6 ms·
"Never will" is of course an untrue hyperbole. There are stronger and stronger incentives to make this happen, and while it's probable that non-renewables will
by vegai_ 4y ago
"Never will" is of course an untrue hyperbole. There are stronger and stronger incentives to make this happen, and while it's probable that non-renewables will never go to 0.0%, they will definitely reach for it.
173TW is the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth. More than 10,000x what we currently use. Sure, we'll probably never (there's that word again!) use all of it, but it gives a sense of scale. And who knows, perhaps we'll use more since there's always the other side of the sun. Apparently, a full dyson sphere around the sun would theoretically give us 400 septillion (10^24) watts.
- djmips 4y agoIf we used all 173TW instead of letting it reflect back - what would that do for the temperature of the planet?
- vegai_ 4y agoThat's probably a bit absurd, and would probably cause a lot of changes since it would also mean that all the oceans are practically covered with panels. Here's a reference to a study about large-scale panel installations: https://www.science.org/content/article/solar-panel-shade-won-t-cool-earth#:~:text=The%20benefits%20of%20solar%20panels,we%20keep%20burning%20fossil%20fuels https://www.science.org/content/article/solar-panel-shade-wo.... They suggest that there would be an impact, but far less than the impact of greenhouse gases they could replace.
- d_tr 4y agoIn this case you are basically just changing the path of the light already hitting the planet. It will eventually become photons again and can leave back towards space, plus there is no release of greenhouse gases. I guess it would still do something for the temperature of the planet, but to a far lesser extent.