounce most of it back out into space. The term for this is the planet's albedo. Albedo is the Earth's ability to reflect sunlight back into space. The greater the albedo, the more energy that is radiated back into space, the less the world warms. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere reduces the Earth's albedo in the 15 micrometer wavelength. This is IR, and represents a capture of heat that would have otherwise escaped, but it's also just a narrow band of the entire IR spectrum. The total escaping energy is anywhere from 3–100 μm wavelengths but the majority happens below 50 μm.

Solar panels are designed specifically with low albedo. They have a much lower albedo than plants. Much lower than CO2. As you increase the surface area of the Earth covered with solar panels you lower the Earths albedo. This warms the Earth.

 

Saying I do not know anything about the subject is, while It's been me and others who has been correcting you.
You got corrected that by a poster back in post 130 that solar panels probably work better in Denver vs Miami, because the air is thinner in Denver + solar panels are more efficient in cooler temperatures.

Nope. You forgot what you said. You initially tossed in 4 hours, claiming that was the only time that there was sunlight. You than moved the goalpost.

The discussion always ended that you flat out never proved that solar panels cause the earth to heat up more than keep on pumping CO2.
And lowering down to your dumb example. Solar panels are not everywhere. Most of the planet is without it by far. If you'd toss in an entire swimming pool of M&M's a year, the solar panels might take a chip of everything. While C02 might take a whole red M&M. And the next year they take a whole red M&M + a chip of an other red M&M. The year after that, it's 1 red M&M + 2 chips of red M&M's,... and it gets worse and worse EVERY YEAR because we are keeping on adding more and more CO2 with seemingly no end to it. While the solar panels remain to take the same amount.

That's "the fun part" of renewable energy.

I sourced it works out. Your calculations has among errors that your house is not hooked on the grid, while it is as far as I regard it. I would find it normal that you could have a very cloudy/rainy week in the winter, giving you hardly any solar energy. That's when you can't grasp you can get energy from somewhere else where it's sunny or where the wind blows.

 

Your so called corrections are incorrect. That's because you don't understand the technology the way you think you do.

I gave you an entire database of national solar panel data. We don't have to fiddle about with "probably" to prove our points. I don't want to "probably" heat my house in winter. I want to definitely heat my house in winter.

Here's an array in Miami. https://pvoutput.org/aggregate.jsp?id=76071&sid=67441&t=y You do the comparison.

Now you're just confused. I did not "initially toss in 4 hours."

In post #173 I said "Denver is lat 39.7. At that latitude there is an average of 4.5 hours of usable sun per day in winter."

In post #180 you called me dishonest and then cited total daylight hours. This shows you totally don't understand what you're talking about. The angle of incidence is too high for almost half the daylight hours.

In post #183 I showed you data from a panel in Denver showing 4 hours, proving my point with actual data. I don't know how much harder you could lose the argument about the amount of time the panels are making energy per day.

I gave you lots of resources to figure it out. I can't help that you refuse to use them.

That sounds like global warming denialism. CO2 is just a drop in the pool as well, isn't it? If you cover the Earth with solar panels in order to prevent warming, you're in for a shock.

Yeah, you don't understand. CO2 can only eat red M&Ms. Solar panels are designed to shove their face in the bowl and eat as many of them as they can. Once the bowl runs out of red M&Ms to eat, CO2 can't eat any more, but solar panels are still chowing away.

Oh man. Time to reboot and defrag the hard drive, maybe? Not sure I can correctly parse that. We talked about panels attached to the grid. They make the grid much less efficient. I'm certain you don't understand that either.

 

Uh huh. The best way to maintain the stability of the climate is to source energy directly from the climate.

I think they can hear my eyes rolling all the way in Denver.

 

You found a set up in Miami and -is according to your source- facing north and is partially in the shade.
It has 8 more panels but is producing less electricity than the one in Denver. I compared it enough.

You are flip flopping between 4 and 4.5 hours, while the dumbest thing you're doing is eyeballing the data of a solar panel that's freaking fixated under an angle at all times, and pretend the data of that is the "usable sun per day" as if the sun is too weak in the winter hinting this is unlike in the summer. The solar panel is of course just as fixated in the summer, while the sun goes up and goes down (if you will) under totally different angles. Those angles matter massively, since the solar panel isn't moving for crap all.

You posted in post 183 the following link and about Denver: https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?id=92208&sid=81512&v=0
Now you can click there to see how much solar energy it produces a month. You can spot they got 1468.334 kWh in June (longest day) and 1314.896 kWh in December (shortest day). You can also spot that April was a splendid month, and November being abysmal. Yet, there is no real massive difference between the months with the longest amount of daylight and the shortest. And the explanation is that of course that there is a difference, but not massively... because the solar panel is fixated under the same angel at all times.

I found on https://www.turbinegenerator.org/solar/colorado/ that the "peak hours" is 4.44 hours in the winter, vs just 5.72 in the summer. That too shows the difference isn't exactly massive. Florida has 5.26 vs 6.16 hours. So the difference between "sunny" Florida is actually less than 1 hour vs cold and dark Denver.

So in short: your idea that 4.5 hours is just dead low and undoable but it's all fine in the summer.... is just utter bollocks, since there is no massive difference between summer and winter for a solar panel because it's freaking fixated under the same angle every day of the year. There is not even a massive difference between Denver and Miami. Heck, Denver lies much higher, so the sun hits that much harder. We discussed this before.

You have lots of resources, but you're not exactly using them!!! lol
You should have noticed yourself that the difference between December and June isn't exactly helping to prove your point.
It's just like your previous source that concludes that using solar panel is still a thing to go for or something among those lines.

You're free to source that scenario of covering the entire planet with solar panels is something that we need.

We only would be running out of red M&M's when we can't find any fossil fuel anymore to burn. At that point, the sea levels would have risen 200 feet and it's game over. While you only eats M&M's ones with solar panels, since there is a limit to how many you need, while you do add red M&M's since you're not burning fossil fuels anymore/plants use CO2.

I also pointed out, countlessly, that with this you are claiming that burning fossil fuel is better than using solar panels. I asked you to source it, and you either have refused or you could not. And so are conceding that I am right. Even your source about the heat coming from solar panels, concludes that using solar panels is a good thing. Your M&M idea remains flawed and not backed up by a source.

Oh I understand alright. You got a dumb argument that the grid as it is now, is not build to handle the power that blasts through when a solar plant kicks in. It never stopped actually multiple European countries investing in North Africa to install solar panels there on a massive scale. Apparently they solved the problem.

 

We're not getting any stability by using fossil fuels. While you failed to prove solar panels is going to cause an ever increasing temperature.

 

I never said anything about cutting edge tech coming lol. As usual you're seriously confused.

 

The world's energy has been stable for a hundred years due to fossil fuels trying to force technology before it's ready is what's causes instability.

how do you square mining the earth for precious metals with child slave labor? Does it even bother you?

how do you square the world is making china powerful by going solar or wind because they are the market. Have you ever thought they may be throwing their influence around and buying the green energy dream to have even more influence over the world? All the while they're building coal fired power plants.

I get the clean dream but also understand we have that now with nuclear and cleaning burning gas, why do you think the left is so against this, when the supply is more than ample? Could it be China dollars buying influence?

 

I consider solar panels being twice as efficient than what people can buy as cutting edge tech. Like Duh.
You're just busy masking that you got no clue about this topic. If this is all you can contribute... you know, good luck and bye.

 

you're replying to "The best way to maintain the stability of the climate"

 

Look NOTME. You claimed the below:
A US company has already invented a solar panel who are twice as efficient. So when you take that into account, you would basically only need 15 panels in the future when they bring it on the market, and probably even less than that eventually.

I sincerely asked for more information because unlike you I buy over 3k solar panels a year for my products. Of course, somehow that makes you uneasy and unwilling to produce this secretive inside info and now you're claiming I don't know enough about solar to contribute. Of course, my business relies on solar panels being effective as possible and you obviously must rely on BS articles you've read. I googled it, no luck, asked my solar rep and he didn't know. If I were you, I would invest heavily in this new tech, sure to make you a fortune.

 

What makes more sense is freedom rather than authoritarian government.

 

So if you don't have a south facing surface on your roof to mount your panels just rotate the foundation of your house, right? Easy.

Local seasonal solar irradiance is a super important factor in calculating your panel's expected output. You're confusing my statements about average yearly irradiance, average monthly irradiance, and average daily irradiance. Those are three different figures. Your confusion is certainly more evidence that you have no clue what you're talking about.

I finally have you digging into the data. Good. Now let's actually find out what it means. How does the Guidry family heat their home on October 27th and November 3rd? Grid, right? Let's look a bit deeper into the month of January. They averaged 35Kwh per day. The average house uses 45-50KWh per day and that's without heating included. So uh...Where's the 10Wh per sf for every hour they want to heat their house coming from? Grid, right?

An hour of peak is huge. The at 80% efficiency the Guidry compound would make and average of 8KWh in that hour. That's almost enough to heat a 1500SqFt house for a half an hour!

Keep working on the math. Also, I said it was fine to use your panel to cool your house in the summer because you're using the energy at the moment you produce it. You cool your house in the day when the sun is shining.

I can't help that you don't understand that an hour of difference is huge and that 130KWh is a big cut in your energy budget at a time when you're going to be ramping up your energy use by heating your house in winter.

I've already sourced research regarding the small amount of coverage we've placed in deserts.

The grid as it is now functions within the laws of physics. We don't get to change those laws just because we think they are too hard to work around. The grid must be reactive to use.

As for North Africa. Politicians are spending taxpayer dollars on technology they don't understand. It happens all the time. The fact that it's politicians spending it almost disproves the idea that they are spending it wisely. It is highly inefficient to send all that power through a cable over long distance. There's no place to "put" it once it gets there. Mark my words these power plants, if built, will be abandoned after failing to meet expectations and all that will remain will be protestors protesting the "exploitation" of African culture. Likely the children of the same people that paid for this garbage in the first place.

 

Indeed you did ask me for more information. With that you showed you're absolutely not up to date with the latest technology. But than you rubbed me the wrong way of claiming I do not know anything. Does it look like I'm about to do somebody a favor when it behaves like that? You've got much to learn, young grashopper.