• Cypher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t have stats on hand but its much less than 77% of photons “turning into heat”.

    Those photons do lose some energy which is kinetic and becomes heat but it’s not 100% either, as those photons mostly just bounce off after losing a little energy.

    • Antimutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Solar panels appear dark - more so than a 23% reduction can account for. The whole of the other 77% will not immediately turn into heat, but the bulk of it will. Some photons bounce, with a dependence on colour - but what happens to them then? A tiny amount will escape the Earth, with the rest absorbed by objects, atmosphere and eyes - mostly becoming heat. And what happens to visible light when it loses “a little energy”? It becomes infrared - y’know: heat.

      • Cypher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 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.