No Stupid Questions

Yes, because if we build enough of them they'll suck up all the heat from the sun's rays. However, they would also suck up all the light. And because it would be so dark and cold, people would need their heating and lights on at all times, so the energy consumption actually would go up. My chiropractor calls it "The Solar Panel Paradox".

Technically, if you built enough solar panels in space, they would completely block the sun and massively decrease global temperature

Conservation of energy equation says otherwise.

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.

Yes. If we built a giant circle of solar panels in space around the sun, it would cool the earth to the point it would be unliveable for humans.

Not directly. That electricity is converted to heat when it's used: All devices are space heaters, some just do other things as well. Even if not used, it would still be converted to heat by the panels. There's no getting around the conservation of energy.

In theory, we could send that power out into space as microwaves or light, but in practice the effect would be negligible. The direct heat output of every human activity is nothing compared to the sun: All the electricity generated on earth is around 3 Terrawatts, while the sun hits us with 200 Pettawatts, 66 thousand times more.

On the other hand, burning fuels releases gasses like CO2, which can traps sunlight and creates thousands of times more heat than the actual amount of power generated. If we stopped burning fuel, it would stop the current massive increase in global temperature, which would then slowly be reversed by things like the carbonate-silicate cycle.

Directly, as you phrased the question: No.

Indirectly: Yes. Because we would automatically stop burning fuels when we get all our energy from solar. That would decrease the temerature a tiny little bit.

But the temerature of the planet does not really depend on such actions. For example, the indirect effects of CO2 and Ozone in the atmosphere have much more powerful impacts - and still they can only change the temperature at the planet's surface (that's what our lives depend on). The whole of the planet is yet another thing.

Start reflecting sunlight back into space and increase the earth's albedo

wo:mankind FTFY

but serious answer: no. if humanity sources all its electricity through solar panels, these solar panels would cover <1% (IIRC) of earth's surface area, so the effect would be negligible.

Assuming 25% efficiency, 25% of the sunlight will be converted into electricity. However, once that energy gets used later, most of it will be converted into heat, one way or another. The main way that it will decrease heat being released into the atmosphere is by replacing less efficient methods of energy generation.

For example, it you normally heat a house with a 90% efficient gas burner to generate 900W of heat on average, you are burning enough gas to generate 1000W of heat on average throughout the day. Lets also say the house gets 4000W of heat across its roof on average throughout the day. Thats 5000W of heat being released into the atmosphere total.

Lets now say you convert to solar panels and now get 25% of that energy from the sun converted to electricity, then into heat in the house. Electric heating is essentially 100% efficient, so you get 3000W of sunlight converted directly to heat in the panels, 1000W of electricity which is also turned into heat in the house = 3900W of heat + 100W of extra electricity (turned into heat elsewhere). The 1000W of gas gets eliminated completely.

It probably wont be anywhere near the numbers listed here and batteries will play a huge role in averaging out these numbers due to varying generation and use throughout the day. Additionally this doesnt account for things like cars and othergas based systems which wont / cant be replaced economically, other technologies like radiative cooling paint, and the fact that global temperatures will likely continue to rise due to the continued release of co2 and other gases. It might slightly slow things down though

Converting electricity generation to renewable alone isnt enough to reverse global warming, it would also require converting systens which use gas and other fossil fuels to electric

In theory yes, but in practice no. Before we used fossil fuels (say 1000 years ago) the earth was on a slight cooling trend because a little organic matter still gets converted to coal. I can't find the amount, but IIRC it was something like enough for -0.1C every thousand years. That number is so small that even a tiny amount of fuel use would keep us even.

1. It would decrease temperatures because no energy emissions brings hope that natural carbon sinks can come close to reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. Hydrogen replacing heat in iron/steel and cement could be enough. But it needs to be quick.

2. Solar panels provide shade which can cool the ground/water beneath them. At night, they release heat faster than ground, with less of it absorbed by ground relative to air and upwards to higher atmosphere.

3. google ai does say that more efficient solar panels get less hot. 2-5C over "standard panels", which I cannot source, but would assume its 2C per 5 %point extra efficiency.

Nope, it only helps to not increase it further.

Yes, if the panels were in outer orbit, and mostly powering things outside our planet.

A little simplified energy cannot be destroyed only change form, each time it changes it loses a little bit of energy to heat. Over time that means all energy will become heat.

So the only way to not heat up the earth with energy is to either make sure it doesn't get to earth, or that we let it out.

Orbital solar cells could keep enough light from reaching earth to cool it, but releasing the energy dirtside would mostly cancel that out. So, we cover the earth orbit with panels and use them to fuel space things.

All of this requires more tech, a lot of resources and time to prepare though. And also a feasible way to store and use that energy in space. Maybe we shoot batteries at a moon base or orbital mining operation?