I'm going to forward this to the list because it tempers my skepticism
some.  My analysis was *way* pessimistic given this info...  My apologies
to Rosebud.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:59:09 -0400
From: Rosebud <dubesor@netzero.net>
To: David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us>
Subject: : Alternate fuel.

My error - --.04 % of the land mass. These are not my nos., and I did
misread - This amount
of energy is estimated to supply (at today's use rate) one years supply of
energy. This allows for the present efficiency level of solar cells. Sorry
about the over sight and misinformation. Will now retire to become a recluse
and try to compensate for the 851 mea culpa I have amassed :-) After all
some of my data is more than 50 years old and the state of the art, surely
has advanced. I've been retired since Feb 1st 1971 and have tried to keep
abreast of this, my favorite passion.
Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.  Bud Yandell

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Brodbeck" <gull@gull.us>
To: "Rosebud" <dubesor@NETZERO.NET>
Cc: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Alternate fuel.

> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Rosebud wrote:
>
> > If .04 of the energy that strikes Planet Earth in one day were to be
> > converted to usable energy, ie fuel cell and electricity, it would be
enough
> > to supply free energy to the world for over 30 days.
>
> Unfortunately, the best solar cells are only about 5% efficient, so even
> leaving out the many, many inefficiencies involved in transporting the
> power converting 0.04 (4%, I assume?) of the sunlight falling on the earth
> to power would require covering 80% of it's surface with solar cells!
> And that's not counting cloudy days...
>
> David Brodbeck, N8SRE
> '82 Diesel Westfalia
> '94 Honda Civic Si
>
>