Solar Power Fixed Everything
2096.12.14 "What should not be done?"
"Yes, we consider what should not be done."
"Other people do things while we consider?"
"Of course."
"But aren't some of those things better for the future than others?"
"Of course."
"So, what do we do?"
"We consider the things that are being done and determine which should not be done."
"... things that are being done. Aren't there many such things?"
"Yes, many."
"... things that should not be done. Aren't there many such things?"
"No, just a few."
"But many people do many foolish things."
"Most things are of no consequence for the future."
"And some people do wise things?"
"Many people do wise things."
"And a few do some things of consequence that should not be done."
"Yes."
Some moments passed as the student considered the teacher's words and looked out on the countryside. The afternoon sun shone down on the open fields, the river, and the distant mountains. A light breeze touched both the student and the teacher. A hunting bird flew overhead. The student turned back to the teacher.
"Some people developed solar power."
"What do you mean by developed?"
"Invented, improved, promoted, sold, deployed."
"Those are different things."
"Tell me what should not have been done."
"You tell me."
"All should have been done."
"Are you sure?"
"Yes."
"Please explain."
"Perhaps we should sit."
"Certainly."
The patio on the north side of the Institute received the sun and the light breeze. Several chairs were inviting, offering a clear view of the mountains. The student moved toward the chairs, and the teacher followed, selecting a chair with the afternoon sun over her shoulder. The student moved a second chair so that she would be an appropriate distance from the teacher, and so that the sun would not be in her eyes. She continued.
"Are you comfortable?"
"Yes, thank you."
"About solar power."
"Yes, please explain."
"The world needed to move beyond fossil fuels. They were harming the planet."
The teacher frowned. This student may not work out. All the student's training was directed toward finding the things that should not be done. And just now, the student had described something broadly, lumping many various things together, including her assessment. How could the student discover what should not be done if everything is tangled together? The student continued.
"Eight billion people in 2020 grew to ten billion by 2070, then declined. There are about 8.6 billion people today."
"And what does that have to do with solar power?"
"The more people, the more power they needed. To be more precise, the population increased almost solely in Africa, and the living conditions were not the best. By adopting solar power, they skipped a period of human development in which the use of fossil fuel was a key driver of economic, social, and technological advances. The Earth added two billion people with little extra demand for fossil fuels."
The teacher sighed. While what she said was true, it was only half-true. Demand for fossil fuels had shrunk worldwide over the 21st century, almost to zero. The student must know that. Isn't this change for the eight billion more important than the lack of change for the last two billion? The student continued.
"Of course, even more importantly, the demand for fossil fuels worldwide declined to near zero by the middle of the century."
"Why?"
"Solar power became cheaper to implement than generating power from fossil fuels."
"When did that happen?"
"In the twenties. It took some time for people to notice, and some time to reduce barriers to market entry. More time was spent creating adaptations and adoptions for specific segments of human activity, but by the thirties, most of these had been addressed through entrepreneurial activity."
"No other factors?"
"Yes, one. The technological advances in photoelectric materials continued throughout the decades, increasing the power output of a square meter of material by fifty percent, and then using nano-layered material doubled efficiency every two years. By 2060, efficiency was over 3,000 times what it had been in 2020. The limit had been reached--that is, the limit for solar power generation at the surface of the Earth; the atmosphere prevented more power from reaching the surface. But the limit was not a practical matter. Few humans now need more than 100 square centimeters of material for their power needs. Personal devices, clothing, furniture, transport, and building surfaces produced solar power. Each included power generation and storage materials."
"No other factors affecting adoption?"
"Well, of course, there was war."
"Continue."
"Most of the Earth's power generation was solar by the 2050s, but significant pockets of fossil fuel usage remained. These pockets were areas of armed conflict or extreme terrorist activity. While most of those fighting had converted to solar-powered weapons and vehicles, the populace in these areas continued to suffer extreme economic deprivation, which hindered conversion to solar power. But as fossil fuel distribution dwindled, it became less accessible in the most destitute areas as well. These areas, suffering from both armed conflict and a lack of power sources, fell further behind other areas of the world in human development."
"So solar power uptake had a detrimental effect here?"
"Yes."
"Were there other detrimental effects?"
The student paused. Everything else had turned out well, but perhaps there was a "U-shaped" effect, an ultimately positive outcome, following a period of worsening conditions--perhaps something else had suffered as the poorest in the world had suffered. And this suffering was necessary to see the change through.
These were often the most difficult scenarios for the Institute to consider. Identifying actions to avoid meant identifying actions that caused short-term problems but had long-term benefits. The research the student had done showed some rather minor consequences, not as large as she and the teacher had just discussed. What might they be? She looked at the teacher. No sign of disapproval, perhaps just patience. This was new; she did not consider the teacher a patient person. She thought for another few moments and continued.
"There were environmental effects of adoption that needed to be corrected."
"Continue."
"Early in adoption, solar power was quite inefficient. Now, it is difficult for us to comprehend how inefficient it was. Perhaps an example will help. In 2020, thirty-eight square meters of solar panels were needed to generate the power required for each person. Such a large surface area had at least three significant environmental impacts. First, the production of panels consumed significant fossil fuels and minerals. This led to massive degradation of the environment in the areas where raw materials were obtained and where production occurred. Second, the ground used by such early deployments became covered with panels, blocking sunlight from reaching the ground and disturbing the native ecosystems in all areas with panels. Third, because of the required surface area, panels were often placed far from human concentrations. Distribution and storage systems moved the energy from the panels to the points of use. As solar power usage grew, so did energy farms, energy distribution, and storage. Each had detrimental environmental effects."
"And this had a U-shaped effect?"
The student brightened. The teacher had similar thoughts. Adoption of solar power might have had other detrimental consequences, but each was corrected. The environmental impact was corrected. She could explain.
"New materials, resulting in efficiencies, have reduced the surface requirements for panels year by year. Replacing early panel farms with more efficient farms resulted. Smaller farms were placed closer to energy consumers, reducing the loss of power in energy distribution. By the 2040s, distributed solar became the dominant form of energy production, followed by personal generation integrated into clothing and everyday objects. Gradual reduction of energy distribution requirements and storage continued in the fifties. By the seventies, ninety percent of energy distribution was personal--solar farms, power lines, energy grids, large-scale storage, mining, and production of panels had all been eliminated. Earth scars were repaired. Wildlife returned. The Institute is built on two former earth scars. There were solar panels where the fields are now, and the mountains to the west were once the sites of mines used to gather materials needed to produce solar power: oil, shale, iron, and other raw materials. The populations of indigenous plants and animals, which were reduced by panel farms and mines, have gradually returned, beginning in the eighties. This area should be fully restored in the 2110s, about twenty years from now."
The teacher looked out onto the land surrounding the Institute. The view was breathtaking. She couldn't believe that bringing back the area's native ecosystems would take another two decades. Perhaps the Institute would mark the occasion with a celebration. But today, she'd like to move beyond the conversation to firsthand experience. She addressed the student.
"I'd like us to see the consequences of solar power firsthand. Do you have an itinerary for us?"
The student had expected this request. Discussions led to experiences. Solar power transformed countless locations. She made her suggestions.
"The former site of the Jamnagar refinery, Gujarat, India. The Berkut oil rig on the Russian Pacific coast, and the North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, here in the United States. Each is the world's largest example of activities that were curtailed and then stopped by the adoption of solar power."
"Why not see some of the resulting changes in living conditions, agriculture, and transportation?"
"There are indeed many things that resulted. Other stories might feature some of them more prominently. Solar power enabled desalination, for example."
"As you say, there are other stories. Our destinations will illustrate the production side of power systems replaced by solar power. Shall we leave tomorrow?"
"Yes, I'd be happy for us to begin tomorrow."
"Please excuse me."
The teacher conversed with her AI companion for a moment, made arrangements, and continued.
"Please meet me here tomorrow morning."
And with that, the teacher rose from her chair, gave a nod, and perhaps a faint smile to the student, and headed to her room in the Institute. The student admired the landscape. The mountains cast long shadows in the afternoon sun. It was time to prepare for their journey.
They arrived at the Jamnagar Refinery site after a three-hour hypersonic flight from the Institute. They deplaned and met an Institute representative, who had prepared for their arrival. He showed them the site of what had once been the world's largest oil refinery.
"As you can see, we are close to the coast of the Arabian Sea. Oil tankers from the Middle East would arrive here daily, and oil would be pumped into storage facilities to the west of the refinery. Over decades of operation, there were many oil tanker spills, and of course, the ships were quite filthy, using large amounts of fossil fuel to transport the crude oil. The refinery used massive amounts of energy to refine the oil into oil-based products, which were then transported using more fossil fuel. The refinery suffered operational accidents, leading to large amounts of various oil products being discharged onto the land and into the sea. Prevailing southerly winds blew smoke from the operations over most of the Kathiawar peninsula on which we are located, creating health problems for over sixty million people living in the region."
The teacher took in the scene. There was no sign of a refinery--all its structures had been removed, including all hard surfaces associated with the operation. No docks, cranes, power lines, storage facilities, and no refineries. In their place was a sloping field of wild grass that reached to the shore several kilometers to the north. The student asked several questions of the representative.
"When was the refinery closed? When did the restoration begin? When will the Earth's scars heal?"
"Excellent questions. The refinery ceased operations in 2065 after operating for sixty-six years. The oil tankers were dismantled in the seventies. Reclamation of the coastal area became the largest earth scar restoration in India. We are halfway through the restoration--significant oil products remain in the soil and far below the soil. Seawalls and other techniques have abated the leaching of these products into the sea. Project leaders estimate it will take another twenty-five years of work here before the indigenous plant and animal ecosystems are fully restored."
"Do you mind if we walk and talk? I'd like to look over several of the surrounding hills to get a better look at the site."
"Wonderful, I would be most happy to follow you and answer additional questions."
They headed west, and after half a kilometer, they were at the top of a small hill from which they could better see the Arabian Sea and now see land further to the west. The sea was blue and clear. Seagulls flew low over the water. They could make out a seagull catching a fish.
"When did fish and birds return to this coast?"
"Only recently. Perhaps in the past five years."
"What stood to the west?"
"More refineries."
"How many?"
"Many dozens. The second largest was almost as large as the largest. Over 70,000 people worked in the two refineries, and many tens of thousands worked in the other refineries and associated industries here at Jamnagar."
"And have you deconstructed all the refineries and associated fossil fuel industries here?"
"Yes. A considerable quantity of steel, concrete, and other materials was used to build the structures, and much of it was recycled and reused. "
"Thank you for showing us the sights."
"You are most welcome. You are leaving tomorrow?"
"We are leaving this evening."
"That's a pity. There are many beautiful things to see here. I appreciate the opportunity to spend what time we had."
"We appreciate your hospitality."
With that, the student turned toward the teacher. They walked a bit toward the water, then to the station that would take them to the airfield. By dusk, they had boarded the hypersonic and were on their way to Sakhalin, off the Russian coast. They both slept well on the flight, arrived after midnight, checked into their lodgings, rose mid-morning, ate a late breakfast, and proceeded to the pre-arranged hovercraft mooring.
The automated hovercraft took them into the Sea of Okhotsk to the site of Berkut. Ice floes covered the sea. Fierce winds lashed the craft as it navigated the small passages between them. Twenty-five kilometers offshore, the craft came to a halt. Ice surrounded them. The student read from her notes.
"Berkut was at one time the largest offshore oil drilling platform ever built. Weighing over 200,000 tons and standing over fifty stories high, the rig began production in 2021. Forty-five wells were drilled in the Arkutan-Dagi oil field around the platform. Over 4,000 people were involved in the construction. The conditions at Berkut can be quite difficult with open waves up to twenty meters high, 2-meter ice chunks, and temperatures as low as negative forty-four degrees centigrade."
The rigs were gone, and with them, any sign of human activity. No ships, planes, or settlements were visible in any direction. The skies were clear on this fall day; the wind and sea had calmed; ice everywhere. Less than 100 meters from the hovercraft, orcas jumped from the sea. The teacher spoke first.
"Not much to see here."
"We can look below. This hovercraft can operate underwater."
"Let's go."
The student and teacher buckled into their seats. The hovercraft dove below the surface and headed for what were once the foundational pillars of the main Berkut rig. After a few minutes, they could see the ocean floor. The water was clear. There were no rig pillars, and the wellbores were cleanly capped. The craft made concentric circles around the site and recorded audio and video for its records. The teacher shared her thoughts.
"Looks clean."
"The metrics all look good. No oil, no iron in the water, no particulate matter from the drilling."
"When did operations here end?"
"2059."
"A short-lived site."
"Indeed. It was expensive to operate, and expensive to transport oil from here. Extreme weather made things difficult. The consortium operating the well saw more profit in solar power and moved quickly."
"The same consortium moved into solar power production?"
"No, the advances in distributed solar production eliminated the need for large infrastructure and capital investment, creating an advantage for smaller firms."
"What businesses did they turn to?"
"Site cleanup, recycling, and restoration."
A smile appeared on each of their faces. This was a natural system result. The consortia and other builders and operators of such sites not only had the capital, equipment, and experience to engage in such massive clean-ups, but they also had relationships with the governments and citizens of the areas that required cleanup, as well as extensive knowledge of fossil fuels.
"Was intervention required to create this result?"
"No. Local interventions were attempted, here and in many, if not most, locations around the world, and much publicity came from efforts of one group to require another group to do something. But eventually, interests aligned. The previous builders and operators needed work, and the work needed to be done."
"How many offshore drilling sites were restored?"
"Over six hundred worldwide. All were decommissioned by 2070. The cleanup here began in 2064 and finished in 2079. Ecological monitoring and restoration work continue and should be completed this decade. Shall we surface?"
"Yes, certainly."
Their craft emerged between blue ice sheets. They unbuckled and went on deck to get a better look at the whales.
The next day, they arrived at their last stop, the open-pit North Antelope Rochelle Mine in the state of Wyoming in the United States, once the largest coal mine in the world. The solar-powered vehicle transporting the student and teacher approached the edge of the immense earth scar. They exited and looked down. Much restoration work was still needed here. The student recited some facts.
"Mine operations began here in 1983. By 2011, its workforce had been reduced to fifteen percent as natural gas from fracking replaced the need for coal in the United States. The workforce continued to decline until the mine was closed in 2035, having exhausted almost all the coal reserves of this location. Restoration of spent portions of the mine was an ongoing effort throughout the life of the mine. The mine had won awards for its restoration work as early as 2012."
"And yet eighty years later much work remains."
"Perhaps I can explain. We can see that the industrial elements--equipment and train tracks--have been removed, and there are no signs of continuing restoration work. The restoration here was declared complete in 2085. But there is an ongoing discussion about the goal of the restoration. So much material had been dislodged at the site--over eight billion tons--coal and "overburden," the material above the coal that had to be displaced to reach the coal, that full restoration to a natural state was deemed impossible. Over two billion tons of material would need to be brought here to replace the coal and restore the contours, while over six billion tons of material had been dislodged and "restored" to a condition that supports indigenous life, but is not the condition of the site before the mine. It took fifty years to dig the mine and the same number of years to restore it."
"It does not look restored."
"Indeed. The natural contours were replaced with well-designed but artificial contours. The watershed here is now classified as natural. Reforestation of firs, pines, spruce, and others proceeds, along with the natural reintroduction of native plant and animal ecosystems."
Together, they looked out onto the incongruous scene. On the one hand, there was no sign of industrialization, no work of humans apart from the road they were on. No power lines, bridges, cranes, debris, equipment, or buildings. The scene was one of tranquility, beauty, and natural systems. So much so that they were concerned about top predators in the area. And yet, down below, was a gorge with water running through it, and they both knew the gorge was not natural. It was an artifact of a bygone era, constructed as a restoration, and one that would not soon, if ever, be improved. This earth scar did not look like a scar, but the discerning eye could sense something amiss. The teacher smiled, then spoke.
"I'm glad we saw this. Thank you for selecting it. The inability to restore a scar of this size is worth noting and worth seeing firsthand."
"You are quite welcome."
"Do you feel you are ready for a debate?"
The student was momentarily at a loss. A debate was a major event organized by the Institute several times a year to review a topic of major interest. She knew the Institute had not yet held a solar power debate. It would be an honor to take part. She considered the offer and realized she was ready. She knew it would draw a worldwide audience, and that significant additional and specific preparation would be part of the run-up to the broadcast. This was the next step in her professional development, and she would accept it.
"Yes. I am ready."
The teacher found the student's confidence appealing and knew its importance for a successful debate. The student performed well during the travels and showed sound judgment, command of the material, and a personal approach in handling the travel.
"Good, I will begin the arrangements."
The Institute regularly held debates on the most important issues being studied. The intent was to provide a public forum for the Institute's research findings and to present them in an open deliberative format. In most debates, the resolutions were broad, with many opportunities for advancing points and counterpoints. Debates rarely produced a winner and a loser.
The Institute set the resolution for the solar power debate as "Resolved: No intervention by the Institute was desirable to advance the uptake of solar power as a replacement for the use of fossil fuels." The student would lead a team of other students assisted by their common teacher in arguing the affirmative, and a second team with support from another Institute teacher would argue the negative.
Visitors from across the world would travel to the Institute's largest auditorium for the debate. Institute curators would review all the evidence and make it available to all without barriers. In this way, others could study the issues, examine evidence, and restage debates if needed.
The solar power debate would be the first on this issue, and as such, was drawing heightened interest in discussions leading up to the debate. Both teams ignored this; each team had spent months assembling its evidence and reviewing its arguments. The public chatter preceding debates was often counterfactual, unreasoned, emotional, and intended to serve some self-interest. The Institute had paid little attention. However, each team used AI listeners to process the public discussions in search of the rare useful item.
Preparation tested the confidence of the student and her team. "No intervention" was a broad claim. The opposition could propose many interventions, and her team must be able to rebut each one as undesirable or counterproductive to the eventual uptake of solar power. Her team considered various interventions. Which could form the basis of a persuasive argument for the opposition? Increased research spending to improve the efficiency of solar power sources was an obvious intervention. Behavioral economics approaches to messaging and behavior modification might have motivated people to move from fossil fuels to solar power faster. Government policies and international treaties might have forced the adoption of solar power and outlawed the use of fossil fuels.
But, there was firm evidence people moved when it was in their best interest to move. The team knew that "best interest" was difficult to define across world cultures, economic conditions, and policy environments. What might be obvious in one setting could be unthinkable in another. The Institute focused on what should not be done and rarely intervened. Various minor disincentives to adopting solar power had existed early in its history, but they resolved naturally, without intervention.
Debate preparation included extensive study of the other team, debate technique, preparation and organization of visual and written materials, and many, many mock debates. The team maintained a disciplined mix of work and play--they knew that being at their best at "show time" required rest, preparation, confidence, and clarity resulting from debate preparation, trust in each other borne of their work, mutual respect, being under the stress of preparation, and the release of some of that stress during play. She felt the team had come together well, in part, because of her leadership. Her confidence grew with her understanding of what might take place during the debate.
The day arrived, and her team gathered for a final lighthearted but professional run-through. They then entered the auditorium together. The audience clapped, and some cheered. But speaking in favor of "no intervention" was rarely the preferred position of Institute representatives, who made up most of the audience. Her team had expected this, but the reality created some concern.
The broadcast began; the AI scribes and archivists began their work; and the teams took their seats. The narrator introduced them and presented the topic and resolution.
Opposition lines of attack unfolded as expected. They opened with the research argument--additional funds could have been spent by companies, NGOs, and governments worldwide to move up the attainment of the solar efficiency limit, resulting in earlier adoption, reductions in carbon emissions, and earlier temperature regulation.
Her team countered with extensive findings regarding the history and trajectory of solar power research. The U.S. and China each committed to "Manhattan Project" approaches to focus effort in solar power research and related material science. The competition created a "space race," which, in the already charged geopolitical atmosphere, resulted in rapid advances. The EU joined the U.S. effort; Russia joined the Chinese effort. The U.S. and China recruited scientists from the global south to take part in their efforts, and many did. India did not take part, focusing its research program on alternatives to ammonium fertilizer to lower energy consumption in agriculture. Many nations worked with India. Would the efforts of India and others have been better used to speed up research on solar power?
More money is hard to refute, and research spending is such a small part of the general spending of an economy--three percent for high spenders--that spending more is easy to imagine and justify. At the height of solar power research in the thirties, forties, and fifties, material science and solar power research comprised nearly five percent of the GDP of the U.S. and China. They could have spent more, but the "U-shaped" phenomenon took hold--such spending would have caused hardships and limitations elsewhere. At five percent, sacrifices were necessary. Higher spending would have created more hardship. Earlier would have been better, but at what cost? This path in the debate led to a draw.
The second potential intervention--encouragement of solar power usage requirements--went better for the student's team. Policies that require people to do things they would not otherwise do for cultural or economic reasons rarely work for any extended period. Policy measures could work for several years, but not for the decades required to change global systems of energy production and consumption. China's efforts were a failure--the one-child policy reduced energy use but led to massive unintended negative consequences. Studies showed that policies that led to small improvements in moving toward solar power triggered overreactions from opponents of such policies. Allowing people to decide within their cultural and economic environments was preferable. The student's team successfully rebutted the policy line of attack.
A proposal to use behavioral economics to change human behavior and increase solar power adoption was also defeated. Once research provided economic justification, the uptake of solar power worldwide was rapid. Putting power generation closer to or on the item consuming it reduced power storage and power transmission needs. People did not need nudging, or explaining, or more insidious means of persuasion to embrace this. Reducing the land area of solar power was a welcome improvement in the aesthetics of many places. Lowering the cost of energy was also popular with the public.
Significant publicity campaigns had been mounted in favor of solar power and against fossil fuels in the early days of the century, but by the thirties, these had run their course. Companies converted without help when it was economically helpful to do so. Governments converted as quickly as they could. Consumers were much quicker than either governments or corporations to adopt cheaper, cleaner, more convenient means of power generation for their homes and families. Additional behavioral modification would not have increased the rate of uptake.
The student looked at her teammates as the three-hour debate ended. The teams tied on research spending, and her team scored wins on the two other points. Applause, handshakes, and congratulations followed. They left the auditorium and headed out for a night of celebration.
A week went by before the student and the teacher met again on the patio of the Institute, relaxing in another warm breeze.
"Your team performed very well in the debate."
"Why, thank you. I am glad."
"This means you will graduate."
"Yes."
"We'd love to have you at the Institute as a teacher."
The student paused. She had considered this possibility but was unsure if this was right for her. She knew if she hesitated, this opportunity would pass.
"Is this an offer?"
"Yes."
"We should discuss details."
"Yes, we should."