• @Cypher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    Look I don’t agree with your comment being downvoted but my statement is broadly correct though I don’t have the numbers to back it up.

    You’re also correct that the photons are likely to bounce around and impart more of their remaining energy within our world/atmosphere.

    That would happen with most objects (barring perfectly reflective surfaces and even then) such as a roof though…. So it’s not like your solar panel is increasing the total energy imparted to the “system”.

    • Antimutt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Indeed it doesn’t increase the total energy. It converts much of it into energy that our excess CO2 traps - IR. So we must either leave it as visible light, or push technology to convert it into microwave, both of which can escape.

      • @Cypher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        And use what exactly for energy generation? Covering even 5% of the planet in solar panels would be less disastrous than continuing with fossil fuels.

        Your proposal also isn’t mutually exclusive with solar power. You can do both… absorb light for electricity generation and efficiently reflect light to reduce total absorption.

        • Antimutt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          Both would kill us, so it doesn’t matter which passes the finish line first. This is what the article warns about - massive engineering projects that affect the climate, whether for the purpose of geo-engineering or not.

          Nothing wrong with solar IF we can pump the heat out of the atmosphere, or dodge it in some other way. Which we can’t, yet, and a solution to this is not waiting around the corner.