Building the new order Entry 9

A summit of the BRICS countries was held in South Africa at the end of August. One of the main topics was the incorporation of more countries to this group (it is well summarized in the following graph of this article).

Argentina has joined the group, as have the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Of course, the “signing” of countries by the Chinese bloc continues, while the Western bloc is doing little work in this area.

It is also important to say that, after these signings, the BRICS+ bloc already represents 30% of world GDP; 46% of the population; and 43% of oil production (seen very graphically here). And there are serious threats to the power of the dollar in international trade (it is well developed here).

It is important to realize the speed at which changes are taking place in the new order, in this case, through the BRICS.

There has been another coup d’état. In this case in Gabon (news here). It is yet another example that China – Russia are still working in the market of “signing” countries.

It should be noted that Gabon is a relevant country in manganese mining, which is essential for new energies (news here).

We are told that Prigozhin has died in a plane crash (news here). It will take us a long time to know if it is true that he has died, or if it is a theater to make him disappear from the scene. In any case, we will have to see if his Wagner group continues to function (even if in hiding), or if it is really dissolved.

*****

Some country will change bloc.

As I said in the previous entry, I am trying to identify the countries that the West should try to attract to its bloc to solve its shortages of raw materials.

In that entry I studied it because of the needs for electric cars.

Now I will look at it from the point of view of solar energy. I mention the precision that what I write below is for the case of applying, exclusively, photovoltaic solar energy. I know there are other alternatives, but I wanted to focus on this case as an extreme example.

Solar energy reaching the earth.

I am looking for the big numbers (with their errors) to try to find out if it would be possible to supply all the energy we humans consume with photovoltaic solar panels.

The first answer is that it can be done. Another thing is that we have enough raw material, space, and money to build them and put them into operation. And another is that, in doing so, we do not alter the ecological balance of the earth by subtracting that solar radiation from natural phenomena necessary for that balance.

The best summary I have found is that the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface every hour is greater than the amount of energy used by the Earth’s population for an entire year (see here, at the end of the article). The result is that, if we use 0.02% of the solar energy that reaches the earth, we can service all human energy consumption. Therefore, it can be said that it is feasible (more than enough) for humans to supply ourselves exclusively with solar energy. However, there are several issues to be taken into account, which I discuss below.

Data and limitations.

In a first approximation, it is easy to know the energy emitted by the sun, and that which reaches us, based on the distance between the sun and the earth.

What happens is that, that number is not the one we can use, because there is absorption and scattering in the atmosphere, and because clouds, pollution, latitude, and the season of the year and time of the day affect. For those who want to dig deeper and get lost in the big numbers, there is interesting data here, and here. The summary is as I have outlined in the previous section.

In addition, we must avoid depriving plants of their “energetic food”, which is photosynthesis. And, although it is less intuitive, we must also avoid taking it away from the winds and ocean currents, since both are produced by the effects of warming differently in some areas than in others.

And, the famous “greenhouse effect” must be taken into account.

The greenhouse effect.

For those who are not familiar with the subject, this name of the effect will sound like something very bad, and it will sound like contamination.

It is not. The effect has always existed, and it is the basis on which the earth is habitable.

What happens is that the earth receives energy from the sun, and also “emits” energy (what is left over). The atmosphere is in charge of “blocking” the exit of part of that energy, so that the energy that “does not leave” makes the earth a little warmer, … and allows life.

The result is that, with the “normal” greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the earth is 14ºC, and if there were no greenhouse effect, it would be -18ºC (see here).

That is, the “normal” greenhouse effect is good, and necessary for us. The bad thing is to “change it” (to more, or to less). That is what CO2 is accused of (perhaps a little exaggeratedly). And, of course, such changes are not good for us.

I have made this aside to point out a possibility that sounds funny to me. It is that, if we put into operation so many solar panels as to supply all the energy consumed by mankind, we would be subtracting excess energy, both to the greenhouse effect, as well as to the energy actually emitted out of the atmosphere.

For our equilibrium, we care nothing about what happens outside the atmosphere, and what the earth emits is irrelevant to the cosmos. However, we care very much about maintaining the “normal” greenhouse effect.

It could happen that, with our future solar installations, the “normal” greenhouse effect will be impaired. In that case we would reach the curious situation of being forced to emit more greenhouse gases (CO2) than normal to compensate for what we take away with the panels. It would be funny if we were required to install more coal-fired power plants to do so, …

I don’t have the capacity to make reliable numbers on whether that situation will occur (I leave it to the experts), but I wanted to state the issue, and to say that it is not a minor issue.

Required area of solar panels.

In the previous point I talked about the energy that reaches the earth. We have come to the conclusion that, with the use of 0.02% of the energy that arrives, we have enough.

A first conclusion would be that it is enough to cover 0.02% of the earth’s surface to achieve what we are looking for.

However, this number needs to be corrected because, with current technology, solar panels are not capable, by far, of harnessing all the energy that reaches them.

Depending on the manufacturers, and the inclination of the panels, the expected efficiencies are between 15% and 20%, as can be seen here.

Therefore, when we said that it is enough to use 0.02% of the land surface, we must multiply this figure by 5 (being optimistic) to consider the efficiency of the panels. It would therefore be 0.1% of the earth’s surface (which is still not much).

But this figure is not enough for us either. This is because solar panels do not capture energy at night, and capture little at cloudy times, … However, our consumption is independent (not entirely, but quite) of the hours and the weather.

This leads us to have to produce more energy when we can, and store it until we have to consume it at times when it is not generated. How much more? That will depend on the place (it is not the same in Alaska than in the Sahara), but we can think of an average of three times the needs. It follows that 0.3% of the planet’s surface has to be covered (it still does not seem excessive, although it is already large).

And, this figure is not correct either, because it is necessary to think about the losses that will be in the batteries, and in the transport of the energy. These losses again depend a lot on local circumstances, but on average, and both added together, you can think of 70% losses (no kidding). That is to say, it is necessary to multiply again by 3.

Which gives us 1% of the surface of the planet (I know that the multiplications I do are not exact, but, with the level of approximation I am having, the big numbers are the important ones).

As the surface of the planet is about 510 million km2, this means that about 5 million km2 of solar panels (which are not manufactured in a few days) are needed.

And, if we want to install them on land (not oceans), given that the continental surface is about 150 million km2, we would have to cover 3% of the continental surface, which, being a lot, could be acceptable.

I give the data that the Sahara desert has an area of 9, 4 million km2. That is, with covering half of the desert, we would be close to produce everything necessary for humanity. Although I also say that this data is only to give us an idea of the size, because the transport of energy to the whole world from there would be mission impossible.

Conclusion.

In terms of energy collection capacity and surface area of panels required, by proxy, the whole of humanity can be supplied without consuming too much land.

However, it would be better if we could find more efficient technologies for panels, batteries and energy transport.

A different matter is the availability of raw materials for the manufacture of these panels, as well as of industries (money) capable of producing them.

On the other hand, when I was finishing writing this entry, I received this article (thanks, Ivo). I share it because it makes a study of the same issue from another point of view (although focused on USA). It comes to the conclusion that, if the same amount of land used in the USA to produce biofuel (fuel from corn, which does not feed, by far, all the cars in the USA) were used for solar panels, it would be possible to supply all the electricity consumed by the USA.

Raw materials for solar panels.

Most of the raw materials used in solar panels (in terms of weight) are not related to the energy production technique, but to the support material (aluminum – 85% of the weight), or to electricity conduction (copper – 11%). Both are abundant materials, although with their shortcomings for very high demand, but they are substitutable because they are not essential for solar technology. Therefore, these materials are not the problem.

The most essential material from the point of view of energy production is silicon (basically sands and clays) which is used for photovoltaic cells. It is a very abundant material, so there is no problem with that.

But there is a curious circumstance with silicon, and it is that, to obtain the necessary crystalline silicon from the sand (SiO2 – sicilium dioxide), a lot of energy is needed (heating it in ovens at 3,000 º C), and the process emits CO2 (see here). In other words, to produce solar energy that avoids the consumption of CO2 emitting energies, the solution of solar panels consumes energy and emits CO2. Well, well, … It would be necessary to see the details of quantities.

As for current polysilicon manufacturing capacities (which are much lower than those needed to supply in a few decades all the energy consumed by civilization), it is striking to know that, in Europe, today almost everything is produced in Germany, and that, in 2021, Germany exported almost everything to China (data here). This does not seem to be a good starting point.

The other mineral that is used, in very small quantities (by weight of the panel), but which is very scarce, is indium. Regarding indium, you can see here, that the main world producer is China, and that reserves are expected to be depleted by 2050. This is not good news. So we had better move forward with technology that can replace indium.

Result.

Therefore, the result with respect to solar energy is that the West would have access to its objectives without needing special “signings” of countries for its block due to access to raw materials.

The problem of the West in this aspect is to create the almost non-existent network of mines and production industries at affordable costs. And we have to take into account that these mines and industries need a lot of investment, as well as that they consume a lot of energy, emit CO2, and pollute (well, well, well, …).

In addition, the West should focus on replacing Indium for solar panel production, as what little there is is dominated by China.

On the other hand, it has become clear that millions of km2 of solar panels are needed, which is an impressive figure. And those panels have a lifetime of about 25 years. If we do not look for other technologies, or if we do not learn how to recycle perfectly, it is impossible to build that number of panels every 25 years, both in terms of availability of raw materials and the investment required.

In relation to the technologies we know today (even the advanced ones), I have to say that future generations, when they talk about us, will compare our energy with what we say about the beginning of homo sapiens, who only used fire. They will say of us that we are the Paleolithic.

Other conclusions.

The numbers I have shown above are for the case of thinking exclusively about photovoltaic solar panels with current technology. The truth is that there are already other alternatives today, such as solar thermal energy (to produce hot water), or solar power towers, which is a technology in which Abengoa was a benchmark.

Of course, it is important to take advantage of all the alternatives, and to make shared use of them in order to generate a useful solution.

However, we must always bear in mind the importance of demystifying the facile discourse on renewable energies.

In addition to these more or less known alternatives, it is necessary to go deeper into the research of less common solutions. In this case, we must remember that our current technologies are far from reaching the good performance of vegetation in harnessing solar energy through photosynthesis. If one day we manage to imitate plants, not only will we have better efficiency, but we will also save investment in mines and factories, as well as their pollution problems.

Regarding mimicking photosynthesis, there is very interesting research, such as this one, although there are many more. It is worthwhile to go further down this path.

*****

Readings that have interested me.

In the process of writing this entry I have come across many issues of other subjects. I would like to share the following:

I liked this interview with Louis Gave in Mauldin economics. Among other things, he says that 4% of the world population (USA) absorbs 40% of world savings to invest them in buying US debt. Debt that is issued to finance the US deficit. And the deficit is generated by using the money for common expenses, not for new infrastructures, … They can do this because of the strength of the dollar, but it is falling. When international savings find another place to invest, US financing is going to get ugly.

He also argues that it is not true that China has more economic problems than the USA.

Regarding US debt, there is a very clear graph here).

On the energy transition, there is an interesting report from the International Energy Agency (available here).

It is very interesting the recent article by Paul Mason where he compares the current situation of the War with the one generated by the Molotov – Ribbentrop pact. He does so in an attempt to convince his fellow radical leftists to abandon the policy of promoting peace by handing over Ukrainian territories to Russia (see here).

China has cut interest rates. Just the opposite of what is happening in the West (news here). One of the possible explanations is that its economy is in trouble. This is the explanation that the West likes. Another possible explanation is that, with that, it will continue to sell cheaply to the West, which makes the West’s production less competitive, which increases the West’s problems.

George Friedman has a new book (this one). It is yet another one of those that focus on explaining that we are in a time of great changes, the kind that occur once in a long time period. I have already cited in previous entries other authors with the same theory (which I share). What is relevant is that Friedman has a well-deserved respect for his record of accurate analysis.

This is as far as I go for today. In the next entry I think I will deal with other energies.

As always, I welcome comments on my email: pgonzalez@ie3.org