The Economist, one of the most credible and influential weekly magazines worldwide, published a “Dawn of the Solar Age “cover story on June 24th.

As an avid reader, I read both the cover story and the essay “Sun Machines.”

On reflection, I realized that the cover story misses some important facts for some inexplicable reason. In its cover story, The Economist behaves like an infatuated Pip in blind love for Estella, unable to see the hard reality.

I want to give two clarifications.

Great Expectations 1

From the cover story, I quote, “Solar cells will in all likelihood be the single biggest source of electrical power on the planet by the mid-2030s. By the 2040s they may be the largest source not just of electricity but of all energy. On current trends, the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today”.

From the Essay, I quote, “In an IEA scenario which provides net-zero carbon-dioxide emissions by the middle of the century, solar energy becomes humankind’s largest source of primary energy—not just electricity—by the 2040s”.

This is misguided; let me give the facts.

The IEA, in its 2023 Global Energy Outlook, has three scenarios.

1      Stated Policies Scenario. Total Electricity generated 2040 –  45,418 TWH,      Solar PV 11,961 TWH

2      Announced Pledge Scenario. Total Electricity generated 2040- 51,710 TWH, Solar PV 16296 TWH

3        Net Zero Emissions Scenario. Total Electricity generated 2040 – 59,111 TWH, Solar PV 22,241 TWH.

The IEA also gives the following figures for 2040 for Total Energy Supplied and share of Renewables and Solar.

1               Stated Policies   Total Energy 692 EJ, Renewables 178 EJ, Solar 49 EJ

2               Net Zero             Total Energy 528 EJ, Renewables 306 EJ, Solar 97 EJ

Another credible source, BP Energy Outlook 2023, has three scenarios, and I give their forecast for 2040 for Renewable share in Primary Energy below.

1               Accelerated Scenario   Total Primary Energy 450 EJ    Renewables 40%

2               Net Zero Scenario        Total Primary Energy 390 EJ    Renewables 50%

3               New Momentum           Total Primary Energy 530 EJ    Renewables 27%

The figures above make clear that The Economist’s projections on Solar Energy for 2040 do not consider all scenarios.

Now, I come to the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE).

The quantity of Solar energy generated depends on the latitude of the Solar plant installed and the weather. Electricity is therefore generated in peaks and troughs. Generally, electricity from solar power is cheaper than fossil fuel-based electricity if the location and cost of land are favourable. Since electricity is required all day, the shortfall has to be met by fossil fuel-based electricity or Power storage batteries installed in Solar plants. At today’s prices, the LCOE of coal-based power plants and Solar Plants with Power storage batteries is nearly equivalent. Moreover, most coal-based power plants have been written down, while Solar plants need new investment. Therefore, it makes economic sense to flog or retrofit them for another two decades.

Lastly, the Fossil fuel industry, comprising Coal, Bio Mass, Oil, and Gas, is worth trillions of dollars and provides employment to hundreds of millions of people across the globe. Even by 2050, these plants will not be uprooted and replaced by Solar energy.

A Terawatt-Hour (TWH) is a unit of energy equal to one trillion watt-hours or one billion kilowatt-hours. It’s commonly used to measure large amounts of electrical energy production or consumption, typically on a national or global scale.

To break it down: 1 terawatt = 1,000 gigawatts = 1,000,000 megawatts = 1,000,000,000 kilowatts.

So, 1 Terawatt-Hour represents the energy consumed if 1 terawatt of power is used continuously for one hour. 1 kilowatt hour is commonly defined as one unit of electricity and is the energy consumed while watching a 50-inch LED TV for about 6-7 hours.

One Exajoule is equivalent to 10 raised to the power of 18 joules, also known as a quintillion. To put this amount in perspective, one Exajoule equals 23,000 nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima. One joule equals 1 watt multiplied by the number of seconds of energy used.

Great Expectations 2

Truth : The USA and Europe are creating hurdles for expedient solarization of the world!

The Global warming crisis due to high levels of CO2 and other GHGs has been a contribution of the West. Solar energy-based electricity, Lithium and other storage technologies, derivative Hydrogen and EVs are some ways to solve this mess. Over the past few decades, the USA and Europe have been laggards in producing these high-technology goods at reasonable prices and continue to subsidize and protect their inefficient companies and manpower. Through its Inflation Reduction Act 2022, the USA will provide funds up to $430-$450 billion to subsidize Climate change, energy security initiatives, and other reforms.

China has demonstrated that in Solar Silicon, Solar Panels, Inverters, lithium-based Storage, and EVs, it has totally beaten the rest of the world in terms of leading-edge technology and price competitiveness. The West complains that the Chinese Government must have subsidized these industries. So what? If China wants to subsidize green energy worldwide, they are welcome!

China controls 80 % of the Solar silicon, panels, LIB Storage, and EV ecosystem.

The question is, what is more important: Saving the Planet or Saving Western decadent lifestyles and uncompetitive Solar and EV Industry?

The USA and Western Europe consider China to be an enemy. The Economist says, and I quote, “The fact that a vital industry resides in a single hostile country is worrying.”

In the past, we have seen how, like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, the USA, and Western Europe have charged at fictitious enemies after creating false narratives. The Allies attacked Iraq on the issue of Weapons of Mass destruction in 2003, ruining Iraq forever. No WMDs have been found. The long occupation of Afghanistan for more than 18 years with no favorable outcome is another example. As recently as late 2023, the US and its allies have sent their aircraft carriers and naval fleets to support Israel in the genocide of the Palestinian people.

We all know that China is a difficult country. It is trying hard to show its clout in the world. However, it is also true that it has yet to invade any country in this century except for a brief skirmish with India. Since The Economist is based out of the UK, the only hostile act I know of between the UK and China was the “Opium Wars” in (1839-1842 and 1856-1860), initiated by Britain to sell opium and ultimately led to the dissolution of the Qing dynasty and defeat of China.

As an act of War, the USA has imposed tariffs of 50% on PV Cells, 25 % on Lithium batteries, and 100% on EVs imported from China. Following suit, Europe has imposed tariffs of 48.6% on Chinese Solar panels, 33% on Lithium batteries, and 38% on EVs imported from China. Consequently, the cost of Solar energy and its use in EVs shall not grow exponentially. The USA and Western Europe rely heavily on natural gas for power production and fossil fuel-based automobiles. Will they keep belching GHGs in the environment for years until their solar and EV industries become competitive?

Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize-winning economist and godfather of Capitalism in the West, supported importing cheap Japanese cars to the USA in the last century. He argued that free trade led to:

1               Consumer benefit: American consumers benefited from access to cheaper, high-quality Japanese cars.

2               Economic efficiency: Importing cheaper foreign goods leads to more efficient allocation of resources.

3               Competition and innovation: Competition from Japanese imports would force American automakers to become more efficient and innovative.

4               Against protectionism: He opposed trade barriers or tariffs to protect domestic industries, viewing them as ultimately harmful to the economy.

5               Job displacement: While acknowledging short-term job losses in the American auto industry, Friedman argued that resources would be reallocated to more productive uses in the long run.

In the case of China, the West has chosen to abandon Milton Friedman’s economics, which it has sworn by.

The USA and Western Europe should eat humble pie, import Chinese Solar energy equipment and EVs, and help reduce GHG emissions. Otherwise, they will push humanity into an abyss from which it will be nearly impossible to recover. The Economist should consider the two points above to give a fair view on the subject.

If you liked this Article, please subscribe free to recieve the same on your email by subscribing on www.techcrisp.org