Questions are arising about whether the UK can afford to prioritize cheap solar imports without compromising its values or energy sovereignty as it ramps up its solar rollout in pursuit of net zero emissions. Critics are concerned about the country’s heavy reliance on China, the largest solar panel producer in the world.
The British government has made solar energy a central component of its strategy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. However, the lack of significant solar manufacturing in the UK means that the majority of solar equipment will need to be imported, mainly from China. This reliance on Chinese imports has raised ethical concerns due to the country’s use of forced labor and coal-based production methods.
While solar panels themselves do not emit greenhouse gases during operation, their manufacturing process is energy-intensive and relies heavily on fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency reports that a significant portion of the energy used in solar panel production comes from coal, particularly in regions like Xinjiang and Jiangsu in China, where coal is the primary source of energy.
Critics argue that the UK’s solar plans overlook the ethical implications of sourcing panels from regions implicated in human rights abuses, such as Xinjiang. Calls have been made to ban imports of silica-based products from Xinjiang to ensure ethical supply chains for green energy in the UK.
The UK’s reliance on imported solar panels has also prompted concerns about energy security and sovereignty. Building a domestic solar manufacturing industry would require substantial government intervention, but as of now, the UK has limited options besides importing solar equipment.
While countries like the United States and India are moving towards onshoring more of their solar supply chains, the UK has yet to make a similar commitment. The IEA recommends that governments consider the benefits of local manufacturing, such as job creation and energy security, even if it comes at a higher cost compared to imports.
Image Credit: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images
Debunking the Energy Benefits of Solar Panels
Solar panels are often touted as a “clean” energy source, with the National Grid stating that the carbon payback period for solar panels is typically one to four years, while their lifespan exceeds 25 years.
“Over the course of a solar panel’s typical 30-year lifespan, it will produce carbon-neutral and pollution-free electricity for decades after offsetting any carbon emissions from its production,” according to the National Grid.
However, a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on solar and wind supply chains revealed that the carbon footprint of solar panel production has been underestimated due to manufacturing being concentrated in regions with high coal usage.
The report also highlighted supply-demand imbalances, with some segments experiencing global manufacturing capacity exceeding demand by 100%, resulting in price crashes, market instability, and significant financial losses for manufacturers.
Solar panels can generate energy from sunlight, not necessarily direct sunlight, as long as there is sufficient daylight. The efficiency of solar panels in generating electricity depends on various factors such as the amount of sunlight, quality, size, number, and placement of panels.
However, without adequate battery storage or grid upgrades, surplus electricity often goes unused, leading to curtailment issues. The IEA has reported that curtailment levels are reaching 10% in multiple countries, indicating a need for rapid infrastructure investment to address this challenge.
