If all of mankind’s energy was supplied through solar panels would the effect be big enough to decrease the temperature (since light is converted in part to electricity)?

  • Asetru@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    No. If a watt worth of sunlight hits the earth, it’s transformed into a watt of heat. If it hits a solar panel, it’s transformed into some heat and some electricity, which is then used to power something that then transformed it into heat. The only solar energy that doesn’t heat up the planet is the one that is reflected back into space, which, however, isn’t much for solar panels.

    However, if you use a watt of sunlight to power your phone instead of a watt of energy you got from burning coal, this watt of energy instead stays below earth and therefore doesn’t heat up the planet. It also doesn’t release co2, which would otherwise reduce the atmosphere’s reflectivity, trapping even more sun heat on the planet.

    So solar panels don’t reduce the temperature by not allowing sunlight to heat up the planet, they decrease the temperature by replacing other stuff that would otherwise heat up the planet.

    • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Solar panels aren’t 100% efficient though, so isn’t a bunch of it is reflected back in to space?

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      co2, which would otherwise reduce the atmosphere’s reflectivity

      Just to be pedantic CO2 absorbs bands in the infrared and reemits it, energy that otherwise could be lost to space. This is part of the reason you can’t do infrared telescopes from earth.

      https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

      Water is an even more powerful greenhouse gas but fortunately the earth is cool enough for it to condense back out of the atmosphere. If temps got high enough that more evaporated than condensed then you’d get a runaway greenhouse effect and we’d be truly fucked.

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Just note that the released energy of burning fossils (or nuclear) is orders of magnitude below what the sun does. It really is only the CO2 from coal (or CO2 and CH4 from natural gas, …) that does the heating, since it acts like insulation.

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Yeah, that explanation sounded off to me. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the issue, not heat directly released from combustion. The sun is doing the overwhelming majority of heating. Carbon staying underground matters far more than watts staying underground.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Plants fixing carbon also converts energy to a form that isn’t heat, so I think we should count that along with reflection as a way that solar energy doesn’t become terrestrial heat.

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Correct, but not only is it extremely little, this stored energy is also quickly released again after the organism dies.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          quickly

          Quick in geologic time. But this is what fossil fuels are, so it’s an order of magnitude or two different than the time in which generated electricity will be used.

          And you’re right, it’s very small. Everything we know is pretty small, even combined. The amount of energy the sun imparts to the Earth every day equals what humanity would use over about 12 years at current levels.

          • Eheran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            No, quickly as in years. There is no more coal or oil formed today, there are now organisms that can digest every part of organic stuff. There were none back then for example for lignin from wood, which is where we got coal from.

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      it’s transformed into some heat and some electricity, which is then used to power something that then transformed it into heat. The only solar energy that doesn’t heat up the planet is the one that is reflected back into space

      if you use a watt of sunlight to power your phone instead of a watt of energy you got from burning coal, this watt of energy instead stays below earth and therefore doesn’t heat up the planet.

      What?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Fossil fuels are carbon.

        That carbon was sequestered from the atmosphere millions of years ago.

        Burning fossil fuels releases that carbon into the atmosphere, which then makes the earth hotter

        Think of oil as dead dinosaurs and coal as dead trees, that’s basically what it is.

        All that stuff was taken out of circulation over an insanely long timeline, and now on a very short timeline we’re digging it up and putting it back into circulation. So fast that species can’t adapt to the change and die out before they can evolve.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            This?

            if you use a watt of sunlight to power your phone instead of a watt of energy you got from burning coal, this watt of energy instead stays below earth and therefore doesn’t heat up the planet.

            The “watt of energy” is a watt from the coal… And they’re saying to leave the coal buried and sequestered.

            I assumed that was understood, so I explained how burning coal heats up the planet…

            You may have not realized what you highlighted had to do with fossil fuels, but that’s just because you didn’t understand.

            Which is fine, you did the right thing and asked questions.

            • deranger@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Burning coal doesn’t significantly heat the planet directly. The CO2 released by this causes solar heating to be more effective by trapping the escaping infrared radiation. It’s the greenhouse gases that are the issue, not the energy released by combustion. “Watts staying underground” is a poor explanation. Burning coal makes watts from the sun more effective at heating the earth.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                Participate pollution melts glaciers which increases the temperature long after it fucks shit up by trapping heat in the atmosphere and blocking photosynthesis.

                • deranger@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Just saying “watts staying underground” is a poor explanation. That’s an insignificant amount of energy compared to what the sun is delivering and what’s being trapped by CO2. “Carbon staying underground” is much more the priority.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Just saying “watts staying underground” is a poor explanation

                    Which is why I clarified for someone what someone else likely meant…

                    I’m not sure what you’re doing here, do you want me to go complain to the person who first used that phrasing on your behalf?

                • MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  That’s not really relevant. Fine particulate emissions from coal power plants, which are already mostly gone in the US but are still used around the world, don’t travel a really long distance.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    No, they do.

                    Precipitate pollution from coal use in India and China is making it to the northern glaciars.

                    It doesn’t need to be a lot, a small speck on a glacier can “snowball” into a substantial melt because black soot gets hotter than white snow.

                    When soot settles on snow in large enough quantities, it creates a dark, heat-absorbent film on the otherwise reflective white surface of the snow. This causes the surface to absorb significantly more heat than it otherwise would, which eventually thins the snow down to the glacial ice that sits below the surface layer, causing further retreat.

                    https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/coal-soot-darkened-melted-glaciers-during-industrial-revolution-8C11069699

                    It’s not like the soot has to blanket it, especially when they’re already melting.

            • credo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 day ago

              If you swim in an Olympic sized pool instead of a kiddie pool, this will give you a better experience

              Grammatically, coal was not the subject of that sentence. But that’s fine, I see what OP was going for.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                But that’s fine, I see what OP was going for.

                Weird choice to downvote the person who helped you understand, but you do you I guess.

                It’s definitely convinced me not to spend anytime helping you in the future though. So maybe don’t be like this to the next person, Lemmy is small and there’s only so many people to help you, eventually you’ll run out.

                • credo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I downvote those who downvote me. No worries, I didn’t really need your “help”.