Another great
Global Warming method. It absorbs 18.5% MORE than the perfect Black Body absorber/radiator. In effect it is blacker than the balckest black, and great at absorbing 18.5% MORE of the incipient radation than any natural surface.

Can't think of a thing more prone to increase global warming. Widespread adoption would reduce the Albedo creating more Sahara deserts.

The Society for the Prevention of Albedo Reduction in the US, S.P.A.R.E. U.S. rejects this global warming enhancer. (unless global warming is not really a problem).

Wait Stan can you explain this: how can you absorb 100%+18.5% (118.5%) of the incident light?

If increasing the earth's albedo bothers you, you should attack asphalt road construction not solar panels.

Roger! Great post ... and you did it without using the word "hydrogen" even once :)

Problem: sun is only out at day, production is only optimum on cloudless days. To replace all conventional electric power with solar you would need many times the maximum needed wattage in panel area and a means of storing and delivering the power for the night and during peak load. You would also need a efficient means (more efficient then power lines) of transporting the electricity from the desert thousand of miles away.

Total question of curiosity....
What is the electrical output of the average nuclear reactor? What is the acreage used to support the facility? And for comparison, if that same acreage was filled with solar panels, how close would it come to matching the output of the reactor (assuming the sun is shining). I'm under the assumption we'll need both, going forward, but I'm curious about the comparison.

If increasing the earth's albedo bothers you, you should attack asphalt road construction not solar panels.

I do not think anyone is saying that you can replace all electric generation with solar PV, but you can run a lot of ACs with it in the summer. We have SO much desert land in S Cal, that the land usage is not a major factor, the cost per watt installed is.

with all the electric cars which will be connected to the grid you will have a great storage for electricity!!

W Neway - "Absorb the heat with water then use the hot water Did I miss something?"

Or better yet absorb the heat in molten salt or ammonia. Future concentrating solar power plants will do this.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2583

I think that CSP is better for very large scale solar with PV really good for household or business roof mounted power. We will need both for renewable grid.

Some of you really need a little technical training. Listening to the Greenie's crayola level and view of physical laws, is not healthy for you.

The best passive absorber/radiator conforms to the thermal radiative profile and is proportional to T**4.

Any passive device absorbs incident radiation until an equilibrium is reached and then re-radiates any additional input in a thermal profile. But a PV solar panel is not s "Passive" device at all. It absorbs incident radiation and converts some of it to electrical energy, and then moves that electrical energy to somewhere else via a current flow, moving the energy. This being so, an active device can absorb MORE incident radiation then the very best passive device. The ratio of what the maximum that a passive device can do, and what an active device can do, is the ratio of amount of Energy converted and moved, to the maximum passive radiation possible to be absorbed at equilibrium.

And yes asphalt roads do indeed change the Albedo. Please Ggoogle the Heat Island effect of cities in altering the local climate and temperature profile.

Now someone else projected that all the energy needed, could be supplioe by tiling only a paltry .1% of the ground. Sorry your decimal points are way off.

Please provide me a reference for that assertion, because any back of envelope calculation indicates tiling an area at least as large as several states to accomplish that objective (Nevada, Utah, and Arizona)killing and cooking anything there in.

Speaking of asphalt, the EPA purposely turns a blind eye and calls asphalt a non-polluter although it is a source of lots of evaporated pollution-type hydrocarbons. You've all seen it. Square miles of heavy hydrocarbons layed on the ground, baking in the sun, evaporates its volatile fractions, "drys out" and cracks up.

Once upon a time the Greeens said that natural recyclable energy sources were better. Then windmills ruined the view, so we suddenly we heard complaints that they chiopped up birds. Thenn hydroelectric power was clean and renewable, until some clucks wanted to run white water expeditions, or go river fishing, and now hydrelectric power is a Greenie no-no. Once upon a time geothermal energy conversion was a great renewable, until stink from thermal ventin,g bothered some people; now that is no longer a Greenie option.

I said in 1970, and even created an enviro group to say that, extensnive and widespread Solar energy is dangerous to the environment. If we ever really have to use it, I'm sure the Green loons will discover the warts that are there in any technology. Widespread solar has many, many, warts.

OK Stan, you convinced me: when I’ll install PV on my roof I’ll alternate PV panels with strips of bare aluminium.

But seriously, what is the difference where adsorbed visible light will be re-radiated as IR: from PV itself or from light bulb it will run (or heated by light bulb air)? As I understand it, it is “albedo” of the surface in visible light frequency which defines Earth energy balance; any adsorbed energy will be re-rediated as IR one way or another.

Neil, look up "thermal pollution".