How does sunlight compare to fossil fuels and other forms of energy?

Question

How does sunlight compare to fossil fuels and other forms of energy?

Answer 1

when you use fossil fuels, you're actually using millions of years of solar energy, that's been stored up.

but that source is running low.

sunlight is far more dilute.

consider the solar car race.

http://images.google.com/images?q=solar%...

none of the cars are street legal.

all hold only 1 single passenger.

all only run in the day time.

don't get me wrong.

solar panels are a good thing.

and they're getting better.

but they just don't compare to coal and oil, for providing energy.

unfortunately, with the huge use of coal and oil, global warming is a very serious problem.

at this point, nuclear is probably better, much as i don't like it.

Answer 2

Fossil fuels are in fact highly concentrated forms of sunlight.  Think about it - all fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants.

And, the problem with fossil fuels is that there is so much energy in such a convenient and relatively easy-to-handle form.  Other forms of energy collection or production take very large and expensive facilities, or require handling higly dangerous materials.

Answer 3

Sunlight compares very favorably when it comes to long term energy supply. One problem we have is that we somehow collectively imagine that it will not be "us" that runs out of these "concentrated" forms of fossil fuels, some "other" people...in the future... will have to face that problem. And we also imagine that "nuclear power" is a viable alternative, because, some "other" people...in the future... will have to deal with all the radio active waste nuclear power generation produces. How long can this keep on going?

The sun rises every day, shedding it's heat and light on our globe. Humanity possesses the intelligence to harness this energy in a practical way, we simply lack the motovation to do it.. as yet. When humanity calls forth the heros of alternative energy development, loudly and firmly enough, they will appear.

Again, if we really think about it, sunlight compares most attractivly, when it comes to long term energy supply.

Answer 4

No one seems to be including other renewables, watt for watt you seem to get more return for wind, and I believe even more for hydro if you have a constant flow, the reasons become fairly obvious, wind will blow in the night, but solar panels won't help, however on a calm still night, a river, or lake or whatever will still flow.  I remember figuring it out once if I had the time/money to invest,

I think I would go 2xWind, 1xSolar, and 1xHydro (I don't have a water flow around me, but I do have the stuff that goes on around the house, sewage/gutters/rain-barrels, etc.)

If I had constant water flow, I'd go 3x water, 2x wind, 1x solar, the results would break out to 16.66% Solar, 33.33% wind, and 50% hydro.  That's just based on which is more effecient, and they all become backups, e.g. there's a drought, I still have wind/solar, or there's a long period of rain, I still have hydro/wind, etc.

Answer 5

This also depends on the efficiency of your sunlight conversion.  Each square meter of sunlight contains 1000 watts of energy.