No it doesn't make sense. Every photon that hits the Earth is eventually either absorbed as heat, reflected back into space or both (eg. partially absorbed and partially re-emitted as lower energy photons.) There is no net global increase in heat from a wind turbine or solar panel. (There might be slight local shifts.)

The only way this could change net heat if it significantly altered the reflectivity of the surface, and in practice the affected area is too small to matter. As an exaggerated example, I found an article [1] that calculated the area that would need to be covered by solar panels to generate power equal the total global electricity consumption to be 115,625 square miles, approximately equal to the state of New Mexico.

[1] https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/

▲

FpUser 6 hours ago | parent [-]

This is actually quite a sizeable chunk. If in the future needs grow 10 times the area needed might become big problem.

	▲	pfdietz 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It would actually be much better than nuclear. Remember, for every kWh of electrical energy delivered from a nuclear plant, 2 kWh of waste heat goes up those cooling towers. This is not the case with solar, particularly if it were built on ground that was already fairly dark. Direct thermal pollution like this is not yet globally significant, but if demand increased to the point that land constraints actually applied then it would become important.
	▲	barbazoo 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Might.