I suspect what you are doing is turning a “could” into a “will”.

Now as far as what Ray Kurweil meant by his comment perhaps you may wish to take it up with his because between you and I we will have to agree to disagree because I stand by my interpretation of his statements of what meeting 100% of our energy needs by purely by solar means:

“We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy,” he has predicted. “It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we’ll meet 100% of our energy needs in 20 years.”

Since around one-third of that 104GW installed capacity is in Germany and China is only really getting going, Kurzweil’s forecasts don’t look too far-fetched.

Despite these glitches (or S curves) on his graph, Kurzweill still believes that a “doubling every two years means it’s only eight more doublings before it meets 100% of the world’s energy needs.”

That takes us to about 2027, close to his predictions in 2008.
You may choose to retort back Bob but I am sorry I shall not be replying back for efficiencies sake.

Regards.

http://www.pv-tech.org/editors_blog/could_kurzweil_be_right_about_solar_the_google_of_energy

You posted incorrect information and I am countering it with facts.

Re-read the link you posted. Kurzweil does not say that we will power the world with 100% solar. He is talking about how much solar potential there is and how rapidly solar power is growing.

But if that were to happen how about we take a look at how much of the world’s surface would be covered by panel.

See those little green rectangles? You think they equal 1% of the world’s land area?

(You need to stop snorting Koch.)

They took projections of how much energy the world would need in 2030 and calculated how many wind turbine, solar panels, etc. we’d need to install to produce that power with renewables And they showed how it would be possible for us to get there in 20 years.

The paper is a bit dated. Solar panels have become more efficient as have wind turbines. We’d have to build fewer, but their numbers are good enough to give you an overall feel for the task.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

It will be interesting to see at what point the doubling ends. I’ll be looking for both World stats and USA stats. Currently though it seems like we have an infinite supply of farm land being wasted on biofuel. And more Chinese PV panels than grains of sand on the beach.

We need farm equipment and robots to install PV in mass. Similar to how farm crops are handled now.

Doubling two means adding another two in one year.

Doubling two hundred means adding another two hundred in one year.

In their study, Jacobson and Delucchi calculated that we could get the world to almost 100% renewables with a massive World War II type effort. Like when we were working hard around the clock to crank out war materials.

I use that as my “talking number”, that adequately scared the world could put the pedal to the floor and get off fossil fuels in roughly 20 years. I don’t think we’ll get scared soon enough and strong enough to have quit fossil fuels 20 years from now.

Five years from now we might be amply concerned….

In less than 20 years, not 20 to 40, we’ll be meeting all our electrical needs and probably taking the excesses to make methane as a replacement for oil. What’s wrong with my thinking? Nobody is saying this except for me so I must not be getting something right?

I guess you’re saying that 3 live green energy workers produce more CO2 than a dead coal miner?

Can’t argue with that….

When that happens jobs per MWh or however one would like to measure them might turn out to be about the same.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Robert+Pollin+clean+energy+jobs&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

http://www.peri.umass.edu/nc/201/?tx_peripubs_pi1author_id=39

Co-director and Professor of Economics
Robert Pollin’s research centers on macroeconomics, conditions for low-wage workers in the U.S. and globally, the analysis of financial markets, and the economics of building a clean-energy economy in the U.S. His books include A Measure of Fairness: The Economics of Living Wages and Minimum Wages in the United States (co-authored, 2008); An Employment-Targeted Economic Program for Kenya (co-authored, 2008); An Employment-Targeted Economic Program for South Africa(co-authored, 2007); Contours of Descent: U.S. Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity (2003); and The Living Wage: Building A Fair Economy (co-authored 1998); and the edited volumes Human Development in the Era of Globalization (co-edited 2006); Globalization and Progressive Economic Policy (co-edited, 1998); The Macroeconomics of Saving, Finance, and Investment (1997); and Transforming the U.S. Financial System(co-edited 1993). Most recently, he co-authored the studies “Green Recovery” (September 2008), “The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy” (June 2009), and “Green Prosperity” (June 2009) exploring the broader economic benefits of large-scale investments in building a clean-energy economy in the United States. He is currently consulting with the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Labour Organization on the economic analysis of clean-energy investments. He has worked with the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Economic Commission on Africa on policies to promote decent employment expansion and poverty reduction in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. He has also worked with the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress and as a member of the Capital Formation Subcouncil of the U.S. Competitiveness Policy Council.

http://www.peri.umass.edu/staff/

Seems to me it;s a win-win and win some more.

Nuclear energy is too expensive, too dangerous and takes too long to bring on line. Even China has cut way back on their nuclear construction plans.