Guest Post by CrisisMaven: Why Our Future Must Be Solar As Our Past Once Was

Today's guest post comes from CrisisMaven, who writes about our current global economic crisis and many other serious issues. When asked for an introduction bio, CrisisMaven directed me to this fascinating story. Since that story is the reason why I asked CrisisMaven to please guest post here, I think you'll find it as interesting as the following article.  (As a note, I believe CrisisMaven said that this article has, in fact, been published before, but only in German.)

Enjoy! (The links all go to further information, generally Wiki but also some science sites.)

Why Our Future Must Be Solar As Our Past Once Was

When you put a pot on the hot plate on your stove and switch on the heat – do you not expect the pot to get hot?

When you add energy on the earth's surface to what the sun and geothermal influences already provide would you not expect the earth respectively the atmosphere to get warmer?

Then why do scientists not consider this as a source of global warming? Why do they concentrate on potential influences of some gases in the atmosphere while proposing to heat the earth to a much greater extent by adding heat through sources like nuclear fission or fusion which indubitably add to earth's heat balance?

Let's consider the facts: for thousands, maybe even millions of years, humankind has lived off the earth and used what grew, be it plants themselves or animals feeding, in the last analysis, on plants. This biochemical matter no doubt relied on the sun's light and heat to prosper. After humankind harnessed fire, for unknown ages all we burnt was firewood, or again: matter that had been provided by the sun via a process called assimilation or photosynthesis that turns carbon dioxide into flammable material like proteins, fat, carbohydrates (e.g. starch and sugars). Even a spirit lamp used alcohol made from plant tissue or sugars, a tallow or a bee's wax candle again stems from the various processes that form biological matter from inorganic matter by virtue of the sun's energy.

When humankind began to discover, then mine and burn, coal, later oil, things changed a bit, since the coal and oil were carbon sinks from periods millions of years before but by and large even then all humankind did was heat their homes and furnaces and drive their trucks and cars and ships by produce from the sun. In the strictest sense of the word, all these are not energy-generating processes but means of changing one form of solar power into another.

Only very recently, since the nineteen-fifties, has mankind taken a new path: mining and using fissile material, first for military, later for energy-generating purposes means we have added to the overall energy balance of our planet. When we use atomic power to make steam and drive a generator to create electricity we for the first time in human history use an energy source that is not essentially a form of solar energy but adds to our overall energy balance over and above to what the sun provides.

Down the ages what humankind has used for heating purposes was minimal compared to the amount of what the sun input day in and day out onto the same, say square mile of, ground. So when the camp fire died down over night, the heat or temperature in that same spot would be roughly the same as if no fire had ever been lit in that place.

Only over the past, say, two hundred years has mankind begun to use energy for industrial purposes on a truly large scale and has embarked on a growth path essentially doubling energy consumption sometimes every other decade or so. If energy consumption grows by about 2% per year this means it doubles every thirty-five years. Coming from minute beginnings at first this makes little difference to the earth's energy balance, however, add another 315 years, then in that total of 350 years' time the consumption has all but roughly risen a thousand fold. Another thirty-five years down the road it is 2,000-fold and so on.

What everyone must understand at this point is that energy does not "disappear" once it's been used. All energy turns into heat (infra-red) as the last stage of its various incarnations. What starts as electricity driving e.g. your garage door turns into warmth at the latest once the garage door stops lifting. When you brake and turn off the engine in the parking lot, your brakes turned your car's movement into heat. That parking lot then, if only for a short period, is a warmer place than the rest of the immediate environment.

If you turn off your hot plate the energy streaming through it to cook your dinner has not disappeared but heated your kitchen, then your home, then dissipated through the walls of your mansion and heated your garden, eventually gets dissipated to immeasurably low levels but it will never disappear. Essentially you just made the whole universe a warmer place!

While most readers will be aware of this and as it's part of school physics we need to stress the fact while each little stove-pipe, acceleration and brake cycle, shipping operation or steel forging goes unnoticed, still in total they potentially heat up the surface of our planet.

For the past two hundred years this was not much of a problem. The amount of energy either was directly from the sun (e.g. firewood, water power etc.) or was minuscule in comparison with the variance of solar activity.

Sun's cycles cause warm periods and ice ages and mankind's energy consumption currently seems way below any measurable effect yet. However, as we noticed, energy consumption tends to double every so often. If you remember that if you start with one grain of rice on the first field of a chess board and double the amount field by field you end up by "2 to the power of 63" grains of rice and that's not only more than one year's harvest, it's even beyond what mankind ever reaped and consumed in its entire life.

Such is the power of quadratic or exponential growth. Eventually there comes a time, and we can already quite accurately speculate when this would be, when humankind would add as much energy to its surface consumption as if we would orbit around not one but two suns.

I thought it best to begin with that end in mind as probably no single reader would disagree that two suns are about one too many, i.e. that earth would certainly by then be uninhabitable.

Now, let's backtrack from that end and ask a simple question: when was it that we were orbiting "one and a half suns only" in that example? Well, that was but thirty-five or less years before we orbited two suns! Because at 2% annual energy consumption growth that second sun was but 35 years from "1.5 suns" and but 70 or even less years from "1.25 suns" and so on.

Now let's start again from the other end: let's say, mankind's energy consumption at one point in time equals 1% of what comes directly from the sun (and was not generated using solar energy itself), i.e. the total energy on the earth's surface was by then 101% (100% from the sun as always and 1% added by human activity).

Then when would it amount to 102% - well, thirty-five years after 101% naturally. 104% - seventy years down the road from 101%, 108% then would be reached after 105 years – the time span that elapsed between about 1900 and today. Such are the dynamics of exponential growth.

All we need to examine now is: whereabouts are we currently on this path? And where will current energy research policy lead to?

Before we analyse this, let's just interpose a parable from the Club of Rome's book on the Limits of Growth: a king spots a water lily in his favourite pond. Next day he sees two and is even more pleased. This goes on and on, so he counts four, then eight and still he is pleased when they cover half his pond and he takes a bath and looks at them. When do you think will they have covered the whole pond? The very next day! What is quite noticeable in day-to-day observations is much less so if it takes place over decades and, to obscure the scene further, happens in fits and starts in various places around the globe at different speeds. Currently China's energy consumption seems to grow at a much faster pace than in most "Western" countries but no matter where you look, be it India or the US, Indonesia or Sweden, no planner in any government would deny that he or she reckons with exponential growth for the foreseeable future.

While they plan for the next “thousands of years” when investing in fusion energy research, much as they did not very long ago when they invested in fast breeder technology, they forget that all these “modern” technologies may not last even a century before they actually need to be curtailed and eventually shut off for fear of warming the earth to a degree that renders it uninhabitable. You should think they could themselves anticipate this and stop funding such research? Quite to the contrary: calls for fusion power have been ever more vociferous since carbon dioxide and climate change are all the rage. As if one cause for heating the planet was less critical than another.

And since these government planners fear for their country's competitiveness if the supply of oil dries up or other sources of energy become more and more scarce and thus more expensive, they all subsidize e.g. research in "next generation" energy sources such as nuclear fusion. If the past fifty years of fusion research are any guide then we may not see a commercially viable power station based on fusion before another fifty years are out.

Then when these fusion reactors start to be actually built to all intents and purposes sixty years will be over. Sixty years of energy consumption growth at 2% annually (or even more) make that a time when humankind already uses about fourfold (or more) of what it uses today!

Then, if other originally "new" energy sources such as coal, then oil, then nuclear fission are any guide, it may well take another sixty years until this new fusion technology adds to world-wide energy supply considerably. As it is allegedly clean, produces no carbon dioxide to speak of (should that still be a concern by then) and is "cheap and abundant" (mind you, they told that story about nuclear fission not so long ago!) then it is meant to eventually replace all other sources of energy like fossil fuels or nuclear energy derived by fission. So when nuclear fusion sees its hey-day that would roughly be 120 years from now (another sixty years from now before it becomes commercially viable and then another sixty years before it replaces most other sources with the exception of sun, wind or water). 120 years is between "two to the power of six" or "eight" or at least ten times (or more) the power generation demand from when it first became available.

Then, if and when it really were so "abundant and cheap" as its proponents always maintain lest they get no subsidies for further research, then we (and its proponents) may safely assume that energy consumption would grow at an even greater pace than it does today, after all, today's growth is hampered by rising prices and projected scarcity and, ironically, a fear of global warming.

To cut a long story short: by about the time humankind would have nuclear fusion ready to be applied at any noticeably scale would be about the exact time and date when energy consumption has already surpassed its sustainable level where energy input from non-solar sources would be so great as to heat the earth's biosphere to such an extent as to render earth uninhabitable. If that were the case – then why bother sinking billions into fusion research?

That's what this article is about – the point in time is not far off when mankind's energy needs reach a level where it must not satisfy those needs from any other sources but what is voluntarily supplied by the sun on a daily basis! As was our past, from the stone age until the beginning of industrialisation, so must be our not so distant future: based purely on solar power!

Now this does not mean that we should or must generate electricity from solar panels. The author believes such photovoltaic adventures are a very expensive cul-de-sac. Photovoltaic solar panels have a conversion rate of under 20% of the sun's available energy and only when the sun shines and the sky's not too cloudy. The electricity falls short at night when the sun doesn't shine and is hard, if ever, to store (and certainly in-economical!) and difficult to distribute.

Thermal solar panels on the other hand are cheap, use as much of the sun's spectrum as possible (e.g. also the infra-red energy that photovoltaic panels cannot convert at all), use also the indirect sunlight, and, believe it or not, even work when the sky is cloudy, why, they even work after sunset to a certain extent as long as the surroundings still emanate heat! But this is a minor detail in the overall debate. Photovoltaic power likely will seize to be used by the time subsidies have run out and all this will by then be moot points.

Since much of our energy needs are low-temperature heat, e.g. for heating, washing, cooking etc. and since arithmetically at least the heat energy consumed below all the roofs in this world roughly equals the heat energy that shines onto those roofs the best way forward probably would be to instead of putting shingles on roofs to put solar thermal collectors there instead.

In the long run, humankind's best way forward is to first use solar energy "on the spot" right where it is to be consumed, then where this is too low temperature or needs to be converted e.g. into electricity or mobility (ships/cars/trucks/trains etc.) to use efficient conversion mechanisms (plants, like e.g. in current biofuel concepts seem to be too inefficient to prefer acreage use over planting for food etc.) to convert solar heat into other forms of "up-market" energy such as electricity or fuels and chemicals that today are made from mostly oil or coal. This is the direction future energy research needs to go!

What we argue here is not "just another concept" - we talk natural laws here that are indisputable. Beginning with whether we could survive the scorching of a second sun (which not even the most hare-brained politician would subscribe to) we need to backtrack to where the level of additional energy input departs from the amounts that are too small to be noticeable. Today we are at that low end of the scale still, no doubt, but with energy consumption doubling roughly every thirty-five years if not faster the point where this additional input reaches levels where it changes our climate unfavourably is not far off – maybe a hundred years, at most two hundred years. This tipping point is actually even closer than all those carbon dioxide warming projections predict and it is stunning to see that these high-flying “rocket” scientists with their climate models take no note of that inevitable development, in fact, even try to mitigate carbon dioxide effects by prescribing even more dangerous remedies such as fusion power!

If you ask why bother about what happens in a hundred years' time – well our politicians fund energy research which will not make its mark much earlier, in other words, they waste your money today on an energy source that your grandchildren will find unusable just as it may become commercially viable! So why waste money on fusion research when it is a natural law that you must make do with what the sun offers you, not because you couldn't generate energy or electricity by other ingenious methods but simply because the effects of these other methods would be prohibitive? The time to stop fusion research therefore is about … now! If industry thought fusion a viable form of energy generation they would long ago have invested in it themselves. While the author is no friend of any kind of subsidy at least why not begin supporting energy research that points into the right direction?

Let's sum it up: any considerable added input of energy over and above what comes from the sun itself into our biosphere will warm up the earth's surface to a degree where our earth will become uninhabitable for our human race. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to waste money on energy sources that do not derive from the sun. Period.

Appendix: The mathematics of energy generation and consumption

What is the input of energy from our sun onto our earth's surface (solar constant)?

The solar input varies slightly for first seasonal reasons, i.e. depending on where the earth is on its yearly orbit around the sun, then it varies depending on geographical location and depending on altitude naturally. Furthermore solar cycles play a certain role and these likely caused our warm periods and our ice ages.

We might then even consider “heating” the earth by energy-creating technology such as e.g. fusion when the next ice-age dawns – after all, the cold periods were responsible for a contraction in economic activity, reduced the world population and rendered large areas totally uninhabitable – why not mitigate this in some distant future? But today we are living in a warm period and certainly need no added heat influx in the area of percentages over the solar influx! Therefore at this point in time fusion energy subsidies in light of fusion power's harmful consequences are a total waste of money.

On average our daily solar input is as follows:

“On average, each square metre of the upper regions of the atmosphere receives 342 watts of solar radiation [W/m²]. The atmosphere absorbs on average 67 W/m² and reflects 77 W/m². About 198 W/m² reaches the Earth's surface, of which 168 W/m² is absorbed and 30 W/m² is reflected back to space. The total of the reflected radiation is 107 W/m², or 31% of the incoming radiation.” (Solar Radiation, © 2005 Dr Ron Nielsen)

This is about 7,000 times what we currently consume (energy generation equals energy consumption in the last analysis).

Where do we stand today, i.e. how much energy does humankind generate or consume on earth?

Today most estimates put our global energy consumption at about a fraction of solar input: “In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×10¹⁸J = 132,000 Twh)” (Wikipedia, World energy consumption).

What are the most common energy consumption growth projection figures?

Any exponential projections are fraught with error and a good deal of speculation. So-called growth curves suggest all growth eventually reaches a plateau where it stabilises. However, so far neither human population growth nor energy demand have shown any noticeable signs of relenting so we suspect if no yet unknown mitigating factors arise, then at least energy consumption will grow at the same if not even an accelerating path for the foreseeable future, esp. if developing countries start catching up which they tend to do at a higher speed than the incumbent developed countries did originally.

Many project annual growth at between 2% and 4,3%, so our estimates of 2% are rather conservative figures.

When would earth therefore become uninhabitably warm?

Within the next one hundred to three hundred years, all depending on the speed with which energy consumption grows and which sources are used to satisfy that energy demand. More fossil fuel, more nuclear power, or, “heaven forbid”, fusion power will add to the problem, energy demand met by direct conversion of solar energy input will mitigate it.

Calculated from an average increase in energy demand (equalling consumption) growth of 2% per year or doubling every thirty-five years and 3.5% per year, doubling consumption every twenty years, we arrive at two alternative scenarios in the following table:

Year	2% growth	Year	3.5% growth
2010	0,0001428570	2010	0,0001428570
2045	0,0002857140	2030	0,0002857140
2080	0,0005714290	2050	0,0005714290
2115	0,0011428570	2070	0,0011428570
2150	0,0022857140	2090	0,0022857140
2185	0,0045714290	2110	0,0045714290
2220	0,0091428570	2130	0,0091428570
2255	0,0182857140	2150	0,0182857140
2290	0,0365714290	2170	0,0365714290
2325	0,0731428570	2190	0,0731428570
2360	0,1462857140	2210	0,1462857140
2395	0,2925714290	2230	0,2925714290
2430	0,5851428570	2250	0,5851428570
2465	1,1702857140	2270	1,1702857140
2500	2,3405714290	2290	2,3405714290

As we can see, beginning at a rate of energy consumption about 1/7000^th (=0,0001428570) of solar input in 2010 we will consume about 1% of solar input by 2220 in the first, even by 2130 (in 120 years) in the second scenario already. All other things being equal, we will then pass the “second sun on earth” post by roughly 2450 or even by 2260 respectively, in 440 or 250 years from now. We may consider the 1% threshold the critical tipping point which we will reach in either scenario in much less time than elapsed between now and when Christopher Columbus set foot on American soil!

What needs to be done to mitigate these effects?

We must reach a global understanding, in academe as well as political planning, that it makes absolutely no sense to invest in energy sources that add to the solar constant. Rather we need to start researching and developing means of energy capture (as against energy “generation”) that allow to make the best use of the solar input we have, to sustain a growth path up to the maximum that can be used of the sun's energy. We will never be able to use 100% of solar input or else we would be groping in the dark during day-time, all light being fed into some energy-consuming processes. We will probably not even be able to capture and use more than, say, ten percent of what the sun offers us (still that's about seven hundred times today's demand!), and beyond that, further technological advancement and economic growth will have to rely on shifting from higher consumption to better use, more intricate manufacturing processes and eventually the use of space for further energy-hungry production processes. These are challenges for future generations and no doubt by that time they will find ways to deal with those challenges. However, it makes no sense to today invest in technologies our grandchildren will not be able to use. Rather leave it to the natural flow of things but why waste precious resources on technology that's meant to add to the solar constant although this will not be sustainable?

It's time energy policy turns to basic scientific understanding rather than wishful thinking!