> That says global 'consumption' is about 80000 TWh a year. Incoming solar energy is about 1700 times that
Assuming that you still want oceans to work, about 2/3rds of that is not available, which get us to 500x. You also want land-based plants to work, which gets us to <250x and much of the remainder is unsuitable, so let's call it <100x.
"make equipment" through end-use solar is <20%, so we're down to <20x.
Wouldn't absorbing 0.06% of the incoming solar energy have a significant impact on the planet's ecosystems, either by the absorbed energy by the massive production of PV and storage required for that end ?
I think that your statement does not rebutt the parent comment : producing the energy required to sustain our modern lifestyle and population count will have significant impacts on the ecosystems, whatever the source we use for that energy.
All generated primary energy will eventually be turned into heat. However, the climate effect of this direct heating is orders of magnitude smaller than the greenhouse effect from burning hydrocarbons.
Indeed, there is hope! And note how fast the renewables portion is growing, we're looking at a fairly good projection here: 1, 2, maybe 3 decades ahead of us it should get really substantial. The biggest problem is the EROEI, which is a lot higher for the clean stuff, though still improving.
Wait, does the mean that if we wanted to use solar as an energy source for the world we would need to cover roughly 1/1700 of the entire surface of the planet with perfectly efficient panels and interconnections between the east and the west to support the energy transfer during nighttime ?
Assuming that you still want oceans to work, about 2/3rds of that is not available, which get us to 500x. You also want land-based plants to work, which gets us to <250x and much of the remainder is unsuitable, so let's call it <100x.
"make equipment" through end-use solar is <20%, so we're down to <20x.
What else am I missing?