Why Harvesting The Sun Is The Answer To Our 21st Century Energy Needs

In recent years, almost all oil majors have been quietly diversifying away from the production of gasoline, diesel and other fossil fuels, until now representing the bulk of their revenues.  The likes of Exxon, Shell, BP, Total etc. have invested massively in renewable fuels which now account for a significant percentage of the average American household’s energy source.

The majors’ change in strategy reflects the market-based reality that consumer demand for environmentally ‘unfriendly’ products is dwindling while demand for ‘clean’ and ‘sustainable’ energy sources (wind, solar etc.) is rising fast and showing no signs of a let-off. Some of the ‘new’ renewable energies introduced to the market have been incredibly imaginative; in 2017, for example, the largest oil company in the world, Exxon, announced exciting progress with algae energy. According to its press release at the time:

“We remain convinced that synthetic biology holds crucial answers to unlocking the potential of algae as a renewable energy source,…We look forward to continued work with ExxonMobil so that eventually we will indeed have a viable alternative energy source…This key milestone in our advanced biofuels program confirms our belief that algae can be incredibly productive as a renewable energy source with a corresponding positive contribution to our environment.”

Although we must never let the oil majors off the hook for their historic climate genocides, and the production of hydrocarbons which has created today’s climate emergency, we must agree that clean energy is the way forward. We are at the same time convinced that ever-greater advancements in the field of renewable energy lay just ahead.

Although we are firm fans (no pun intended) of wind turbines, which are among the most efficient producers of energy today, we are much more excited about the possibilities afforded by solar power. Although most people connect ‘solar energy’ with very recent developments with pholtovoltaic panels, the truth is that personkind harnessed the energy of the sun as early as the 7th century BC when people used sunlight to light fires with magnifying materials.

We find inspiration from Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. Following her encouragement to think boldly, the logical next step in harnessing the sun’s energy is to harvest the sun itself, i.e. to undertake a manned expedition to the surface of the sun and bring parts of it back to Earth. As most people know, the Sun uses nuclear fusion to convert hydrogen-1 into helium-4 and has a virtually inexhaustible supply of hydrogen-1 as fuel. Harvesting the sun’s fuel for our own purposes would quite literally provide us with a natural and clean energy source for all eternity.

Of course, any attempt to harvest the sun is not without its risks. Detractors of this bold proposition cite all manner of arguments as to “why it simply cannot be done”. These are the same types of naysaying pessimists, however, who scoffed at the idea that humanity would ever walk on the Moon, on Mars on so on.  And yet, this very week, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of personkind taking the first steps on Mars’ red surface!

Advances in scientific understanding and technical discoveries now mean that we have a realistic chance of harvesting the sun and so supplying all our energy needs for centuries to come. Let us, however, answer some of the more common counter-arguments to sun-harvesting:

1. The sun is ‘too hot‘ – This objection is quite ironic given that opponents of the lunar mission claimed at the time that the moon’s atmosphere would be ‘too cold’ for human survival!  It’s amusing to recall now that some critics thought that Louis Armstrong would freeze spontaneously when he emerged from Apollo 11. Sure, the surface of the Sun is way hotter than almost anything we have on Earth and needs to be approached with caution.  Recent decades have seen tremendous progress being made in the design and construction of advanced composite materials such as orgenite that are heat resistant to temperatures well beyond anything the Sun can throw at it.  As an additional safety precaution, we suggest that the solar expedition is delayed until mid-winter, when the Sun’s temperatures are at their lowest, and to launch from one of the Earth’s poles.
2. Extracting matter from the Sun will diminish precious/ scarce Solar resources – in other words, if you remove part of the Sun, you make it smaller which could have all sorts of unimagined consequences. Of all the objections, this is perhaps the most scatterbrained and scientifically-ignorant! Did you know that the Sun is around 109 times the diameter of the Earth and that you could fit around 1,300,000 planet Earths inside the Sun? The amount of Solar material which we would need to harvest for our own needs is insignificant and would have no lasting effects on the Sun.
3. It’s too expensive/ we don’t have the budget for Solar exploration – last time I checked, we had a printing press that allowed us to create as much wealth as we need for important infrastructure projects. More critically, the very survival of humanity requires us to ditch fossil fuels foresover and devise radical solutions to reverse climate change. So, the real question is: can we afford NOT to harvest the Sun?

If scientific endeavour and inventions over the centuries has taught us anything, it’s this: the seemingly impossible today becomes almost mundane tomorrow.  It’s clear that harvesting the sun’s unlimited supplies of hydrogen-1 and having natural nuclear fusion for our energy needs is the way forward.  It might also be the one thing that gets Greta Thunberg back to her education!

Please support Pbier on Patreon