Well, taking PV array efficiency and land vs. sea area into account, that’s probably closer to 0.5% of Earth’s land area that would have to be covered with panels. Obviously not a huge amount relative to agricultural land but we’re still probably talking about a butt pimple around the size of California.
Primary energy use, though, is energy content of sources before they go through thermal cycles to get work. So one should also take into account the heat rejected in the latter. Nearly 80% of the energy content of gasoline, for example, goes out the tailpipe and radiator as heat.
PV would deliver energy in high quality form, electrical power, not as heat. So less than 20 TW, probably much less, would be needed to be equivalent to today's energy usage (although precisely how much would depend on details.)
Energy use will be increasing though, as the world gets wealthier. Still, this will also put pressure on agriculture to increase production, as demand for meat increases. Land constraints in the future will come from that, not from PV.
Because the energy density is extremely low compared to ex nuclear. And that it's not just about land use it's also about rare earth materials, the actual production of that many, the installation and maintanance plus no plans for decommision and it still needs ex coal to back it up because it's unrealiable.
Yes, it is wrong. Rare earth elements are not used in solar panels.
Understand, there's been this obnoxious effort by anti-renewable propagandists to spread the lie that PV is dirty because of rare earths. Shellenberger was spreading this falsehood. But it has no basis in reality.
Vice is just mistaken, not lying. I will charitably assume the same is true of you.
Are you REALLY asking me to prove a negative? Tell me, what purpose do you imagine rare earths serve in silicon PV cells? They are not used as dopants (that's boron and phosphorus). There are no magnets. The glass doesn't require them, nor do the structural metals.
