• Antimutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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
        ·
        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.