Only 0.3% of the Earth’s land area needs solar panels to fulfill all energy requirements
VCG via Getty Images
Solar energy has been gaining traction for years, and it’s easy to see why. It represents one of the most economical ways to produce energy almost anywhere and stands as a vital measure against climate change.
However, there are skeptics. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright asserts that solar energy cannot meet global energy demands. Many experts highlight that this claim is fundamentally misguided. Over time, sunlight—along with wind energy—offers the only reliable power source capable of satisfying escalating energy demands without harming the planet.
On September 2nd, Wright posted on social media platform x, stating, “Even if we covered the entire planet with solar panels, it would only generate 20% of the world’s energy. One of the greatest mistakes politicians make is equating electricity with energy!”
First and foremost, electricity is quantified based on the energy it delivers, making it practical to consider electricity as equivalent to energy.
Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt from NASA’s Goddard Space Research Institute remarked on Bluesky that the total energy content utilized by all fuels globally in 2024 was approximately 186,000 terawatt hours. He emphasized that the Earth receives 6,000 times that amount in energy each year.
Moreover, Schmidt noted that since 60% of fossil fuel energy is typically wasted in the conversion process to usable electricity, the Earth receives 18,000 times more energy than is needed to satisfy current energy consumption levels.
While existing solar panels only capture around 20% of available solar energy and can’t be installed everywhere, a 2021 report by Carbon Tracker estimated that merely 0.3% of the world’s land area (limited to land) is required to address current energy needs through solar energy alone. This footprint is smaller than that of existing fossil fuel infrastructure. In essence, the report indicates that solar and wind can provide over 100 times the current global energy demand.
We are fortunate, as the current reliance on fossil fuels is already contributing to hazardous climate change with fossil fuels alone supplying 100 times more energy than the planet can sustainably handle. But what about nuclear fusion? If it becomes a feasible option, would it surpass solar energy?
The answer is negative. Eric Chaisson from Harvard University anticipates minimal growth in global energy demand; however, the waste heat generated could potentially elevate global temperatures by 3°C within three centuries. This refers to waste heat from everyday activities like boiling a kettle or using a computer, which consumes the energy produced.
Solar energy—along with wind, tides, and waves—functions fundamentally as a source harnessed from the sun, rendering waste heat irrelevant. The energy we utilize, whether it ends up as waste heat or not, determines its practical value. In contrast, other energy sources, like nuclear fission, do not currently address waste heat management.
“[Carl] Sagan preached to me, and I now relay that message to students. Any planet must ultimately utilize the energy it possesses,” Chaisson remarked in an interview with New Scientist in 2012.
Though three centuries is a long time, the implications of waste heat are already significant. Studies indicate that maximum temperatures in Europe’s summers have increased by 0.4°C. By 2100, average annual temperatures in certain industrialized regions may rise by nearly 1°C due to waste heat—effects not currently considered in climate models.
Ultimately, the only technology that can sustainably harness solar and wind energy to meet global energy demands for centuries, without triggering catastrophic warming, is these renewable sources. The projections couldn’t be more misguided.
Topics:
Source: www.newscientist.com
