[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by Awd180

Land Area (148,429,000 sq km) 29.1%
or 148,429,000,000 sq m not 148429000000 000

I knew you'd say that, I really knew!

One kilometer is 1.000 meters
One square kilometer is 1.000.000 square meters not 1000.
One cubic kilometer is 1.000.000.000 cubic meter.
Etcetera
If you square the unit you have to square the factor too.

My calculation is solid.

Originally Posted by Awd180

But still you get into functionality of a solar at a peak around the equator, why? Alaska has the longest days.

And the longest nights in winter. Over a year, half the time is daytime. This is true for any place on earth.
If you put the panels flat on the ground you use all the area there is. Best performance for the flat layout is on the equator.

Originally Posted by Awd180

Your figures don't account for error, weather, and rotational speed of the earth, the reports I've read are run from trial performance of solar cells in operation.

I set the average power output to just 10% of max output to account for all of that. A fixed panel could theoretically average ~30% (almost 1/pi) of max power per 24H in ideal weather, so 10% is very low, actually.

Originally Posted by Awd180

not to mention clearing that much land or the fraction that could contribute the amount of energy produced threw coal would be more damaging.

You mentioned covering the earth first and said it would not yield enough power. I show just over 1 % of land mass would do and you attack me on practicalities?

Originally Posted by Awd180

Solar cells are viable source for individual use but not a complete answer.

In ten years it may be the best choice, but for now it's not. You're finding variables but missing the other factors at play, there is and still is enough destruction of land for energy, industrial, and society.

Missing factors at play, me?
You said the earth would not yield enough power if it were completely covered.
I have shown it would have an abundance if you did that.
Then you blame me for showing you, fighting the (correct) calculation and completely missing the fact that I already compensated for rotation and bad weather.
Ah well. You did not get the facts right, should I expect then that my explanation would get a better treatment?

I second Neil's statement. My calculation used panels with less than 10% efficiency and another 10% over that for weather etc, and then using only land.
just a fraction of a % used of the potential energy (inn my calculation) can power the earth's yearly requirement in under 100 hours.
So the full load would do it within an hour.
It matches.