Solar is also trapping more energy than what would never be there. If the sun's rays just hit the ground, a portion of it would be reflected back. We're using dark material to aborb most of what would be reflected back and we end up trapping more energy than we should... Solar panels are around 15% efficient, which means 85% of this trapped energy is immediately converted to heat, heating the local environment... and the part which becomes electricity eventually gets converted to heat as well (no matter what you use it for).
So, only ones I can think of which don't add additional heat to the planed may be wind and hydro.
Except, you know, 100% of the energy obtained by fossil fuels also eventually becomes waste heat. All of our electricity consumption and production is a rounding error to the earth. Global warming only works because the Sun can do most of the work.
>Except, you know, 100% of the energy obtained by fossil fuels also eventually becomes waste heat.
And? Where did I say it doesn't?
>All of our electricity consumption and production is a rounding error to the earth.
Agree. But I'm talking to those who believe solar is the solution to global warming... when what solar does is capture more energy from the sun and turn it to heat.
That's still such an inconsequential effect compared to the additional heat trapping caused by atmospheric ghg increases from fossil fuel burning that it doesn't really tip the scales. Solar does solve the biggest problem: ghg emissions. In order of importance: #1: stopping emission of greenhouse gasses on a huge, planet destroying scale, ~#15 reducing current ghg concentrations back to baseline, ~#900 worrying about reflectivity or absorption levels of solar energy installations.
Both wind and hydro convert kinetic energy into electricity and heat. The heat is from the moving parts in the turbines and the power conversion electronics. Heat is a product of just about every energy conversion you can imagine.
Already been there done that. Asphalt roads and roofs do this en masse and create some slight overnight heat storage in urban environments. Solar is just a marginal addition I believe.
If you've ever driven on a road approaching a hillside photovoltaics installation from the east at just the right time in the afternoon when it projects the sun right into traffic, you wouldn't be so sure to assume that 100% of incoming photons go either to electricity or to heat... but yeah, high albedo photovoltaic might be an interesting research topic. We have semi-translucent panels that seem to only sacrifice so much efficiency, some room for high albedo should exist (probably not much). Market would of course be people showing off that they can afford different looks, like those musk-shingles. But efficiency also dereases with temperature, so perhaps this might be another angle ? Invoking the impact on total earth albedo certainly won't drive any buying decisions, tragedy of the commons and all that...
No, it's not, the parent poster overestimates the effect. Something like 0.1% of the surface would need panels. Energy trapped by those solar panels pales compared to what's trapped by all the greenhouse gasses we've emitted burning coal and oil.
I wonder if solar energy is going to need to install high albedo surface area to offset it's low albedo energy absorption to satisfy some future version of ESG constraints.
So, only ones I can think of which don't add additional heat to the planed may be wind and hydro.