I appreciate your comment, thanks for posting.

If you are really honestly looking for the solution, you will see my point about the thermodynamics.

If the energy at source is mathemetically positive, then we can lose 80 or even 95 percent, still our energy use is positive, creating, rather than destroying.

It is mathematically in the opposite direction of work done by consumption of materials or energy of Earth.

5% creating, even if it was this low, is still creating, as opposed to destroying.

If we could somehow use extracted energy at 99.9999%, still it would be destroying, because it is mathematically negative.

This affects everything. The energy being mathematicaly positive at source, is far more important than efficiency gains we might achieve.

Efficiency is actually only meaningful in a negative energy environment. We need to maximise efficiency to minimise the rate at which we are depleting whatever finite source we might be making profit from.

But if the energy is from an infinite donated source, as it is from the sun, then we don['t care how much we waste, other than how it might affect the amount of collection hardwared needed, of course we need more, to compansate for poorer efficiency.

But the net effect of using positive energy, at any efficiency, is positive, creating, rather than destroying.

This is all we should be worried about, it seems to me, since we know that with infinite energy we also have infinite funds, in the end, it does not matter how much extra infrastructure is needed, to collect the solar energy needed for all, due to lack of efficiency, it is more than made up for, just by the fact it is positive, contributing to Earth, rather than subtracting from it.