Some people want us to believe there's not enough solar energy available to cover our worldwide energy needs

They often use EROI (Energy Return On Investment) as their metric

This is a rant against these EROI people misinforming the debate, based on a rebuttal of a 2020 paper

In essence the approach of the paper is straightforward:

1) Discard water and 96% of land because it's supposedly unavailable

2) Assume solar cells on just 1/5th of the remaining 4%

3) Complain that production of solar panels takes a lot of

About 1) (available land)

Discarding 96% of land seems pretty extreme:
30% of the world's land is barren
40% of the world's land is used for meat

I think we could find more than 4% if we tried
(but we don't have to: we need less than 1%)
https://t.co/rJZiNWcu7F

About 2) (using 1/5th of available land)

If cells are expensive and land is dirt cheap, covering 20% with solar cells is logical

But with cheap cells you maximize land use: 80% is easily possible

New paper headline:
"Global available solar energy over 10 times what we need"

About 3) (20% of energy is needed for production)

This is something @MLiebreich and I often complain about:
If you get more energy out than you put it, that's FINE
If you get five times more energy out, that's GREAT

EROI is a USELESS metric. Let's STOP using it. At all.