HeyBub wrote:
....
It's not a crystal ball - it's math. The sunlight that falls on the earth is
745 watts/meter^2. At noon. On the equator. With no clouds. The only way to
increase that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

I wonder where you get the number 745 watts/meter^2. Most solar panel
makers use standard test conditions which specify 1 sun=1000 watts/m^2.
Then again, it doesn't really matter much because it's not just how
intense the sunlight is but how long it shines. Most solar resource
maps show this as 'kwh/m^2/day'. Most places in the United States
average around 4.5 kwh/m^2/day (more summer, less winter).

Assuming 50% efficiency, and accounting for latitude and weather, it would
take a solar collector the size of the Los Angeles basin to provide
California with the power the state now consumes (~50Gw). This would pretty
much render Los Angeles uninhabitable.

Where does 50% efficiency come from? Solar electric panels are only
around 10-12% efficient, solar water heating around 50% and solar
air heating around 80%.

Did you ever hear about people putting solar panels on their roofs?
On the roofs of parking lots, department stores, warehouses, condos?
The city of Los Angeles is pretty much already covered with structures.
Adding panels on top of these structures wouldn't make it any less
habitable than it is already.

Besides, as has been already stated, there are huge areas which are
generally uninhabitable but which are excellent places for solar
energy collectors.

Otherwise, there are areas of the country where there's only enough wind to
power one windmill, so that idea's out.

Just because some place are unsuitable for wind power does not mean
that all places are. There are plenty of areas of the country where
there IS enough wind to power hundreds, even thousands, of wind
turbines.

Anthony