Hello Frederick, thank you for your reply.

I have changed the sentence to be less ambiguous, but your definition of light is pretty broad. Unlike, say, coal -- or, with a little stretch, even wind -- uranium is not produced by light, even indirectly. It is probably produced *together with* light -- in supernova explosions. In the end both the light we see and the Uranium come from the same source -- hydrogen fusion -- but the ways we get to that energy are very different.

Even with the wind it is stretch, because wind is driven by heat. Visible light constitutes less than half of solar radiation. Only about a third of the sunlight comes in a form that plants can use. So wind energy is, in the end, "solar" -- but not light.

Even light itself is stretched -- literally. Fusion emits its energy as neutron radiation and gamma rays. The only reason Sun's photons reach us as visible light is because they are old and tired -- it took them maybe a hundred thousand years to crawl from the sun's core out to the surface, and their frequency was downshifted many times in the process.

If we manage to make fusion reactors, that process will not be producing a lot of light in the conventional sense. And the one it does produce, will be new light, light that did not come from any star. The deuterium and tritium will be, at first. But in the long run we will likely be "breeding" our own deuterium and tritium from hydrogen -- and the only light that lead up to that hydrogen, was the light of the big bang.