I wrote before that to truly replace all our energy needs with solar energy we would need to cover an area equal to California's surface area with collectors. Obviously this would have pretty serious environmental impact. But today I have a different questions.

If we set up massive solar farms, even if they aren't all in one massive block but instead in various smaller patches, I have to ask, what would be the effect on the climate? Most global warming, including the warming that makes the earth habitable, is due to heat being radiated back from the earth. However, if most or all of the sunlight is being used to generate electricity, it shouldn't warm the earth, thus there would be less heat to re-radiated. Also, as most solar collectors have reflective covers, I would think they would increase surface albedo significantly, again reducing the heat absorbed by the surface. So, shouldn't all of this have some rather significant cooling effects on the earth's atmosphere?

Admittedly, since most seem worried about "runaway global warming", this may not be a concern, but for those of us not convinced Al Gore is the third coming (Obama being the second coming, of course), increasing albedo significantly, as well as reducing the warming of the surface may have some negative consequences.

But even ignoring the question of global temperature, might there not be some pretty severe climate changes in terms of weather patterns from covering square mile after square mile with collectors? As tornadoes and other severe weather can be caused by significant differences in surface temperature, wouldn't the edges of these solar farms be prime candidates for spawning tornadoes?

I only ask because it seems that fear over one problem ("greenhouse gasses") has caused people to ignore the other  problems their solution might cause. Of course, since they tend to underestimate to an absurd degree the number of solar collectors they will need, they may not even realize that they will need to cover huge tracts of land with panels. But, when you look at the efficiency of collectors, the relatively low energy density of solar energy and the truly massive energy usage of the US (29,000 TWh in 2005), there is now ay to escape the realization that moving to an entirely "green" energy infrastructure will mean environmental impacts as great as any current strip mining or oil drilling as well as climate change.

Which brings me to my point. The green movement seems to believe if we just give up evil hydrocarbons and adopt "renewable" resources all will be sweetness and light and there will be no problems. The truth is, so long as man lives, as long as he acts, there will be an environmental impact. Unless they are willing to go back to stone age existence, scratching a living as hunter gatherers, man will have a "disparate environmental impact". Technology and large populations means environmental change. Some environmental thinkers seem to realize this, and have thus adopted a strong anti-human stand. I give them credit for consistency, if nothing else. But the run of the mill environmentalist is deluded if he thinks we can continue to live as we do by simply shifting from oil and coal to solar panels. The covering of the west coast with panels will cause environmental damage to put West Virginia strip mining to shame.

POSTSCRIPT

Just to be clear, I do not propose returning to the stone age. I do not believe that "environmental impact" is bad. Man survives by changing the environment, and as I am firmly on the side of humanity, I just cannot worry about nebulous fears over environmental "impacts". Yes, we can sometimes take actions that end up harming us, but much less often than most environmentalists suggest, and wealth and technology make that less likely, not more. So, rather than slow technology and stop human progress, I prefer to allow unfettered growth sot hat our wealth and knowledge will enable us to better deal with unforeseen consequences.

For those who doubt the benefits of technology and wealth, simply look at the water quality of the US versus the former Warsaw Pact nations. Our wealth and technology, along with property rights and legal protections, allowed us to not only surpass the USSR in wealth, but to do so with nowhere near the pollution they endured.

UPDATE

I realized this morning that my comment on increased albedo was not clear. The fact is that perfectly maintained collectors, absorbing solar energy would have low albedo. However, they are usually encased in glass, which, when dirty, works as a good reflector and increases albedo. In addition, dust, grit, and other matter outside the glass, while not reflective, would also increase albedo greatly.

Admittedly, such dirt would need to be cleaned to get the best performance out of collectors, but I am betting that at any given moment there would be quite a few collectors in need of cleaning, increasing albedo significantly. (If not, it would simply fail to reflect light, but that light, being converted to electricity, would not warm the earth to be re-radiated, so it still would not warm the atmosphere.)

There is another problem entirely if we assume that, for maximum efficiency, the collectors are designed to follow the sun. The problem arises from the number of collectors which greatly increases the likelihood some will be improperly aligned. In that case, the sun striking the non-collector surfaces, probably metallic, would increase albedo as well, in addition to greatly decreasing efficiency.

Just wanted to clarify that so that it wouldn't appear I was saying black collector panels had a high albedo.