Currently the answer is no. The solar panel yields is still low. the cost is still high compared to the fossil fuels . The Perovskite Solar cells is a new generation, may be in the future will have a chance to replace the fossil fuels .

I believe not because PV energy is intermittent and depends on the availability of the sun and needs huge areas to collect an amount that matches the chemical energy stored in one ton of a fossil fuel.

It depends on batteries. Solar energy is about 10,000 times current consumption. If batteries that are rechargeable for a sufficiently large number or cycles, and then recyclable into new batteries, can be produced at a sufficiently low cost, the problem of intermittency of insolation can be solved. The highest energy-density batteries such as lithium-ion or active-metal/air now have energy densities not much below those of fossil fuels.

In my opinion, the issue is not energy density of batteries nor the efficiency of PV. It is the sustainability of a socio economic system that depends on their manufacture, deployment and recycling. Nature achieves this to a very high 90% s level which is why life has been able to exist on earth for hundreds of millions of years. If the same ability does not exist for technological devices, even at a much lower level of recycling, then we are in trouble. Just what is supposed to power our economy if solar can't and fossil fuels - or atmospheric oxygen - become exhausted?

The abundance in nature of solar energy can not be over accentuated. I believe with continuous improvement in the solar PV and battery technology,with future maniaturization of deep cycle batteries in to micro and nano sizes, with the advent of light materials like graphene which can be used for super capacitor applications, with improvements in the solar thermal systems using reflected surfaces, shell and tubes etc for superheated steam generations, the future of solar energy can not be matched with the dwindling fossil fuels.

I think no,bkz there are different obstacle as example the big society of oil will try to reduce the progression of the type of energy.

In my opinion, in coming two to three decades we will be almost depending on the solar energy only. This is the ultimate solution for the scarcity of fossil fuels. With the improvements in the existing solar thermal systems new heights can be achieved in this field and burden on fossil fuels can be shifted to a great extent. Mainly PV technology and prevailing battery systems require lot more attention to improve it's efficiency, and thereby we will be in good position in the coming time.

Even though solar energy is abundant and one of the most reliable sources of energy, it cant be a substitute for fossil fuels. Since transportation sector is the major consumer of fossil based fuels, solar energy should satisfy the energy needs of the transportation sector in order to replace fossil fuels. But it is not possible due to certain disadvantages of solar power like lower energy density, high cost, intermittent supply etc. Also fossil fuel utilization can be reduced by employing biofuels like biodiesel, bio-oil, bioethanol etc.

I would like to thank all colleagues for their opinions. What has been said is wise enough.

I am the opinion that ultimately one has to go for the solar energy as it is the original supply of all other forms of energy sources including the fossil fuel.

From the other side, there is now a tremendous advancements in the photovoltaic generators. PV generators produce electricity with a cost of one kilowatthour approaching that produced from fossil power stations.

In the lighting there is now the LED lamps which make out tremendous saving in the electricity consumption. Peoples can concentrate their activities during the day time reducing the need for electricity at night. Fuel cells can be use for the cars and transportation.

I would like that you to see my opinion in more details by following the paper in the link:Method From conventional to renewable energy transformation challenge

Best wishes

Currently the answer is no. The solar panel yields is still low. the cost is still high compared to the fossil fuels . The Perovskite Solar cells is a new generation, may be in the future will have a chance to replace the fossil fuels .

Dear sir

It depends two important key parameters

electrical storage technology

solar panel efficiency

If these two parameters are solved, maybe!

The adequacy and reliability of solar PV system is not in confirmation with the standard security and operational requirements i.e intermittent and variability.

Bulk energy storage in conventional batteries is neither technically possible nor economically feasible, and The geographical location of RES requires a long distance energy transfer to load centers while the expansion of the grid is very costly

May be in the near future, solar cell technology require much more attention to enhance efficiency

Dear respected colleagues, thank you very much for your wise and thoughtful answers. I also believe one day solar photovoltaic energy will replace the fossil fuel, but it is hard to believe that state-of-the art technology will replace the fossil fuel.

My personal observation is that for drastic efficiency improvement of solar panel, we need more work on theoretical model of solar cells and introduce another novel model that can fulfill the desire.

Its now impossible ,because the efficiency of photo-voltaic cell is to low so the generated amperes is not efficient to operates the domestic equipment

If we can find out a chief and abundant material with more than 90% light to electricity conversion efficiency. On earth, there is no such material is present at current time. So , it looks impossible.

I don't think that the efficiency of a solar panel is significant because the source energy is free, what is important is the capital cost and lifetime. Also important is the capital cost, installation cost, lifetime and reliability of all the ancillary stuff you use to mount the panel, keep it clean and mechanically stable, how you wire it up, the inverter technology and the length of the wires connecting it to something useful. These latter costs now equal the cost of the PV layer - soon they will exceed them by quite a margin. But that doesn't answer the question!

Solar PV is part of the energy mix. Solar energy harvest can certainly displace fossil fuels to a large extent. By load shifting - focusing energy use during daylight hours as much as 70 - 80 per cent of electrical consumption can be attained from solar sources.

The hours of darkness can result in an electrical consumption of only 20 - 30 per cent. I have integrated light switches into my ice-works. Therefore my plant is not just solar powered, it is solar controlled as well. However to consider solar as 100 of the energy source for electricity is simply unattainable in a practical economic sense.

Electricity storage by way of batteries is possible but is it economic?

I see no harm in looking to other energy sources for the hours of darkness. Even if it is fossil fuel. After all the objective is to reduce GHG and fossil fuel use. If the world's consumption falls to 30 per cent then there is a huge gain.

Bio diesels, wind, hydro, tidal and bagasse systems can make further in roads into eliminating fossil fuel consumption. We may not see 100 per cent of energy come from renewable sources but significant reductions can be made. I would rather have 70 per cent of something than 100 per cent of nothing.

Solar PV is part of the energy mix. Solar energy harvest can certainly displace fossil fuels to a large extent. By load shifting - focusing energy use during daylight hours as much as 70 - 80 per cent of electrical consumption can be attained from solar sources.

The hours of darkness can result in an electrical consumption of only 20 - 30 per cent. I have integrated light switches into my ice-works. Therefore my plant is not just solar powered, it is solar controlled as well. However to consider solar as 100 of the energy source for electricity is simply unattainable in a practical economic sense.

Electricity storage by way of batteries is possible but is it economic?

I see no harm in looking to other energy sources for the hours of darkness. Even if it is fossil fuel. After all the objective is to reduce GHG and fossil fuel use. If the world's consumption falls to 30 per cent then there is a huge gain.

Bio diesels, wind, hydro, tidal and bagasse systems can make further in roads into eliminating fossil fuel consumption. We may not see 100 per cent of energy come from renewable sources but significant reductions can be made. I would rather have 70 per cent of something than 100 per cent of nothing.

Actually, solar energy powered all the economy's energy needs until nuclear was invented - it's just that the lead time to make most of the fuel was rather long . . . So I would say a cautions yes to this but we have to get that lead time down from 50 million years. That is the real question, for which solar PV is only one of the answers.

Sun which is a source of energy has that potential to provide the total energy needed by the world but the current issue is on the device used to harvest the solar energy which result to the limitation of the utilization of the solar energy as compare to fossils fuel. If the problems faced with the solar energy converter are solved there is high possibility that solar energy would replace fossil fuel in the nearest future. The major problems faced by the solar energy converter are high cost of installation, low conversion efficiency, low output power per size and inadequate storage device.

Best regards.

Kifilideen.

May be..............