Solar vs fossil fuels, direct warming effects, I need numbers.?

Incoming solar radiation is energy, so all a solar panel does is transform some of that energy to electricity, the energy balance is unchanged.

Earth has two forms of heating solar and radioactive decay, radioactive decay is from minerals like uranium which slowly over time decay and release heat, nuclear power just refines those materials and speeds up the process.

Even fossil fuels are stored solar energy, by burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 we are not creating a new supply of CO2, just returning CO2 that was locked away by the photsynthesis (the sun).

Although CO2 does cause some warming it is very minimal, and does not deserve all the fuss and attention it gets.

I think you're worried about the albedo effect of solar panels.

As far as I know, it is a legitimate, but very small, concern. We could power the entire country just from solar panels on abandoned industrial sites. The amount of warming due to albedo change from that would be, well, probably less than the warming from 1 or 2 coal power plants going at full blast, and definitely less than the warming from replacing *all* of the coal plants in the US with solar.

And that's especially the case if at least some of the solar panels are situated in places that already had a low albedo. Solar panels on parking lots seem like an utterly obvious idea--shaded parking, energy, and a reduced urban heat island effect. Kind of a no-brainer. Likewise solar panels on tar roofs. And so on.

The sun heats a bare roof, or the Sun shines on a solar panel. No Difference.

But burning fossil fuel releases extra heat, but more importantly, releases CO2 which keeps some of the Sun's energy on Earth, instead of letting it all radiate away.

Solar does not release CO2, the amount of heat generated is extremely low from a global perspective. It certainly does not compare to the amount of energy the sun provides the planet (and gets trapped).

No sure what you mean by wind/solar absorbant region.

Fission uses a fossil fuel too and eventually it runs out but has the short term advantage of not releasing CO2 with the disadvantage of nuclear waste. Fusion could do it, but the costs are likely to make solar, wind, tides and geothermal look extremely cheap.

Fuel Sourcing

Fossil fuels must be located, excavated and transported before they can be used. These processes are invasive and detrimental to the land through side effects such as erosion and ecological and geologic instability. Then the deposit or well is depleted. Energy from the sun is infinite and free. It can be harnessed and turned into power anywhere a solar panel can be mounted.

Solar energy is abundant and free

Power Generation

Fossil fuels must be burned to produce electricity. Burning them creates unwanted byproducts that can create air and water pollution and release huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. When in use, solar panels produce power without waste or emissions, and do so through a natural process called photovoltaics.

Solar energy is produced without harmful greenhouse gas emissions

Cost of Consumer Electricity

Whether you buy a system and pay it back with electricity savings or you pay a low, fixed rate for your power through a solar PPA, you’ll hit the point where your solar panels have paid for themselves. After that, it’s real savings for your bottom line, and with utility rates climbing regularly, each year you’ll save more with solar than the year before.

Solar energy costs less than traditional utility power in most cases

The Human Element

Fossil fuel deposits are scattered and finite. Their economic worth and uncertainty are enough to cause disagreements that can lead to labor strikes, price volatility, and even war. Solar energy is available nearly everywhere, and will be for another 5 billion years

When sunlight hits the earth's surface it is converted to heat and reflected back to space. A solar panel intercepts the light, converts it to electricity rather than heat; the electricity is used to create work when in turn converts it to heat which is then released and escapes to space. Capturing solar energy does not create "more" heat from sunlight, it just uses the energy before the heat escapes later. The same amount of sunlight comes in, the same amount of heat eventually escapes.

Greenhouse gases slow the escape of heat. That slowing increases the point of equilibrium, i.e. the ultimate temperature at which the incoming and outgoing energy is balanced. (We are not at an equilibrium. Were we to somehow immediate hold the portions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the troposphere would continue to warm until the equilibrium is reached. That is, because the escape of heat is slowed, the atmosphere is continuing to retain more heat and warm.)

Although both processes slow or delay the release of energy, solar power stores that energy in batteries rather than in the environment where it affects climate.

I would say to ask to Al Gore, but his home has a 10,000 sq/ft footprint and uses 20% more energy than the average home. Sorry, couldn't resist. Great solutions above ^!

The total mount of heat captured by solar panels (including all the electrical energy that eventually ends up as heat too) is not greater than the total energy captured by a bare roof with no solar panels. It is just that some of the incoming energy temporarily exists as electricity in there are solar panels. It has no effect on the overall balance of incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing energy from the warm Earth.

Burning fossil fuels are an added heat source in addition to the incoming energy from the Sun, plus they add greenhouse gasses to the air changing the balance of heat flow until it is re-established by the planet getting warmer to emit more infrared to make up for the fraction blocked by the added greenhouse gasses.

both have no effect on climate