2 ms·

Yeah, no, 98% percent reflectance paint has been available for, I don’t know, 30 years. I was using it about 15 years ago for a product that required high opti

Yeah, no, 98% percent reflectance paint has been available for, I don’t know, 30 years. I was using it about 15 years ago for a product that required high optical efficiency. The problem with such paints or coatings is that they don’t perform well over time outside of a clean room environment. On a roof this 98% would likely only exist for 1.2 microseconds. Dust, dirt, aging an bird shit will make sure of that. Climate change? Oh please. Ridiculous.

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
I agree. But theoretically, if the paint shed or repelled dirt very well, it could outperform something with near the same reflectivity. But the article doesn't acknowledge titanium dioxide paints with the same theoretic reflectivity, so I have to assume it won't perform any better than existing products.
- robomartin 6y ago
  Well, the premise of the article is preposterous just the same. Reflective roofs are not going to save the planet. I sure hope that's not what they pitched to get funding for this research. It would be a waste of money on multiple fronts: - Super-reflective materials and coatings already exist. - They don't perform well at all outside of very well controlled environments. - To repeat myself, the idea that reflective roofs are going to even represent a rounding error in the climate change equation is nothing short of delusional. They might even cause more harm than good. - And then there's the same set of questions that should be applied to every single magical climate change solution: How much CO2 will be produced making it? How much energy will it take? How many other pollutants are we going to generate and disperse? What is the resource equation for the entire life cycle, from manufacturing, through application, maintenance and eventual replacement?

2 ms·

Yeah, no, 98% percent reflectance paint has been available for, I don’t know, 30 years. I was using it about 15 years ago for a product that required high opti

by robomartin 6y ago

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
I agree. But theoretically, if the paint shed or repelled dirt very well, it could outperform something with near the same reflectivity. But the article doesn't acknowledge titanium dioxide paints with the same theoretic reflectivity, so I have to assume it won't perform any better than existing products.
- robomartin 6y ago
  Well, the premise of the article is preposterous just the same. Reflective roofs are not going to save the planet. I sure hope that's not what they pitched to get funding for this research. It would be a waste of money on multiple fronts: - Super-reflective materials and coatings already exist. - They don't perform well at all outside of very well controlled environments. - To repeat myself, the idea that reflective roofs are going to even represent a rounding error in the climate change equation is nothing short of delusional. They might even cause more harm than good. - And then there's the same set of questions that should be applied to every single magical climate change solution: How much CO2 will be produced making it? How much energy will it take? How many other pollutants are we going to generate and disperse? What is the resource equation for the entire life cycle, from manufacturing, through application, maintenance and eventual replacement?