The dangers of solar panels

This week, a scientific research facility in Wyoming made a startling discovery that is certain to change the way millions of Americans look at the environmentalism movement, after they found conclusive evidence that solar panels not only convert the sun’s energy into usable energy, but that they are also draining the sun of its own energy, possibly with catastrophic consequences far worse than global warming.

Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy radiated from the sun isn’t merely captured in solar panels, but that energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a process they refer to as “forced photovoltaic drainage.”

“Put into laymen’s terms, the solar panels capture the sun’s energy, but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than the sun is actually producing,” WIT claims in a scientific white paper published on Wednesday. “Imagine a waterfall, dumping water. But you aren’t catching the water in buckets, but rather sucking it in with a vacuum cleaner. Eventually, you’re going to suck in so much water that you drain the river above that waterfall completely.”

WIT is adamant that there’s no immediate danger, however. “Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious risk to the sun. But if we converted our grids to solar energy in a big way, with panels on domestic homes and commercial businesses, and paving our parking lots with panels, we’d start seeing very serious problems over time. If every home in the world had solar panels on their roofs, global temperatures would drop by as much as thirty degrees over twenty years, and the sun could die out within three hundred to four hundred years.”

The study was commissioned in August 2011 by the Halliburton corporation, who wanted to learn if the energy giant should start manufacturing and selling solar panels domestically and internationally. Halliburton’s executives wanted to know more about the sustainability of solar energy and how photovoltaic technology might evolve over the next ten years. But based on the findings of WIT’s research in the field, Halliburton revealed on Friday that they will not be entering the solar energy market.

“Solar panels destroying the sun could potentially be the worst man-made climate disaster in the history of the world, and Halliburton will not be taking part in that,” the company stated in a press release issued Friday morning. “It’s obvious, based on the findings of this neutral scientific research group, that humans needs to become more dependent on fossil fuels like oil and coal, not less. Because these so-called `green technologies’ are far more dangerous to the Earth than any hydrofracking operation or deep-water drilling station. What good is clean air when our very sun is no longer functional?”

1 Like

In the same league as this;


For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However,
recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs
don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus they now call these bulbs dark
suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a spokesman from the Labs,
proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of
light, and that dark is faster than light.

The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. Take
for example the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark
right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the dark sucker,
the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have
a much greater capacity than the ones in this room.

As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of
dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the black spot on a full
dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the
first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been
sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating
candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the path of the dark
flowing into the candle. Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have
a very limited range.

There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't handle all
of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark storage unit. When
the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced
before the portable dark sucker can operate again.

Dark has mass. When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from this mass
generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker.
Candles present a special problem, as the dark must travel in the solid
wick instead of through glass. This generates a great amount of heat. Thus
it can be very dangerous to touch an operating candle.

Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper, you notice
it gets darker and darker. When you reach a depth of approximately fifty
feet, you are in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to
the bottom of the lake and the ligher light floats to the top.

The immense power of dark can be utilized to a man's advantage. We can
collect the dark that has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it
through turbines, which generates electricity and helps push it to the
ocean where it may be safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more
difficult to get dark from rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians
recognized this problem and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe
traveling in the same direction as the flow of dark, they paddled slowly,
so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled against the
flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the dark along its

Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you stand in an
illuminated room in front of a closed, dark closet, then slowly open the
door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet, but since the dark
is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.

In conclusion, Bell Labs stated that dark suckers make all our lives much
easier. So the next time you look at an electric light bulb, remember that
it is indeed a dark sucker.

Tom... :smiley: :+1: :coffee: :australia:

I suspect that this was first published shortly after 31/3.


it was fun to watch while it last :wink:

The National Report is a hoax website, not an actual science website. R
There have been hundreds of other websites which have proven that it is not true, and if you go to National Report’s website, it states that they are a fake thing.

Solar panels DO NOT drain energy from the sun.

I chose to post this in Bar Sport for a good reason!

WHAT!!!!! THEY DON'T!!!!!

Well at least the Earth is still flat, has that got something to do with it.

Tom.... :laughing: :sweat_smile: :rofl: :sweat_smile: :laughing: :sweat_smile: :rofl: :laughing: :smiley:

Oh haha! Didn’t see that at first

Here's one that may seem just as silly but it's correct.
For years it has been believed that it gets cold during certain seasons on Earth and even colder at the poles. However,
recent information from research has proven otherwise. Physicists have shown that there is no such thing as cold.
There is only the absence of heat. Heat moves molecules and when heat is removed molecules slow down until eventually they stop. Then it cannot get any colder. Whereas with heat it can always get hotter.

Okay, one comment on the solar panel theory. I have always though that the energy being converted by solar panels was no longer falling on the earth as the solar panel creates shade under it. Therefore the thermal heating of the earth's surface is diminished by the presence of these energy stealing panels at least to the level of efficiency of the panels (which is not very high ~ 20%) . If you covered enough of the earth with solar panels surely the earth would cool down, unless the energy converted by the panels is released by the eventual consumer of the panel's output energy as heat. But if the energy went into other forms besides heat the earth would net less solar radiance energy than it would without solar panels.

All energy ends up as heat in the end. Storing it in batteries delays that, but eventually you have to use the stored energy, and that ends up as heat.

:+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1:

Tom.... :smiley: :+1: :coffee: :australia:

"Recent"? You mean like a century ago? :grin:

The point where molecules and atoms stop jiggling is called absolute zero, and is -273C (rounded off). That represents the absence of heat energy. There is no upper limit to heat energy.

Have you only just discovered this?

Does it mean that the Earth's energy potential will be reduced if we launch a spacecraft that will fly into outer space and never return to earth? :roll_eyes:

the whole discussion here is about stupid articles. Don’t take comment seriously

Ben Miller did a great program on temperature for Horizon.
This is a clip;

See liquid Helium "leak" through its container at near absolute zero!

Tom... :smiley: :+1: :coffee: :australia:

:rofl: :rofl: Good point! Having said that, I strongly suspect that @delucadana was being serious. :slightly_smiling_face:

Just think the consequences of the opposite.
If something from outside our solar system enters and "interacts" with earth.

On the greater scale of things nothing changes, but "locally" think what that extra energy can do!!!

It all comes down to frames of reference...

Tom.... :smiley: :+1: :coffee: :australia:

Utterly trivial compared to the mass the Earth accumulates from meteorites.

For that matter, the Earth dissipates the atmosphere incomparably with the amount of matter that humans actively launch into space. :rofl:

the system to consider is the whole universe :wink: