Hacker News Reader

Comment by Qwertious | Hacker News Reader

Solar panels are limited by cost. If this cooling ceramic is a better version of the barium sulfate thing (i.e. just an extremely cheap-to-produce material that's very white) then this is viable because it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars per square metre to manufacture.

Its main limitation would likely be construction costs, which is a problem solar panels are already starting to run into. Although construction of solar requires setting up cables and not e.g. accidentally snapping hundred-dollar solar panels in half (which would be a non-issue for barium sulfate, since it's dirt-cheap and basically just white paint anyway).

View on HN

"hundreds of dollars per square meter" not true anymore.

https://allo.solar/panneau-solaire-410w-noir-mono-p-type-tw-...

104.08 EUR tax (20%) included for 410Wp gives 0.254 EUR/Wp

1722 x 1134 x 30 mm = 1.92 square meter gives 53.38 EUR/m2.

Some wooden floor are more expensive than PV per square meter.

People forget that PV, battey, wind costs are still decreasing.

A quick calculation on Wolfram Alpha: to cover 2% of the world's surface at 50EUR/m2 would cost roughly 540 trillion euros, or 5.5 years of current world GDP.

Quoting the GP:

> People forget that PV, battey, wind costs are still decreasing.

Some insist on forgetting it. And the decrease has been exponential, with no reason to believe it will stop at the next order of magnitude.

Anyway, covering 2% of the world with anything is a huge undertaking.

If I'm not mistaken 510 millions square kilometer earth surface, 2% of that 10 millions square kilometer, at 200 Wp/m2 gives 2 PW peak.

Current peak electricity production capacity is about 7.5 TW according to:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267358/world-installed-p...

There are many open bare places on Earth where solar panels are useless because there are no electricity users nearby: any desert.

If all it takes is to truck the ceramic panels around and dump them to the ground, then it's probably not that expensive.

How long will they last in the desert though? My intuition say they would be covered with sand in a few weeks tops.

There are rocky deserts.

70% of Sahara is rocky, not sandy, for example.

Sure. But even there there is a ton of mobile dust and sand in the air.

So in order to save the environment we plan on covering it with white sheets?

Just because we don't want to tell Africa and China to stop burning and polluting and dumping it all in the rivers?

Just to point out, but it's not Africa, and it's mostly not China that are burning and polluting.

Where I live solar panels are limited by regulations. They pay for themselves after a couple of years so people would plaster them literally everywhere the sun shines if they were allowed to. White paint otoh probably has worse ROI.

White paint (if cheap) on a building you are actively trying to cool would seem to have a very good roi.

I think white shingles for the roof would probably be even more effective. IIRC, a lot homes in hotter climates have started using them.

Adding bifacial solar panels is probably a fantastic combination as well.

A lot less than 1% of the earth‘s surface is buildings.

A negative ROI (return on investment) suggests it won't pay for itself ever, be that in cash or carbon.

If you're actively trying to cool the building then painting it in something that lowers the energy needed to cool it. And as were just talking about paint, carbon and cash cost is likely to be low relative to savings.

So no, painting all houses in this stuff might not reverse global warming, but that wasn't what we were talking about.

The "white paint" parent is referring to can passively cool the surface a few degrees below ambient temperature 24/7 (yes, even at night). I could imagine worse investments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com