Human civilisation has always been powered by scarcity. From the firewood of prehistoric caves to the coal of the Industrial Revolution and the oil and gas of the modern age, energy has been a limiting factor shaping societies. Today, however, we stand at the dawn of an unprecedented transformation unlike any before in history.

A new report by technology forecasting think-tank RethinkX – where I was previously Director of Global Research Communications for two years – published in May 2025 has quietly overturned conventional assumptions about what the transition to renewable energy really means. Yet sadly, despite being rooted in extensive quantitative data, a rigorous empirical methodology and a proven theoretical framework based on the consistent pattern of technology disruptions in history, the report has barely registered in media, and is largely unknown in many energy and environment policy circles.

That’s why we are going to focus on exploring the groundbreaking implications of this important document.

The new RethinkX report Understanding Stellar Energy heralds an imminent transition from the age of scarcity to an era of superabundance. It paints a narrative of solar, wind, and battery (SWB) technologies igniting a “Stellar Energy” revolution - a self-sustaining system of virtually limitless clean energy, akin to a star burning continuously without fuel inputs (p. 5)

In this analysis, we will explore the core arguments of the report, delve into its detailed regional case studies, compare the coming flood of clean energy to today’s global fossil fuel energy use, and extrapolate the scale of a 2040 “Stellar Energy” world. Having understood the core basis of the RethinkX scenarios, we will then finally stress test their technical feasibility in terms of materials consumption.

What we’ll uncover is nothing short of stunning. With the optimal design, solar, wind and storage can be deployed in such a way that they create more energy than we produce today, not less – but in a way that is compatible with sustainable materials use. There’s no catch, but there is a wake-up call: this possibility will not be possible without fundamental structural and policy shifts involving a deep change in our approach to materials.

The SWB Superpower Paradigm: From Limits to Abundance

At the heart of Understanding Stellar Energy is the concept of SWB Superpower - the super-abundant electricity that an optimised solar/wind/battery grid can generate at near-zero marginal cost once it is built out. In traditional grids, any “excess” generation is seen as waste to be curtailed. RethinkX turns this logic on its head: surplus is not waste - it is the central feature of the new paradigm (p. 8). By deliberately super-sizing capacity to meet demand even in the worst-case weather periods, a Stellar Energy system ensures that at all other times it produces enormous excess electricity - the SWB Superpower - that can be put to productive use.

This flips a core assumption: instead of trying to minimise generation and curtail “overproduction”, a Stellar system maximises generation and finds uses for the surplus. As the report notes, building enough batteries for the toughest winter weeks “means a superabundance of clean electricity at all other times of the year”. Once a critical mass of solar, wind and storage is reached, the system effectively “ignites” - like a star - and produces self-sustaining energy output beyond the bare requirements.

SWB Superpower is thus both an engineering feat and an economic revelation. Solar, wind and battery costs have dropped so dramatically that the cheapest way to build a reliable 100% clean system is to over-build capacity, not constrain it. The marginal cost of sunshine and wind is zero; once you install enough panels, turbines and batteries to guarantee supply on the worst-weather day, every extra hour of sun or wind beyond that is free energy. RethinkX founders Tony Seba and James Arbib describe this tipping point as reaching “ignition” - the moment a Stellar Energy system begins producing “superabundant clean energy” for several decades up to half a century without further fuel inputs. It’s a new model defined by stockpiles of generation capacity instead of stockpiles of fuel.

Crucially, the report argues this superabundance can be achieved at roughly the same per-capita cost as our current energy system. In other words, societies can afford to deploy SWB infrastructure at scale such that energy ceases to be a limiting factor. For planners and policymakers, this demands a complete mindset shift. The old paradigm taught us to save energy and avoid idle capacity; the new one urges us to build more and use more constructively and productively to improve our societies - because unused clean energy is a lost opportunity, not a cost.

Understanding Stellar Energy introduces tools like the Clean Energy U-Curve and SWB Superpower Curve to determine the optimal point of maximum surplus for minimum cost, upending conventional cost-benefit analyses (p. 27-28). It also emphasises using that surplus to electrify everything - transport, heating, industry - and to power new ventures such as water desalination, hydrogen fuel production, and data centres, thereby maximising societal benefit.

In sum, the core vision is a systems-level inversion of our relationship with energy: from an extractive, deficit-based model to a generative, surplus-based model in which endless extraction can be halted. Energy becomes “superabundant… available and affordable to virtually everyone, virtually everywhere”, enabling an era of prosperity akin to a new paradigm - an Age of Transformation powered by Stellar Energy.

Mapping Clean Energy Superabundance: Regional Case Studies

The RethinkX report grounds its bold claims in detailed regional case studies spanning the globe. Using the Stellar Energy Explorer model at hourly resolution, the authors present two scenarios for each region in 2040: a Stellar Energy Prosperity scenario (per-capita energy availability equivalent to modern Germany) and a Stellar Energy Superabundance scenario (three times Germany’s per-capita energy) (p. 29-30). These scenarios illustrate an “aspirational range” - from a world where everyone enjoys at least developed-world levels of energy, to one where energy is triple-abundant.

The findings are nothing short of astonishing. Even the most conservative scenario implies a massive increase in energy use in every region, and the ambitious scenario shows an explosion of clean energy far beyond today’s norms (p. 30-31). Below, we examine these case studies in detail, focusing on each region’s potential for clean energy superabundance and the unique characteristics of their SWB systems.

Ethiopia - a country emblematic of today’s energy poverty - could utterly transform its energy supply. The report (p. 36-37) finds Ethiopia can generate 193-414 times more electricity under Stellar Energy scenarios than it does today. In practical terms, by 2040 Ethiopia’s solar-driven system would produce 2,087 TWh (Prosperity) to 4,398 TWh (Superabundance) of base load electricity, plus an extra 896-1,986 TWh of Superpower on top. This surplus alone dwarfs the country’s entire current output many times over.

Despite Ethiopia’s significant existing hydropower, solar PV dominates its future mix, with up to 3.65 TW of solar capacity projected. Thanks to abundant sun and complementary wind, only 32 hours of battery storage (relative to average demand) are needed to ensure round-the-clock supply. The SWB Superpower is available year-round, with a dip during the summer rainy season (reducing solar output) clearly visible - yet even then surplus energy flows.

Ethiopia’s case exemplifies how a low-income, low-consumption nation can leap directly to a clean energy superpower. In the Superabundance scenario, Ethiopians in 2040 would each have access to three times the energy per person of a German today, utterly eradicating energy poverty.

India, the world’s second most populous nation, could become a clean energy giant by 2040 (p. 66-67). RethinkX’s scenarios show India’s Stellar system generating roughly 18-34 times more electricity than today - an enormous absolute quantity given India’s size.

In the Superabundance case, India would produce about 66,698 TWh annually (41,695 TWh base + 25,003 TWh superpower). This is almost ten times total U.S. annual electricity generation, coming from within India alone. To achieve this, India deploys on the order of 40 TW of solar PV and 2 TW of wind by 2040.

Despite the subcontinent’s vast area and diverse climate, solar clearly takes the lead (wind is only 5% of capacity). Thanks to India’s relatively “steady solar availability all year” (apart from the monsoon months), the country needs only 17-18 hours of battery storage on average.

The report notes that India’s SWB Superpower amounts to about two-thirds of its base generation - a higher fraction than tropical Ghana or Brazil, but indicating a still efficient use of capacity. Seasonal patterns are apparent: India’s surplus is somewhat lower during the cloudy monsoon season, but still present, and higher in the dry seasons.

Indonesia, another heavily populated developing nation, similarly stands to unlock a torrent of clean power (p. 74-75). The RethinkX model finds Indonesia can generate 18-36× its current electricity output by 2040. In absolute terms, that is about 7,983 TWh base supply plus 4,722 TWh of superpower in the high scenario - together roughly 12,705 TWh/year.

What’s notable in Indonesia’s case is how efficiently this is achieved. With plentiful sunshine in equatorial Indonesia, solar dominates the mix (on the order of 8.9 TW of solar vs virtually negligible wind capacity). As a result, Indonesia’s SWB Superpower is about half of its base generation - a relatively low surplus fraction indicating an abundant yet well-matched system. Only 23 hours of storage are needed to ride through typical daily cycles and brief cloudy spells.

In effect, Indonesia’s situation resembles Ghana’s: near-continuous solar energy yields steady power with modest overbuild, and surplus energy (2.2-4.7 PWh) roughly equalling the usable portion. The constant year-round availability of SWB Superpower in Indonesia (with minimal seasonal variation) underscores a key theme: many equatorial and subtropical countries have the opportunity to become clean energy “superpowers” in the truest sense, enjoying per-capita energy far above today’s richest countries without facing the winter intermittency challenges of higher latitudes.

Mexico similarly jumps by 7-15× its current electricity generation (p. 77). In doing so, it relies on a mix of solar and wind (solar is larger, but wind contributes meaningfully, e.g. 381 GW wind vs 2,941 GW solar in the Superabundance build-out)

Mexico’s SWB Superpower is about two-thirds as much as its base power and storage needs are around 22-24 hours - again indicating a relatively forgiving balance of solar, wind, and demand. From 1,682 TWh up to 3,455 TWh of base supply (scenario dependent) plus additional superpower, Mexico can comfortably cover domestic needs (which in 2020 were only ~300 TWh) and create enormous excess.

Across the North Sea, the United Kingdom (p. 105-106) faces an even starker seasonal contrast - and RethinkX’s findings reflect that. The UK generates 8-14× its current electricity output, but must produce about one-third more superpower than base power to do so.

In the Superabundance case, the UK’s annual generation hits 4,040 TWh (1,804 TWh base + 2,236 TWh super). Here, wind plays a dominant role - U.K. deployments reach 800 GW of wind versus 606 GW of solar.

This tilt toward wind makes sense given Britain’s northerly latitude and cloudy winters; high wind output during winter nights compensates for lower solar generation. Yet even with optimal mix, the UK needs 70-82 hours of battery storage to bridge prolonged lulls - about 3 days’ worth of demand.

The report notes the UK is also “sizing to peak winter stress at high latitude”, hence the very large storage buffer and surplus. Impressively, despite this challenge, the UK can still more than supply its own needs and generate excess clean energy on an annual basis.

Denmark - noted in the report as an example requiring extreme storage - would need on the order of 97-114 hours of batteries if relying solely on domestic solar and wind (p. 118) RethinkX notes that Denmark could “realise significant savings with a modest amount of alternative coverage” to avoid such a huge storage build - in practice, Denmark’s strategy may involve its strong interconnections with neighbouring countries to import/export power. But even in the self-sufficient scenario, Denmark could produce 4-9× its current electricity and have plenty to spare.

Across the Atlantic, Canada (p. 40-41) - analysed with a focus on the Quebec region - also showcases the high-latitude story. Canada’s Stellar Energy system is projected to generate 3-4× today’s electricity. In achieving this, Canada would actually produce more SWB Superpower than base power (e.g. in one scenario 929 TWh super vs 802 TWh base).

Being so far north, Canada’s surplus is immense in summer and its storage requirement is large: about 41-46 hours on average. The report highlights a specific location, Quebec City, to illustrate how smaller-scale or more northern sub-regions compare. Quebec City on its own generates 5-7× more electricity than today, but due to its local climate it requires 75 hours of storage capacity - substantially more than Canada’s average.

One of the most challenging environments evaluated is Alaska (p. 120-121), representing extremely high latitudes with harsh winters. The report’s Alaska scenario shows a 9-11× increase in generation, but with superpower far exceeding base power in each scenario (e.g. 43 TWh super on 17 TWh base in one case).

This is because Alaska’s winter is so sunless that the system is sized mostly around scant winter sun and wind, leading to enormous excess in summer. Indeed, the battery storage required is on the order of 196-233 hours (8-9 days) to maintain supply through Alaska’s long dark stretches.

Impressively, even Alaska’s remote communities can be served. The report examines Kotzebue, a small Arctic town, and finds it could generate 19-24× its current electricity by 2040.

Even in an Arctic village, clean SWB Superpower is “consistently available… year-round” despite the long winter, because the system is engineered with sufficient wind, some solar, and ample storage to get through the winter stress period. The economic cost for these extreme cases is higher (Alaska’s build-out equates to $3,700-5,000 per person per year over 20 years), but the key takeaway is viability: there are no geographic showstoppers - and a great deal of economic clout to gain from becoming one of the largest producers of superpower in the world.

Unprecedented Regional Potential

To put these regional findings in perspective: all regions, from equatorial to polar, can achieve profound increases in clean energy generation by 2040 in the Stellar Energy scenarios. Developing nations see the largest multipliers (often tens or hundreds of times current output), reflecting both their low baseline and the report’s principle that they should be brought to high energy prosperity (p. 29). Developed nations see smaller multiples but still substantial absolute growth, as they electrify and expand energy use beyond today’s levels.

Tropical countries (e.g. Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Brazil) achieve high output with relatively low storage and surplus fractions, leveraging steady solar (and sometimes wind) to keep batteries under 1 day of capacity. Their multiples of current generation are eye-popping, underscoring how underserved these nations are at present - but by 2040 they can leverage clean energy to surge to prosperity and leapfrog traditional development trajectories.

In contrast, higher-latitude countries (UK, Canada, Sweden) require days of storage and end up with superpower on the order of their base generation or more, due to the need to meet winter peaks. They still reach far greater total generation than today (Germany nearly 5 PWh/year; UK 4 PWh, etc.), but their systems must handle deeper intermittency. Wind power plays a much bigger role in these climates (50% or more of capacity in the UK, Sweden, etc.), whereas near the equator wind is often a footnote (solar does the heavy lifting).

Importantly, every region studied hits the report’s target of at least German-equivalent per-capita energy, and most go well beyond. The data also puts to rest the myth that 100% renewable systems can’t provide reliable power: all scenarios meet 100% of demand with SWB, and in fact every case study produces surplus on top of that. This reinforces the authors’ point that curtailment is not a problem to be eliminated but a feature to be optimised.

The surplus energy (SWB Superpower) becomes the driver of new economic possibilities - whether it’s for exporting clean electricity to neighbours, powering new industries (green hydrogen, vertical farming, AI computing), or providing strategic reserves of energy.

A Stellar Energy World vs. Today’s Fossil Fuel Regime

One of the most striking insights from the RethinkX report is how the scale of this clean energy system compares to today’s global energy consumption. The world currently consumes roughly 600 EJ of primary energy per year (around 170,000 TWh), mostly from fossil fuels. This figure includes the inherent losses in fossil fuel energy conversion (for example, two-thirds of the energy in coal or gas is lost as heat when generating electricity). In terms of useful electrical and mechanical energy, humanity’s output today is much smaller (global electricity generation is on the order of 27,000 TWh). Even so, let’s use the primary energy number (170,000 TWh) as a benchmark for the broadest comparison. Would a 100% solar-wind-battery world in 2040 produce more or less energy than the fossil-fuelled world of the early 2020s?

The case study data indicates the answer is: far more. To make an empirical estimate, consider that the 18 regional cases we discussed represent about half of the world’s population (roughly 4.2 billion people). Summing their Superabundance scenario outputs gives on the order of 180,000 TWh/year of clean electricity generated. Extrapolate that to the full world population in 2040 (perhaps 9 billion), and the total annual generation approaches 350,000-400,000 TWh. This is 2-3 times the total primary energy used today.

In other words, a fully realised Stellar Energy global system by 2040 would not only replace the 170,000 TWh of fossil fuel energy we now consume, but would surpass it by a wide margin. It represents a larger energy foundation for civilisation - one built on clean, perpetual sources.

Breaking it down further: just China and India alone are projected to produce on the order of 60,000-67,000 TWh each in the 2040 Superabundance case. Combined, that’s 127,000 TWh - already nearly 75% of today’s global primary energy. Add the U.S., EU, and other regions (not explicitly modelled in this report, but likely similar in scale to the large case studies), and the total easily eclipses current consumption.

The composition of end-use would also be different: in a Stellar scenario virtually all energy is in the form of electricity (or electricity-derived fuels like hydrogen), which is a high-quality, efficient form of energy. This means humanity’s useful energy supply in 2040 would be many times higher than today’s, because much less is wasted as heat. RethinkX’s scenarios inherently include electrifying transport, heating, and industry - so 350,000 TWh of clean electricity replaces a much larger quantity of fossil fuel primary energy.

The era of burning things for energy, with all its inefficiencies and externalities, gives way to an era of capturing flows of sunlight and wind at massive scale.

Toward an Age of Abundance

The narrative that emerges from Understanding Stellar Energy is one of genuine civilisational shift. Energy superabundance on a planetary scale would upend many of the assumptions underpinning our economic, geopolitical, and environmental systems. For one, the fear of resource limits - so long a driver of conflict and zero-sum thinking - could give way to a new ethos of abundance and possibility. When any country can access abundant clean energy, the playing field levels out: no nation needs to rely on oil or gas imports, and the leverage of petrostates diminishes. Instead, nations might compete or collaborate in terms of who can most innovatively utilise their excess energy - for example, to produce green steel, fuel synthetic food production, or power carbon removal.

RethinkX explicitly connects SWB Superpower to the enabling of other transformations: electrified transportation, a new food production system (e.g. precision fermentation), water desalination, advanced AI and robotics - all these become far more feasible in a world of essentially free surplus electricity. The report thus frames Stellar Energy as a keystone for solving not just climate change, but a host of social and economic challenges.

Of course, realising this future is not automatic. Many policymakers and economists still presume that developing countries can only grow their energy slowly. RethinkX turns that on its head: to solve climate change and raise prosperity, we should maximise clean energy deployment as fast as possible.

The authors stress urgency - every year of delay in building SWB is a lost opportunity to “safeguard against catastrophe in all its forms - social, economic, geopolitical, environmental” (p. 8) The scenarios in the report are ambitious but grounded in real-world trends (solar, wind, and battery costs have been dropping exponentially, and installations are accelerating worldwide). If anything, one might argue the 2040 timelines are achievable earlier for many regions given the right policies.

One critical consideration is coordination and planning. The report’s case studies show that even extreme scenarios are technically and economically viable. Yet, implementing a Stellar Energy system will require overcoming institutional inertia and vested interests in the fossil-fuel status quo. The barrier is less technological than it is political and psychological. We must embrace systems thinking.

This includes updating market structures (today’s markets, for instance, don’t know how to value free surplus energy) and investing in grid infrastructure to handle the flood of clean power. It may also involve retraining workforces and reorganising industries - for example, fossil fuel companies may decline as “the Great Stranding of Assets” unfolds and trillions in oil/gas assets become obsolete.

Yet the prize is extraordinary. By 2040, we have the potential for a global energy system that delivers 2-3× the useful energy of today with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. This can unlock an Age of Abundance: imagine African nations exporting sunshine as clean electrons or hydrogen, rural villages running electric micro-factories off of local solar superpower, cities with vertical farms lit by surplus power, and innovators leveraging essentially free energy to drive new innovations which don’t harm the earth. It is a future where energy becomes a tool for thriving, not a bottleneck.

In the end, Understanding Stellar Energy challenges us to rethink what is possible. It provides empirical evidence - location by location - that a world of energy superabundance is within reach if we have the will to build it. But there remains a key question. Do we have enough materials to create this new world?

The Materials Challenge - and the Design Choices That Will Make or Break an Age of Abundance

Even if sunlight and wind are clean and renewable, the machines that capture them are not. Every panel, turbine, cable, and battery is made from metals and minerals mined from the Earth, refined, and manufactured into infrastructure. Each stage demands capital, time, and energy - and each is subject to constraints.

What’s significant and distinctive about the RethinkX design is its shift in the materials burden compared to most clean energy scenarios:

• Less battery storage than most mainstream models, because overbuilding generation cuts the hours of backup needed.
• More PV and wind capacity than in conventional net-zero plans, because the surplus is a feature, not waste.

That combination changes which materials come under pressure. In this build-out, copper and silver rise to the top of the risk list - while lithium and graphite, the headline worries in battery-heavy scenarios, are far more manageable if we diversify storage chemistry.

We put these scenarios through a critical minerals stress test - drawing on the latest USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries, IEA’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook, and industry technology roadmaps. We’ll quantify the copper, silver, lithium, graphite, rare earth, and bulk-material needs implied by both a Moderate (170,000 TWh/year) and a Super (300,000 TWh/year) 2040 Stellar Energy world, compare them to reserves and production rates, and identify where the geology is fine but the engineering, market design, and policy are not.

From there, we’ll set out design levers that governments, grid operators, and manufacturers can pull now - from replacing copper with aluminum in the right applications, to switching PV cells from silver paste to copper plating, to capping Li-ion’s share of stationary storage.

Because if the Stellar Energy vision is to move from modelling to reality, it’s not enough to have the sun and wind on our side. We have to retool the global materials economy - consciously, strategically, and fast.

The Materials Stress Test

To stress-test the RethinkX vision, we explore two global cases for 2040:

• Moderate Stellar Energy World - 170,000 TWh/year clean electricity (today’s global primary energy converted to electricity).
• Superabundance Stellar Energy World - 300,000 TWh/year clean electricity (RethinkX’s more ambitious case).

Design constants:

• 70% solar PV, 30% wind by generation share (reflecting RethinkX’s high-PV bias in the tropics and subtropics).
• PV capacity factor: 22%; wind CF: 35%.
• Average storage: 24 hours of average demand (much less than in mainstream net-zero scenarios, which often assume 48-120 hours).

Installed Capacity Requirements

For context, in early 2025 the world had 2 TW of PV, 1 TW of wind, and <1 TWh of grid-scale battery storage. Scaling to Stellar Energy levels means multiplying today’s PV fleet by 30-50×, wind by 15-30×, and storage by 500-800×.

Copper: The primary bottleneck

Material intensity assumptions:

• PV systems: 3 t/MW copper (modules, inverters, cabling, transformers).
• Wind turbines: weighted 4.5 t/MW copper (assuming 70% onshore, 30% offshore).

Totals for generation alone:

• Moderate: PV ≈ 185 Mt + wind ≈ 74 Mt → 259 Mt copper.
• Super: PV ≈ 327 Mt + wind ≈ 130 Mt → 457 Mt copper.

USGS 2025 puts global copper reserves at 880 Mt, but annual mine output is only 22 Mt. Even with aggressive recycling and substitution, the rate of copper supply expansion needed for these scenarios is fairly unprecedented. Without proactive substitution - especially in conductors - copper is the most stressed mineral in the Stellar Energy build.

Silver: The potential show-stopper

PV metallization intensity today: 10-15 mg/W in crystalline silicon.

Silver demand at current intensity:

• Moderate: 61.7 TW × 10 mg/W → 0.62 Mt silver.
• Super: 109 TW × 10 mg/W → 1.09 Mt silver.

USGS 2025 estimates global silver reserves at 530,000 t. At current intensity, PV alone would consume the majority of all reserves - unsustainable.

The ITRPV 2024 roadmap targets ≤5 mg/W this decade and 1-2 mg/W in the 2030s via Ni/Cu plated metallization and silver-coated copper pastes. At 2 mg/W:

• Moderate: 124,000 t silver.
• Super: 218,000 t silver.

This is within reserves and allows silver use in other sectors - if the industry hits its thrifting targets.

Lithium & Graphite: Manageable if diversified

USGS 2025 puts lithium reserves at 26 Mt, resources over 100 Mt.

If only 10% of stationary storage is Li-ion (LFP) at 0.12 kg Li/kWh:

• Moderate: 5.6 Mt lithium; graphite 51 Mt.
• Super: 9.9 Mt lithium; graphite 90 Mt.

These are within reserves if non-lithium chemistries dominate long-duration storage:

• Pumped hydro
• Sodium-ion
• Iron-air
• Flow batteries

Rare Earth Elements: A processing challenge, not a geological one

Assume 40% of wind capacity is direct-drive using 200 kg NdFeB/MW magnets:

• Moderate: 1.3 Mt NdFeB magnets.
• Super: 2.2 Mt NdFeB magnets.

This is a small fraction of global rare earth element reserves (120 Mt REO). The bottleneck is refining capacity and environmental standards, concentrated in a few countries.

Bulk materials

Silicon, glass, steel, and aluminum are geologically abundant and do not pose any material constraints at all. This is great news given that these will supply the bulk of materials to sustain the super-sized generation capacity. While the early stage of this buildout will be carbon-intensive (though far less so than simply relying on fossil fuels), as the transition unfolds greater opportunities to decarbonising these industries - via green steel, inert-anode aluminum smelting, and renewable-powered polysilicon refining – will be essential to mobilise.

How to build Stellar Energy without hitting the supply wall

The material stress test reveals a crucial truth: the constraints we face are not geological in the sense of absolute scarcity, but design-induced. How we choose to build the Stellar Energy system will determine whether we collide with supply bottlenecks or glide past them.

The clearest example is copper. In the RethinkX scenario, copper emerges as the single most stressed transition mineral - not because the planet lacks it, but because the conventional design of electrical networks uses it by default in every conductor. Yet for much of the grid, copper can be replaced with aluminum conductors that already meet IEC and IEEE standards. In fact, aluminum is already the norm for most overhead high-voltage transmission, and HVDC backbones using aluminum conductors are commercially deployed by major manufacturers such as Prysmian and NKT. The technology is not the barrier - it’s habit and specification inertia. If grid operators and project developers were required to treat aluminum as the default, reserving copper only for space- or heat-constrained applications, the total copper load of the Stellar Energy build could be cut dramatically. For long interregional corridors, shifting to aluminum HVDC could halve copper use per gigawatt-kilometre while accelerating the physical rollout.

Silver presents a sharper, more immediate pinch. At today’s metallization rates in crystalline silicon PV - around 10-15 milligrams per watt - a RethinkX-scale solar build would consume a large fraction of global silver reserves. The good news is that the ITRPV roadmap already points to a way out: aggressive silver thrifting down to ≤5 mg/W this decade and ~1-2 mg/W in the 2030s, enabled by Ni/Cu plated metallization and silver-coated copper pastes. This is not a theoretical promise - Fraunhofer ISE and others have demonstrated industrial-format copper-plated TOPCon cells that meet IEC reliability standards and match or outperform silver-based designs. The obstacle is not technology readiness but procurement discipline. If governments and major buyers specify silver-intensity caps in tenders, and explicitly accept copper-metallized modules that pass IEC 61215/61730 testing, silver ceases to be a bottleneck.

Storage chemistry is another lever. RethinkX’s design already minimises the total storage hours required, but even so, hundreds of terawatt-hours globally is a vast market. If lithium-ion were to dominate stationary applications, it would place sustained pressure on lithium and graphite supply chains. But there is no need for lithium to carry that load. Li-ion excels at high-power, short-duration applications; the bulk of long-duration storage can be met with pumped hydro, iron-air, sodium-ion, and flow batteries. These chemistries rely on far more abundant inputs, and several are now crossing from demonstration into commercial deployment. Capping lithium-ion’s share of stationary energy capacity at 5-10% would keep lithium and graphite comfortably within resource limits and create space for these alternatives to mature.

Even the so-called bulk materials - silicon, glass, steel, aluminum - can be addressed through design. They are abundant geologically. Here the solution is not substitution but process transformation: green steelmaking using electric arc furnances, inert-anode aluminum smelting powered by renewables, and renewable-powered polysilicon refining.

The thread that runs through all of these is that materials feasibility is not fixed in the ground - it is created, or destroyed, in the drawing office and the procurement contract. Choosing aluminum over copper in networks, mandating low-silver PV with copper metallization, diversifying storage chemistries, and decarbonising bulk material production are not marginal tweaks. They are design decisions that determine whether the RethinkX scenario is physically buildable at speed, or whether it stalls under its own material weight.

Embedding resource efficiency in the DNA of the Stellar Energy build

The levers for making a Stellar Energy system materially feasible are clear. But unless they are embedded into the rules, standards, and market signals that govern the energy transition, they will remain optional add-ons - vulnerable to cost-cutting in procurement and the inertia of ‘business as usual.’

The first and most urgent step is to hardwire substitution into procurement policy. Every public tender for transmission lines, distribution networks, and renewable generation projects should treat aluminum as the default conductor material, using copper only where technical necessity - not habit - dictates. This is already possible under existing IEC and IEEE standards. In HVDC corridors, aluminum conductors can halve copper demand per kilometre while delivering the same power. The same principle applies at smaller scales: medium-voltage feeders, PV array cabling, and even transformer windings can all use aluminum without sacrificing performance. Where procurement frameworks make this the norm, the copper bottleneck largely dissolves.

Silver requires an even more deliberate intervention. The PV industry is already on a trajectory to slash silver use through Ni/Cu plating and other innovations, but the pace and consistency of adoption depend on buyer pressure. Governments and large utilities have the power to set silver-intensity caps in all module tenders - for example, ≤5 mg/W today with a clear glidepath to ≤2 mg/W before 2030 - and to require that copper-metallized products meeting IEC 61215 and IEC 61730 reliability standards are accepted as compliant. This one policy shift would turn silver thrift from a nice-to-have into a default manufacturing norm.

For storage, regulation and market design must actively diversify chemistries. In capacity markets, grid codes, and storage procurement contracts, lithium-ion should be capped at a fraction of total stationary energy capacity. Long-duration roles can be opened to pumped hydro, sodium-ion, iron-air, and flow batteries, with incentives for domestic manufacturing and demonstration-to-commercial scale-up. This both protects lithium supply for its most efficient uses and accelerates the maturity of alternative technologies, some of which are already beginning to scale.

Finally, the industrial strategy must treat circularity and low-carbon processing as core infrastructure. That means mandating PV take-back schemes with high recovery rates for copper, aluminum, and silver; requiring magnet recovery from wind turbines; and co-locating renewable generation manufacturing with green steel and low-carbon aluminum production hubs. The first generation of Stellar Energy assets should not become a waste stream - it should become the feedstock for the second generation.

In the fossil-fuel era, nations competed for access to finite reserves of coal, oil, and gas. In the Stellar Energy era, the competitive edge will belong to those who can mobilise metals and minerals most efficiently, recycle them most effectively, and align material flows with an abundance-based energy logic. This is not just supply chain management - it is the creation of a new civilisational metabolism.

Designing the Civilisational Metabolism of an Age of Abundance

The transformation envisioned by RethinkX is not a distant utopia. The technologies - solar PV, wind turbines, advanced storage chemistries - are here now, scaling faster than most institutions can process. Manufacturing capacity for PV modules is already in the terawatt-per-year range. Offshore wind is proliferating. Non-lithium long-duration storage solutions are crossing from pilot to commercial deployment. The material foundations of the Stellar Energy system are within reach.

As Tony Seba and colleagues put it, we are in a “race to the stars” - not the stars in the sky, but the Stellar Energy systems here on Earth that can power a new era. The coming decades will determine how fast we run that race. If the RethinkX analysis is correct, those who embrace the SWB superpower paradigm earliest will reap immense benefits, and those who cling to the logic of scarcity will be left behind. The age of burning finite fuels is ending; the age of harnessing limitless clean energy is dawning. The choice before us is to recognise the sun, wind, and storage for what they are - not just alternatives, but the foundation of a new civilisation - and to act accordingly, with all the urgency that our shared future demands.

But the analysis here makes one thing clear: abundance will not emerge automatically from technology cost curves and deployment rates. Without conscious design, a paradigm shift in our thinking, and serious commitment to operating within planetary boundaries - within what Oxford economist Kate Raworth has dubbed “the doughnut” - we risk building the new energy system with the habits and inefficiencies of the old. That would be deeply dangerous. We would lock in high copper dependency, unsustainable silver consumption, narrow storage chemistries, and carbon-intensive metals processing. In that future, bottlenecks, price spikes, and geopolitical friction would be inevitable. And the surplus energy we do manage to produce might be exploited to power evermore destructive ways of exploiting the earth.

The alternative is to see the Stellar Energy build-out for what it truly is: the construction of a new civilisational metabolism. This metabolism is not measured only in terawatts of generation or terawatt-hours of storage, but in how it cycles materials through mining, manufacturing, use, and reuse. It is defined by its ability to regenerate its own physical base without exhausting it - to turn every end-of-life panel, turbine, or battery into a resource for the next generation.

That demands embedding the technological design levers we have identified - aluminum-first conductors, copper-metallized PV, chemistry-diverse storage, and circular, low-carbon metals production - into the DNA of the transition. It demands procurement rules, market structures, and industrial policy that make the most resource-efficient choice the easiest and cheapest choice. It demands aligning engineering standards, environmental regulation, and finance so that the physical build-out and the material flows reinforce each other rather than collide.

The geology is generous enough to get us there. The economics are already tilting in our favour. What remains is the governance challenge: to act with the same urgency and strategic clarity on materials as has been demanded on emissions.

If we succeed, the clean energy transformation will be more than an engineering triumph. It will be the cornerstone of a post-scarcity, post-carbon civilisation - a system built not on the logic of extraction, but on the logic of abundance. A civilisation in which superabundant clean power is the foundation for regenerating ecosystems, revitalising economies, and redistributing opportunity on a planetary scale.

The tools are in our hands. The question is whether we will use them in time.