Solar Energy Advances 2 (2022) 100014

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy Advances

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seja

Update 2022 – A fundamental look at supply side energy reserves for the
planet
Marc Perez a, Richard Perez b,∗
a
Clean Power Research, 1541 3rd Street, Napa, CA 94559, USA
b
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, University at Albany, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Key words: Energy on our planet is central to the functioning of our ecosystem and modern human society. This work at-
High penetration renewables tempts to put the various renewable and non-renewable energy sources at our disposition into context with extant
Energy resources and future human energy consumption. The 79,000 TWyr of solar energy hitting the earth’s surface annually con-
Energy reserves
stitutes the largest readily accessible energetic resource available on earth and the source from which most other
(notably fossil) available energy sources are derived. Using the lens of reasonably assured recoverable reserves,
we compare the percentage of this solar energy that can be converted to useable energy (electricity) to the poten-
tial of other renewable (wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, ocean thermal, waves, tides, biomass) and conventional
reserves (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) and primary demand. We find that solar photovoltaics are capable of meeting
100% of extant global primary energy demand more than 12x over, wind 2x over even after reasonable con-
straints posed by land use and conversion efficiency. Under a fully electrified future scenario, solar power could
meet global energy demand 27x over, and wind 5x over.

Introduction ventional finite resources, it is a function of the total resource of a given

This article is an update on two previous evaluations produced for
the IEA Solar Heating and Cooling Program in 2009 and 2015 respec-
tively [1,2].
Fig. 1 recalls the results presented in the latter, 2015, evaluation
whereby the volume of each sphere is proportional to energy reserves
and consumption. This simple graphical representation directly conveys
the vast potential of the solar resource [3] compared to other renewable
resources [4–12], fossil energy reserves [13,14] and nuclear reserves
[15–22].
Applying the same intuitive infographic template as in our pre-
vious publications, this article attempts to provide a more effective
resource comparison context by placing the focus on and quantify-
ing reasonably exploitable reserves within an economic lifecycle time
horizon. We aim at reaching an audience of policy and industry de-
cision makers at all levels by succinctly presenting and contrasting
the potential of energy options available to the planet without the
filter of sometimes incomplete, out-of-context, and often conflicting
information.
Key to this context is the metric selected to quantify the sources of
energy: their Reasonably Assured Recoverable Reserves (RARs) [23]. The
RARs represent the amount of energy that can be reasonably extracted
at present given current technical and economic conditions. For con-
energy source, but also, and more importantly, the percentage of this
resource that has been identified and can be economically extracted
today – itself depending heavily on the technologies at hand to do
so.
For renewable resources, we extend the definition of ‘reasonable re-
coverable reserves’ to the amount that could reasonably be produced
given acceptable land occupation and conversion efficiency constraints.
We extend the time frame over which renewables are assessed from a
one year to a 30-year lifecycle yield, a measure that is more consis-
tent with the long-term reserve numbers used for conventional finite
resources (30 years represent a commonly used cycle for economic as-
sessments and planning.)
All energy reserves and consumption are reported in Terawatt-years
(TWyr) – see appendix for conversion to other commonly reported en-
ergy units. Given the 30-year time frame considered for renewables and
consumption we will refer to TWyr over 30 years as TWyr30 .
Results
Fig. 2 present the new RAR estimates. We discuss each element of
the figure, starting with demand-side consumption, and following with
all the supply-side finite, and renewable sources.

∗
Corresponding Author
E-mail address: rperez@albany.edu (R. Perez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seja.2022.100014
Received 20 December 2021; Received in revised form 14 March 2022; Accepted 15 March 2022
Available online 16 March 2022
2667-1131/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
M. Perez and R. Perez
Fig. 1. 2015 estimated finite and renewable planetary energy reserves (Terawatt-years) [2]. Annual yield is shown for the renewable resources [3–12]. Total
recoverable reserves are shown for the finite resources [13–22]. Yearly potential is shown for the renewables (the volume of each sphere is proportional to the
corresponding reserve).
World energy consumption
The International Energy Agency [24] reports that, after a COVID19-
induced slump of 4% in 2020, the world’s total final energy consump-
tion (TFEC) has fully recovered and is set to exceed its 2019 peak by
0.5%. Depending on the reference, estimates for 2021 global annual
TFEC ranges from 18.53 TWyr [25,26] to 20.13 TWyr [27]. The IEA esti-
mates a middle-range value of 19.11 TWyr that we have retained for this
article. Projecting expected [business as usual] 40–50% TFEC growth
over the next 30 years [24,28,29], cumulative energy consumption over
the period should amount to 660 TWyr30 . In Fig. 3, we plotted the
evolution of world primary energy demand spanning our three source
publications.
Finite sources of energy
Coal energy reserves (1010 TWy)
The reported coal RARs have evolved from 900 TWyr in 2009, down
to 830 in 2015, back up to the nearly 1,010 TWyr we report in this paper
[25]. The sizeable increase from our 2015 estimate is traceable primar-
ily to a large increase in identified reserves in the Asia Pacific region
(+40%) likely resulting from a better resource characterization parallel-
ing a steady increase in regional demand. The new estimate also includes
10 TWyr worth of peat [30] that was not accounted for in our earlier
publications.
2
Solar Energy Advances 2 (2022) 100014
Petroleum energy reserves (340 TWyr)
Following a sizeable increase of reported reserves between our 2009
and 2015 estimates – 250 to 335 TWyr, with much of the gain coming
from large offshore discoveries in South America – petroleum RARs have
leveled and now stand at 340 TWyr [25] in part thanks to declining spot
price for the commodity.
Natural gas energy reserves (220 TWyr)
Natural gas RARs have remained steady, increasing by less than 5%
since our first evaluation. They currently stand at nearly 190 trillion m3
[25], with an estimated 220 TWyr1 energy content.
Nuclear energy reserves (170 TWyr)
Uranium RARs have been reassessed downward since our 2015 eval-
uation from 185 TWyr down to 170 TWyr. The chief reason for this is
the resource’s exploitation price point. Indeed, uranium exploitation is
highly dependent on this price point [15–22] driven itself by antici-
pated global demand. The market price of uranium has been decreasing
1
The conversion natural gas volume to natural energetic content depends on
the quality of the natural and the mix of constituents (e.g., butane, ethane, etc.)
that vary throughout the world. Here we took a mid-range conversion factor of
37 MJoules (10.25 kWh) per m3 of natural gas.
M. Perez and R. Perez Solar Energy Advances 2 (2022) 100014

Fig. 2. RARs of renewable and finite energy resources. The area of the circles represents reasonably assured recoverable energy reserves from both finite and
renewable resources over the next 30 years. These areas can be compared with total demand (earth image) over that same period

Fig. 3. World Energy Demand growth spanning our 2009,

2015 and present evaluation, as estimated by the IEA [24],
BP [25] and Knoema [27].

steadily through 2019 because world demand for that metal had not
grown as previously expected. This market has since recovered some-
what ($120/kg as of this writing) but still stands well below the price
point upon which our previous estimates were based ($250/kg). Here
we set the RARs of uranium, including reasonably assured and inferred
stockpiles, recycled and prognosticated stockpiles, as well as speculative
and super-speculative (phosphate) reserves at the maximum price-point
reached over the last five years ($180kg). Interestingly, setting the price
point at last year’s price would have yielded reserves about half of the
value we report today.
We explained in our 2015 evaluation that uranium RARs also fun-
damentally depend upon the technology applied to extract them as
well upon the associated reprocessing cost. The present estimate as-
sumes existing fission technology and no reprocessing of spent fu-
els exploitable by technologies with widespread societal and geopo-
litical acceptance (given the inherent proliferation risk) at compet-
itive market prices. Full recycling and utilization of current stock-
piles at the current price point would amount to uranium RARs ex-
ceeding 5,000 TWyr. Also, importantly, our nuclear assessment does
not include the fusion of hydrogen (with its quasi-infinite resource)

3
M. Perez and R. Perez
since its economic commercial utilization is many years away at
best.
Renewable sources of energy
Solar Energy (8,300 TWyr30 )
An important consideration we apply here to properly quantify re-
newable reserves is an extension of the term ‘reasonable’ underlying
RARs beyond pure extraction/exploitation economics. This considera-
tion is especially relevant to solar since we have in the past reported the
total amount of energy impinging annually on the earth’s continents.
Of course, whereas it would now be economically reasonable to deploy
solar (PV) over most of the continental surface area [31], it would be
unreasonable to assume that the entire space would be covered by PV.
In focusing on the energy available, we had also not accounted for the
energy conversion efficiency at hand. While it is likely to increase in the
future, we assume here a current state-of-the-art footprint conversion
of sunlight to electricity of 20%2 , an assumption we justified and ap-
plied in a recently published article on large scale PV deployment [32].
Retaining the PV deployment assumptions from this article and its as-
sociated land-use web app [33] we assume a reasonable upper limit of
deployment to each land-use category including an implementation of
emerging PV deployment strategies such as floating PV [34] and agri-
voltaic [35]. We estimate this upper limit at 6% of the land mass. We did
not account for any prospective offshore deployment at this time (a to-
tal resource twice as large as the continents’), although the practice may
gain acceptability in the future [36]. Note that there are other possible
approaches to assess deployable solar resource such as the ‘bottom-up’
project specific practice outlined by UNECE [37] accounting for local-
ized resources and socio-economic conditions.
From the present assumptions, the 30-year reasonably exploitable
solar reserves amount to 8,300 TWyr30 , i.e., about 12 times the global
primary demand over that period. For those interested in exploring other
continental or oceanic upper deployment limits as well as PV efficiency
limits, we developed an interactive web app [38] that will modify the
layout of Fig. 2 accordingly. Notably, the potential of agrivoltaics is
vast as extant agriculture currently covers roughly 38% of continental
surface area [39].
The current installed global solar capacity is estimated at 1.25 TW,
including 760 GW solar PV, 6 GW CSP, and 500 GW solar thermal
[40]. This translates to an annual energy generation of approximately
0.24 TWyr, or about 0.08% of the reasonably exploitable solar potential
on an annual basis
Wind energy (1,500 TWyr30 )
Lu et al [41]. estimated the yearly wind generation potential at 96.7
TWyr per year for locations with economic exploitation level of 20% ca-
pacity factor and up. This is fully consistent with our 2015 estimate of
103 TWyr [4] and with a more recent estimate from NREL [42] putting
the total number of exploitable class 3 and up sites at 99.9 TWyr per year
that we retain for the present evaluation. This includes 64 TWyr of on-
shore wind. This estimate, though economically reasonable, may not be
environmentally reasonable in terms of continental footprint. Keeping
wind on par with solar in terms of a reasonably acceptable footprint (6%
of continental mass) we adjusted the onshore wind RARs conservatively
extrapolating from current wind turbine ground occupancy [43] and op-
erating capacity factors [44]. The offshore portion (36 TWyr) is applied
in its entirety here, noting that similar offshore footprint limitations may
also be considered in the future. The 30-year exploitable wind RARs thus
2
The bulk of the solar energy resource is assumed here to be used for elec-
tricity. We recognize that other applications (e.g., active or passive heating) are
also possible.
4
Solar Energy Advances 2 (2022) 100014
amount to nearly 1,500 TWyr30 – 2.5 times the world’s primary energy
demand over the period.
As for solar, it is informative to contrast the wind resource to the
currently-deployed wind power generation worldwide – 743 GW on-
shore and 35 GW offshore, with an estimated 0.22 TWyr annual power
generation [40]. This represents 0.2% of the developable potential iden-
tified here.
Geothermal (180 TWyr30 )
in our 2015 evaluation, we placed the exploitable geothermal energy
potential (RARs) at 0.2–3 TWyr per year [9–10]. We noted that this rep-
resented a very small fraction of the total geothermal resource that some
place at several tens of thousands of TWyr [11]. A recent global evalu-
ation by Aghahosseini & Breyer [45] estimates that the global potential
exploitable with current enhanced geothermal system (EGS) technology
at a competitive price point amounts to 6 TWyr per year or 180 TWyr30
over 30 years – a number we retain for the present evaluation, given
our interpretation of RARs. The authors state that it may be possible to
tap upward of 100 TWyr per year by 2050 given possible (but not yet
at hand) technology improvements.
Note that we are focusing here on electricity-generating geothermal
technologies. The term geothermal often encompass other applications
[46], in particular, ground-source heat pumps that are likely to play
an important part of the planet’s future clean energy mix. However, it
is important to state that their primary energy demand concern, as for
other (e.g., air-to-air) heat pump systems, will be the electricity needed
to run them more than their ground (or air) heat content input.
The current geothermal capacity amounts to 15 GW [40], i.e.,
roughly 0.25% of the potential reported herein.
OTEC (90 TWyr30 )
A recent review by Langer et al [47]. states that the global potential
for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is of the order of 30TWyr
per year. However, the authors caution that “OTEC’s economic potential
is unknown as it is still an immature technology with no commercial plant
operating”. Others place the potential OTEC resource at 12 TWyr per year
[48]. While these estimates are commensurate, albeit higher than our
previously reported 3–11 TWyr per year, they do not represent a realistic
‘reasonable reserves’ number that can be used to contrast with other
resources given the non-existence of a technology to exploit it. We will
therefore retain the conservative lower previous estimate – 90 TWyr30
– for the present evaluation, cautioning that the resource may not be
exploitable given the technological unknowns.
Hydropower (90 TWyr30 )
The current installed capacity for hydropower is 1.33 TW, with an es-
timated annual electrical generation of 0.6 TWyr [49]. In our last article
we had reported a potential of 3-4 TWyr per year for hydropower. New
exhaustive evaluations of the world’s hydropower potential indicate a
significantly higher potential of 6–8 TWyr per year [50,51]. However,
these new estimates do stretch the present “reasonable” definition of
reserves, given the increasingly questionable environmental footprint
of hydro powerplants. Interestingly, we reported that the current hy-
dropower artificial lakes’ footprint in the US could support more than
80 times more solar energy generation via floating PV using the above
20% conversion efficiency [34]. This implies, extrapolating upon the US
results, that an ultimate 8 TWyr hydro resource would be equivalent to
a solar energy generation potential of 650 TWyr per year, i.e., more than
twice the above ‘reasonable’ solar deployment estimate. For this envi-
ronmental ground-occupancy reason, we will maintain the hydropower
reasonable reserves at our earlier conservative estimate of 3 TWyr per
year, or 90 TWyr30 for the considered 30-year cycle.
M. Perez and R. Perez
Fig. 4. Reasonably Assured Reserves of finite resources compared to 30 years’ worth of global energy demand and renewable potential under a full electrification
scenario (the area of each circle is proportional to the corresponding reserve).
Biomass (115 TWyr30 )
Our 2015 estimate of 2–6 TWyr per year remains representative of
this source of energy today. More recent studies by Mauser et al [52].
and IRENA [53] suggest a slightly reduced range of 3–4.7 TWyr per year,
whereby so-called modern biomass resources [40] are almost equally
divided between farm wastes & residues (37%) energy crops (33%) and
forestry residues (30%). We hereby retain the median of this range or
3.8 TWyr per year.
Importantly, we must remark that this estimate stretches the defi-
nition of the term ‘reasonable’ applied in this article. To elaborate, we
observe that in the US, corn energy crops alone occupy enough space
to deploy PV generation amounting to 4.1 TWyr per year. Extrapolating
this number to the entire planet would yield 77 TWyr per year worth of
solar generation, just from the space occupied by energy crops, i.e., 15–
20 times more than the entire potential biomass yield from all sources.
The REN21 report [40] states that that modern biomass resource ac-
counted for 5.1% of the TFEC, while traditional [unsustainable] biomass
(e.g., direct burning of harvested wood) accounted for another 6.5% of
the FETC in 2019. While the latter is expected to be entirely phased
out, the existing biomass resource already amounts to more than 50%
of the resource’s developable potential, that is considerably more than
the emerging solar, wind and geothermal resources
Tidal energy (9 TWyr30 )
A recent study by Neil et al [54]. reports a substantially higher
2.8 TWyr per year tidal potential than we had previously reported
(0.3 TWyr per year). However, the study cautions that nearly 80% of
this potential emanates from one location: the Bay of Hudson in remote
Northern Canada, i.e., considerably stretching the ‘reasonable reserve’
assumption of the present evaluation, notwithstanding the environmen-
5
Solar Energy Advances 2 (2022) 100014
tal footprint of the technology involving large coastal retaining basins.
Lower environmental footprint technologies applying tidal turbines ca-
pable of capturing tidal currents have been estimated to have a potential
of less than 0.1 TWyr per year including both tidal and oceanic currents
[55]. We will therefore keep our conservative RARs estimate unchanged
for tidal energy.
Current installed capacity for all types of tidal generation amounts
to 527 MW [40], i.e., roughly 0.08% of the potential identified here.
Wave energy (6 TWyr30 )
we previously presented a range of 0.2–2 Twyr per year for this en-
ergy source. A review paper by Gunn & Stock Williams [56] reports that
while the global wave energy potential is 2.1 Twyr per year, only about
4.6%, or 0.1 Twyr per year would be exploitable given the existing tech-
nology: Wave Energy Converters (WECS). Here again, we will therefore
keep our previous conservative estimate unchanged.
The currently installed capacity of wave power generation only
amounts to 2.3 MW [57].
Discussion
This latest evaluation reports reasonably assured recoverable reserves
for both renewable and finite sources of energy that, we believe, are
more realistic to inform decision-making than the numbers we had pre-
viously published. Whereas for conventional finite resources, the term
‘reasonable’ can be directly inferred from technology and price-point
conditions, this term requires additional subjective interpretation for
the renewables as it also embeds technological, logistical, and environ-
mental deployment factors.
Solar remains by far the largest energy source reasonably accessible
to tap for the planet, even after the considerable efficiency and footprint
M. Perez and R. Perez
resource-to-RARs limitations applied since our last report. Wind, with a
less drastic reduction applied, remains a very large second, capable of
meeting the world’s demand several times over.
Finite fossil fuel reserves, quantified on economic grounds only (i.e.,
not accounting for their environmental impacts) have remained roughly
unchanged since our last evaluation. This is not the case for uranium
reserves that have been reevaluated downward on price point consider-
ations.
Importantly for all finite resources, fast-growing and increasingly
cheaper renewable resources (wind and solar) are becoming influential
at setting energy exploitation price points downward [31]. This can only
imply that the RARs of finite resources are bound to diminish on a pure
‘business-as-usual’ basis (compounding any likely impact of also includ-
ing the pricing of environmental externalities such as carbon taxes).
The present evaluation will presumably evolve in the future as new
technologies come into play, possibly for nuclear – microreactor tech-
nology – if the current nuclear exploitation price point can be reduced,
but most likely for renewables – solar, in particular, with conversion ef-
ficiency improvements and a possible exploitation of offshore solar re-
sources not counted herein. Geothermal as well could witness sizeable
RARs increase if anticipated technology improvements materialize.
Electrification
An increasingly important consideration when comparing renew-
ables, nuclear and fossil reserves is the type of energy these sources
deliver in addition to their energy content. Renewables such as wind
and solar, as well as nuclear are quantified in terms of electrical energy
reserves, whereas fossil reserves are quantified in terms of their primary
energy from combustion (their embodied energy). Given the electrifica-
tion trends underlying the climate response of the world’s economies
(transportation, building sectors, in particular) [58] this distinction is
becoming increasingly relevant. Indeed, an electric quantity of energy
can be worth nearly three times its primary combustion value equivalent
in terms of end-use application (Internal combustion engines vs. electric
motors for transportation, and combustion vs. heat pumps for building
heating [32]). In addition, the electric equivalent of fossil fuels’ primary
reserves is limited by power plants’ efficiency (at best state of the art,
45% for coal, and 60% for combined cycle gas and oil [59]) Fig. 4. com-
pares the energy sources’ RARs in the extreme case of full electrification.
This leads to a considerable reduction of both fossil energy RARs and
the world’s energy demand that is currently almost 80% non-electric
[60]. In this limit case scenario, the solar resource, under current as-
sumptions, would supply ∼ 27 times the world’s demand. Ergo, 0.22%
of continental area covered with photovoltaics would be sufficient to
entirely meet the world’s energy demand.
Conclusion
This update on our previous evaluations produced for the IEA fully
substantiates that the solar resource is the planet’s largest resource by
far, even after accounting for reasonable deployment restrictions and
presently achievable conversion efficiencies. Together with wind, it is
the only renewable resource presently capable of meeting the world en-
ergy demand with considerable room to grow. We make the case that
the relative size of the solar resource compared to conventional finite
fossil and nuclear reserves can only be enhanced in the future as energy
demand evolves to become more electric and as conversion efficiencies
improve and new deployment strategies (e.g., ocean-based floating PV)
take shape.
Declaration of Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
6
Solar Energy Advances 2 (2022) 100014
APPENDIX: Energy units conversion table
1 TWyr = 8.76 × 1012 kWh
= 31.54 EJ (exajoules)
= 29.89 quads (quadrillion BTUs)
= 753 Mtoes (Millions of tons of oil equivalent)
= 1076 Mtocs (Millions of tons of coal equivalent)
= 830 km3 of natural gas equivalent
References
[1] R. Perez, M. Perez, A fundamental look at energy reserves for the planet, The Int.
Energy Agency SHCP Solar Update 50 (2009) 2–3 April 2009.
[2] M. Perez, R. Perez, Update 2015 – a fundamental look at supply side energy reserves
for the planet, Int. Energy Agency SCHP Solar Update 62 (2015) Nov. 2015.
[3] First principles: solar energy received by emerged continents only, assuming 65%
losses by atmosphere and clouds.
[4] C. Archer, M. Jacobson, Evaluation of global wind power, JGR Atmos. 110 (D12)
(2005).
[5] World Energy CouncilMarine Energy, 2013 JJ1264_WEC_Resources_Marine_07101
3_JS.indd (worldenergy.org) (last verified 3/22).
[6] G. Nihous, An order-of-magnitude estimate of ocean thermal energy conversion
(OTEC) resources, J. Energy Res. Technol. 127 (4) (2005) 328–333 December 2005.
[7] R. Whittaker, The biosphere and man, in: Primary Productivity of the Biosphere,
Springer-Verlag, 1975, pp. 305–328. ISBN 0-3870-7083-4.
[8] Environmental Resources Group (2004): Specialization in environmental and social
aspects of Hydropower & TL Project. (99±) Environmental Resources Group (eRG
Nepal) | LinkedIn (last verified 3/22).
[9] MIT/INEL The Future of Geothermal Energy– Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Sys-
tems [EGS] on the U.S. in the 21st Century Geothermal Technologies Office | Depart-
ment of Energy – based on estimated energy recoverable economically in the next
50 years. Ultimate high depth potential would be much higher. (link last verified on
3/22).
[10] A. Eisentraut, A. Brown, Heating without global warming, Int. Energy Agency (2014)
2014. Paris.
[11] Tester, J., et al., (2006): The Future of Geothermal Energy. MIT Energy Initiative
report, The Future of Geothermal Energy | MIT Energy Initiative (link last verified
on 3/22)
[12] S Heckeroth, Personal communication, Renewables.com, adapted from Christopher
Swan (1986): Sun Cell, Sierra Club Press, 2008.
[13] BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2007
[14] Oil, gas, coal, and global primary energy use: British Petroleum CompanyBP Sta-
tistical Review of World Energy Primary Energy: Consumption, June 2015, 2015
London.
[15] Number includes existing global stockpiles of U3O8 ore, Highly Enriched Uranium
(HEU), Low Enriched Uranium (LEU), Plutonium stockpiles, Identified Resources
(Reasonably Assured Recoverable + Inferred), Waste Resources (Stockpiles of Repro-
cessed Uranium, Depleted Uranium, Mill Tailings and Spent Nuclear Fuel), Undis-
covered Resources (Prognosticated resources, and speculative resources) and super
speculative resources including the assessed uranium resource in global marine and
organic phosphates. All stockpiles and resources are converted to their N.U. equiva-
lents available at a price point <=$450/kgU. For waste resources and resources with
a low concentration of U235, the costs of reprocessing or enriching are considered
as are the costs of downblending for already enriched resources like HEU and LEU.
More information available upon request. 2015
[16] Supply of Uranium in phosphates: International Atomic Energy AgencyAnalysis of
Uranium Supply to 2050, 2001 Vienna.
[17] Supply of Uranium in fission waste: Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separa-
tions and TransmutationCommission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources
(CGER), National Academy Press, 1996.
[18] L.J. Carter, T.H. Pigford, Supply of Uranium in global arms inventory, The world’s
growing inventory of civil spent fuel, Arms Control Today (1999) January/February.
[19] G.M. Mudd, M. Diesendorf, Sustainability of uranium Mining and Milling: Toward
Quantifying Resources and Eco-Efficiency, Environ. Sci. Technol. (2007) 2624–2630
2008.
[20] , in: Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S.
Army: Technical Report, Army Environmental Policy Institute, Atlanta, Georgia
1995, p. 200. + p.
[21] M. Ragheb, in Nuclear, Plasma and Radiation Science: Inventing the Future Ch. 10,
University of Illinois, Dept. of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, 2009.
[22] Supply of Uranium in Identified Resources (RAR + inferred): OECD Nuclear Energy
Agency, International Atomic Energy AgencyUranium 2014: Resources, Production
and Demand, 2014.
[23] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, (2009): United Nations Frame-
work Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009
(UNFC-2009)
[24] IEA global Energy Review 2021 https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review
-2021 (link verified on 3/22)
[25] British PetroleumStatistical Review of World Energy 2020, 69th edition, 2020 |bp
Statistical Review of World Energy 2020 (link verified 3/22).
[26] Statista, Primary Energy Consumption Worldwide from 2000 to 2020World primary
energy consumption 2020 |, Statista, 2021 link verified 3/22.
M. Perez and R. Perez
[27] KnoemaWorld - Total Primary Energy Consumption, 2020 https://knoema.com
/atlas/World/Primary-energy-consumption (link verified 3/22).
[28] PeakoilbarrelWorld Energy 2017-2050: Annual Report, 2017
https://peakoilbarrel.com/world-energy-2017-2050-annual-report/ (link veri-
fied 3/22).
[29] Energy Information Administration (2021): EIA projects nearly 50% increase
in world energy use by 2050, led by growth in renewables. https://www.
eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49876 (link verified 3/22)
[30] Peat (usgs.gov) link verified 3/22, 2022
[31] Lazard Bank (2021): Levelized Cost of Energy, Levelized Cost of Storage, and Lev-
elized Cost of Hydrogen Lazard.com | Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of
Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen (link verified 3/22)
[32] M. Perez, R. Perez, T. Hoff, Ultra-high photovoltaic penetration: where to deploy,
Sol. Energy 224 (2021) 1079–1098 2021ISSN 0038-092X.
[33] https://marcp.shinyapps.io/Where_PV_v1/(link verified 3/22)
[34] M. Perez, R. Perez, C.R. Ferguson, J. Schlemmer, Deploying effectively dis-
patchable PV on reservoirs: comparing floating PV to other renewable technolo-
gies, Sol. Energy 174 (2018) 837–847 2018ISSN 0038-092X(link verified 3/22),
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2018.08.088.
[35] C. Dupraz, H. Marrou, G. Talbot, L. Dufour, A. Nogier, Y. Ferard, Combining solar
photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land use: Towards new agrivoltaic
schemes, Renewable Energy 36 (10) (2011) 2725–2732 2011ISSN 0960-1481(link
verified 3/22), doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.03.005.
[36] T.A.Armstrong Hooper, B. Vlaswinkel, Environmental impacts and benefits of ma-
rine floating solar, Sol. Energy 219 (2021) 11–14 2021ISSN 0038-092X(link verified
3/22), doi:10.1016/j.solener.2020.10.010.
[37] UNECE, (2019): Specifications for the application of the United Nations Frame-
work Classification for Reserves (UNFC) to Solar Energy ECE/ENERGY 2019/15
(unece.org) link verified on 3/22.
[38] https://marcp.shinyapps.io/spheres2/ (link verified 3/22)
[39] UN FAOSustainable Food and Agriculture: Land use in agriculture by the numbers,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020.
[40] REN21Renewables 2021 Global Status Report, 2021 https://www.ren21.net
/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GSR2021_Full_Report.pdf (link verified 3/22).
[41] X. Lu, M.B. McElroy, J. Kiviluoma, in: Global Potential for Wind-Generated Electric-
ity Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
Harvard University, Cambridge MA, 2008.
[42] K. Eurek, P. Sullivan, M. Gleason, Dylan Hettinger, Donna Heimiller, Anthony Lopez,
An improved global wind resource estimate for integrated assessment mod-
els, Energy Econ. 64 (2017) 552–567 2017ISSN 0140-9883(link verified 3/22),
doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.015.
[43] J Freedman, Personal communication. ASRC, The University at Albany, 2021.
[44] Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, B. Hoen, D. Millstein, J. Rand, G. Barbose, N. Darghouth,
W. Gorman, S. Jeong, A. Mills, and B. Paulos, (2021): Land-Based Wind Market
Report: 2021 Edition. Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition (energy.gov)
(link verified 3/22)
Solar Energy Advances 2 (2022) 100014
[45] A. Aghahosseini, C. Breyer, From hot rock to useful energy: a global estimate of
enhanced geothermal systems potential, Appl. Energy 279 (2020).
[46] Environmental Protection AgencyGeothermal Heating and Cooling Technologies, US
EPA, 2022 |(link verified 3/22).
[47] J. Langer, J. Quist, K. Blok, Recent progress in the economics of ocean
thermal energy conversion: Critical review and research agenda, Renew. Sus-
tain. Energy Rev. 130 (2020) 109960 2020ISSN 1364-0321(link verified 3/22),
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.109960.
[48] K. Rajagopalan, G. Nihousa, An assessment of global Ocean Thermal Energy Conver-
sion resources under broad geographical constraints, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 5
(2013) Vol..
[49] Hydropower Status Report – Sector Trends and Insights, International Hy-
dropower Association (IHA), 2021 https://www.hydropower.org/publications/
2021-hydropower-status-report link verified 3/22.
[50] O.A. Hoes, L. Meijer, R. Van der Ent, N. Van de Giesen, Systematic high-resolution
assessment of global hydropower potential, PLoS One (2017).
[51] Meijer L.J.J., R.J. van der Ent, O. A. C. Hoes, H. Mondeel, K.E.R. Pramana & N.C.
van de Giesen, (2013): World Hydropower Capacity Evaluation. TU Delft Report.
https://docplayer.net/102767415-World-hydropower-capacity-evaluation.html
(link verified 3/22)
[52] G. Mauser, et al., Global biomass production potentials exceed expected future de-
mand without the need for cropland expansion, Nat. Commun. 6 (2015).
[53] IRENAGlobal Bioenergy: Supply and Demand Projections, 2014 https://www
.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2014/IRENA_REmap_2030_
Biomass_paper_2014.pdf (link verified 3/22).
[54] S. Neill, et al., Tidal range energy resource and optimization – Past perspectives and
future challenges, Renewable Energy 127 (2018) 763–778.
[55] Institut français de recherche pour l’exploitation de la mer (IFREMER)Personal Com-
munication, 2021.
[56] K Gunn, C. Stock-Williams, Quantifying the global wave power resource, Re-
newable Energy 44 (2012) 296–304 2012ISSN 0960-1481(link verified 3/22),
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.101.
[57] IRENAInnovation Outlook Ocean Energy Technologies, 2020 https://www.
irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Dec/IRENA_Innovatio
n_Outlook_Ocean_Energy_2020.pdf (link verified 3/22).
[58] T. Mai, P. Jadun, J. Logan, C. McMillan, M. Muratori, D. Steinberg, L. Vim-
merstedt, R. Jones, B. Haley, B. Nelson, Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios
of Electric Technology Adoption and Power Consumption for the United States,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2018 NREL/TP-6A20-71500
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71500.pdf (link verified 3/22).
[59] Nierop S. and S. Humperdinck (2018): International comparison of fossil power
efficiency and CO2 intensity - Update 2018. ECOFYS Report No. 205329.
https://guidehouse.com/-/media/www/site/downloads/energy/2018/intl-compa
rison-of-fossil-power-efficiency–co2-in.pdf (link verified 3/22)
[60] International Energy AgencyElectricity Information – Overview, 2021 https://
www.iea.org/reports/electricity-information-overview (link verified 3/22).