I am not a chemist nor a chemistry major. My background is in mathematics and CS. However, when I was majoring in mathematics, I enjoyed chemistry very much and spent a lot of time studying it on the side. Years later I find economics pulling me far away from anything that gave me meaning. Because of this, I've recently been returning to things that gave me a reason to wake up in the morning. The point of me saying all this is to warn you my rhetoric and understanding may be crude when it comes to chemistry.
Back in college, when I was taking an inorganic chemistry course, I was daydreaming about gases and air conditioners and wondered why we spend energy to remove energy from the air. Couldn't we convert the kinetic energy in the air to cool down a room? I discussed this with the professor but she didn't have a lot to say about it. Then, I was thinking about chlorophyll and how specific parts of the light spectrum will hit it causing the electron (from the Mg atom I think) to become excited, converting that energy into chemical energy. Why can't a molecule do this for the kinetic energy in the air? From a user point of view, there would be a material on the wall, and the more material that is uncovered and exposed to the air, the more heat in the air would be converted into electrical energy. So the temperature of a room would be controlled by how much of the material is exposed.
Extending the crux of the idea a little, maybe the material would consist of layers. So the top layer would be an amplifier, to hit the chlorophyll-like molecule with enough force to excite the electrical energy. So, if 3 gaseous particles hit an amplifying molecule on the top layer, it redirects the impact from all three into a single point. The end goal of the material is to convert the heat in the air to electrical energy and store it somewhere else.
Besides the material not existing, is this absurd? Is there any merit in this line of thought? What are your thoughts?