Mainstream media and green agenda advocates celebrate the spread of solar in developing countries as proof that fossil fuels can and should be abandoned, presenting it as both an environmental necessity and a path to prosperity. British officials urge investment in a “solar revolution across Africa,” citing projects that combine solar with mobile technology, while the World Economic Forum praises Pakistan’s “solar boom” as a lesson for others.
The reality is less glamorous. Roughly 1.3 billion people worldwide lack access to grid electricity. In countries where corrupt or dysfunctional governments cannot deliver reliable power, people turn to solar out of necessity, not climate concern. Off-grid solar is a survival tool, not a lifestyle choice.
What most households can afford is minimal: a small panel that, after charging all day, might power a single light bulb for a few hours at night or charge a phone. These systems cannot handle laptops, refrigerators, washing machines, or other appliances that define modern life in the West. They also fail with larger energy demands such as machinery, agricultural equipment, or water pumps, necessary machines for survival in these regions. As a result, people still rely on generators and fossil fuels to operate this type of machinery.
At night, a house may have only one bulb lit, giving off very limited light. As a result, families still rely on flashlights, candles, or kerosene lanterns to move around, forcing them to buy flashlights and batteries, lanterns and fuel, or else purchase additional solar panels just to recharge their flashlights during the day.
The so-called solar boom is not a green revolution. It is a desperate response to government failure, a stopgap solution that provides the bare minimum rather than a path to prosperity.
On paper, the solar numbers in the developing world look impressive. Developing countries now account for more than half of global solar capacity, compared with less than 10 percent a decade ago. In 2017, they even surpassed industrialized nations in renewable energy production, largely due to solar.
Across Africa, more than 1.5 million households now rely on solar home systems, a nearly 300 percent increase since 2015, supported by mobile-money financing. Kenya leads in installations per capita, with some 30,000 small panels sold annually. Bangladesh has rolled out over 5.2 million systems, bringing electricity to nearly 12 percent of its 160 million people. India added a record 9,255 megawatts of solar capacity in 2017, with another 9,600 megawatts under development.
While these numbers may look impressive, scaling solar to sustain modern living standards would be unimaginably expensive, requiring vast resources, land, and infrastructure. Worse, such a build-out could cause more environmental damage than the continued, use of fossil fuels.
The power requirements of modern appliances far exceed what small off-grid systems can deliver: hair dryers need 1,200–1,800 watts, central air conditioners 3,000–3,500 watts per hour, and one ton of cooling capacity requires about 1,200 watts of solar panels. To run a central AC unit efficiently would take around 3 kilowatts of output, roughly thirty 100-watt panels. Meanwhile, the average American home consumed 10,791 kWh of electricity in 2022, demanding about 25–30 panels per house.
In dense suburban neighborhoods, there simply isn’t enough roof space, while ground installations would consume vast tracts of land. Building solar farms on this scale would devastate the environment, casting shadows that kill crops and vegetation, requiring tree removal, and converting natural habitats into industrial solar sites.
Cities in northern latitudes or regions with heavy cloud cover would still face major energy shortfalls. On top of this, manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and replacing billions of panels would create more pollution than fossil-fuel generation ever did.
As an example of scalability, consider the land and infrastructure required. To power New York City with solar would take a system of about 40 gigawatts, covering roughly 200,000 acres, or 312 square miles, an area equal to five Districts of Columbia or 50,000 Walmart stores.
Other estimates put the requirement at 420 square kilometers (103,800 acres) just to meet the city’s 10.5 gigawatt demand. At the national level, powering the entire United States would require between 13.6 million and 22,000 square miles of solar farms, about half the size of Pennsylvania, or the size of Lake Michigan.
But solar panels alone are not enough. A zero-carbon grid with 94 percent renewables by 2050 would require 930 gigawatts of energy storage and 6 terawatt-hours of battery capacity. For context, the average U.S. household uses about 30 kWh per day, while a Tesla Powerwall stores only 14 kWh. Scaling battery storage to national demand would exceed current global production by orders of magnitude.
The environmental cost of manufacturing batteries is staggering. About 77 percent of the world’s lithium-ion batteries are made in China, where coal dominates the energy mix, doubling greenhouse gas emissions compared to cleaner production. Producing one tonne of lithium, enough for about 100 car batteries, consumes 2 million tonnes of water and emits nearly 15 tonnes of CO2. Roughly 40 percent of a battery’s carbon footprint comes from mining and refining nickel, manganese, cobalt, and lithium. To meet projected demand by 2035, some 384 new mines would be needed.
Mining also brings severe human and environmental costs. Cobalt, mostly sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo, is linked to dangerous conditions and human rights abuses. Lithium and rare earth extraction pollute rivers, poison farmland, and in some cases cause radioactive contamination. A Paris Agreement pathway would require lithium demand to grow more than 40-fold by 2040, while demand for cobalt, nickel, and graphite would rise 20–25 times.
In short, replacing developed-world energy consumption with solar would demand land areas comparable to entire states, battery storage on a scale the world cannot produce, and environmental destruction from mining on an unprecedented level.
Read the full article here