Atmospheric engineering scheme to combat global warming could diminish solar power

Apr 20, 2009

A widely discussed "atmospheric engineering" scheme intended to combat global warming could have unanticipated consequences in reducing the effectiveness of certain kinds of solar power around the Earth, a new study has concluded. It is appears in the current issue of ACS' Environmental Science & Technology, a semi-monthly journal.

In the study, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Daniel M. Murphy examines a proposal to minimize climate change by enhancing the stratospheric aerosol layer, which reduces to by scattering it to outer space. But this approach has considerable implications on the ability to concentrate solar power, Murphy says. For example, the increased aerosols resulting from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines reduced global sunlight by less than three percent but decreased output from some solar generating plants by about 20 percent.

Murphy's study found that aerosols reduce direct sunlight - the kind that casts shadows - much more than total sunlight. Each one percent reduction in the Earth's sunlight due to aerosols will cause a four to 10 percent loss in output from concentrating solar power applications. He notes, however, that flat solar hot water and photovoltaic panels — which utilize both direct and diffuse (scattered) sunlight — will have smaller performance losses than concentrating solar collectors.

"One consequence of deliberate enhancement of the stratospheric aerosol layer would be a significant reduction in the efficiency of generation systems," Murphy concludes. "Any cooling of the Earth that relies on light scattering, including tropospheric aerosol scattering and increased cloudiness, by particles will also result in reductions in direct sunlight that are several times the reductions in total sunlight."

Source: American Chemical Society (news : web)

Explore further: Australia confident of Antarctic marine reserve in 2015

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Atmospheric 'sunshade' could reduce solar power generation

Mar 11, 2009

The concept of delaying global warming by adding particles into the upper atmosphere to cool the climate could unintentionally reduce peak electricity generated by large solar power plants by as much as one-fifth, ...

Record high performance with new solar cells

Nov 03, 2008

Researchers in China and Switzerland are reporting the highest efficiency ever for a promising new genre of solar cells, which many scientists think offer the best hope for making the sun a mainstay source ...

Enhancing solar cells with nanoparticles

Dec 23, 2008

Deriving plentiful electricity from sunlight at a modest cost is a challenge with immense implications for energy, technology, and climate policy. A paper in a special energy issue of Optics Express, the Optical Society's (OSA) ...

Recommended for you

Australia confident of Antarctic marine reserve in 2015

2 hours ago

Australia said on Saturday it was confident its plans for a marine reserve to protect biodiversity in East Antarctica would succeed next year, after international talks in Hobart failed to agree on the measure.

Bladderwrack: Tougher than suspected

19 hours ago

The bladderwrack Fucus vesiculosus is actually one of the most important species of brown algae along the North Atlantic coasts. But for years their populations in the Baltic Sea were declining. Looking for the reasons, biolog ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LariAnn
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2009
The idea of monkeying around with the stratospheric aerosol layer is typical of government interference projects. Like any large-scale human-driven action, the results can be unpredictable. If AGW is considered to be a fact, then why not just cut back on GW-enhancing emissions? Blocking out incoming sunlight so irresponsible people and corporations can continue spewing out more GH gasses is absurd.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2009
That would be due to the fact that AGW is not considered fact by most scientists.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.