I do not think they are effective methods to kill the virus. However, they can reduce the time which the virus can survival in such resources. It is confirmed with certainty that high temperatures do not favor the survival of the virus. However, the exact duration of survival remains unknown.
I agree with Bita Jamshidi . The scientific contribution: Predicted Inactivation of Viruses of Relevance to Biodefense by Solar Radiation, written by C. David Lytle and Jose-Luis Sagripanti. This work shows that its proposal would not be an efficient practice.
Here is the abstract of the research I mention:
UV radiation from the sun is the primary germicide in the environment. The goal of this study was to estimate inactivation of viruses by solar exposure. We reviewed published reports on 254-nm UV inactivation and tabulated the sensitivities of a wide variety of viruses, including those with double-stranded DNA, single-stranded DNA, double-stranded RNA, or single-stranded RNA genomes. We calculated D37 values (fluence producing on average one lethal hit per virion and reducing viable virus to 37%) from all available data. We defined “size-normalized sensitivity” (SnS) by multiplying UV254 sensitivities (D37 values) by the genome size, and SnS values were relatively constant for viruses with similar genetic composition. In addition, SnS values were similar for complete virions and their defective particles, even when the corresponding D37 values were significantly different. We used SnS to estimate the UV254 sensitivities of viruses for which the genome composition and size were known but no UV inactivation data were available, ncluding smallpox virus, Ebola, Marburg, Crimean-Congo, Junin, and other hemorrhagic viruses, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis and other encephalitis viruses. We compiled available data on virus inactivation as a function of wavelength and calculated a composite action spectrum that allowed xtrapolation from the 254-nm data to solar UV. We combined our estimates of virus sensitivity with solar measurements at different geographical locations to predict virus inactivation. Our predictions agreed with the available experimental data. This work should be a useful step to understanding and eventually predicting the survival of viruses after their release in the environment.
There are studies revealing the inactivation of viruses including coronaviruses using UV and heat. If we consider the predicted transmission through air and water of COVID-19. We would be needing a large scale disinfection. We can not disinfect the whole Amazon river by chlorination or other chemical methods. Because it would not be possible and lethal for aquatic biodiversity and also carcinogenic to humans.
Sun is the biggest renewable and globally available powerhouse for UV and heat. Thus thermal inactivation and photoinactivation methods that directly attack the RNA of virus (Taking the reference of Stephanie Pfaender's study on Hepatitis-C virus) could be effective in the case of SARS-COV-2.
Debrayan Bravo Hidalgo Joan Nyika Eugeniusz Koda Bita Jamshidi
If you are not an expert on a specific problem that allows you to decide for yourself, I advise you to leave the papers accumulated in the archives without peer-reviews. Probably UV, like other viruses, can attenuate the viral load outside (this virus has a capsid and an enveloppe which makes it more resistant) but the virus looks for its guests in closed environments (offices, home, supermarkets, restaurants and so on) so, as daily experience is showing, it survives and creates infectious outbreaks. Its resistance, at the moment, is 99% dependent on the individual's behavior alone.