You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
China is installing a jaw-dropping amount of solar panels, but growth in electricity generation from solar is barely increasing. Meanwhile prices are remarkably volatile. What gives?

China’s solar revolution is immense — quite literally world-changing — but that doesn’t mean everything is running smoothly.
Last year China installed a record-breaking amount of solar – 87.4 GW – but that number came amidst zero COVID lockdowns and economic turmoil. This year, things are off to a blazing start, with over 48 GW already installed through April and BloombergNEF projections exceeding 154 GW for 2023. For comparison, total installed capacity in the United States is only 142 GW, meaning China is deploying more solar this year than the U.S. has put up over the past two decades. There’s simply nothing happening that approaches the scale of what China is doing anywhere else on the planet. Many of these panels are part of gargantuan energy bases in China’s remote north and western deserts, but rooftop solar is also growing rapidly.
China isn’t just deploying solar power, it’s expanding factories up and down the supply chain. In September of last year, amid crazy natural gas prices, spiking lithium markets, and concerns about Europe freezing, Bloomberg’s David Fickling sounded an optimistic note by looking closely at the solar supply chain. Polysilicon, ingots, wafers, cells, and modules all have annual production capable of making enough to add over 400 GW, suggesting there was a lot more room to run.
Similar announcements continued the drumbeat of solar growth. LONGi declared in January it intends to spend over $6.5 billion to build the world’s biggest manufacturing site for solar. Tongwei, world-leading polysilicon producer and cell maker, is vertically integrating to capture more of the value from its output, expanding into modules.
The cumulative scale of these investments is something to behold. The IEA’s 2050 Net Zero Emission report has been a benchmark for examining the progress the world is making (or, more often not making) towards deep decarbonization. Just a few weeks ago, Exxon denounced it as unrealistic, saying that it’s “highly unlikely that society would accept the degradation in global standard of living required to permanently achieve a scenario like the IEA NZE.” But the IEA just released a report finding that in terms of solar production, the world is already ahead of their 2030 targets. And not just a little ahead. The 1.1 TW (that’s terrawatts!) of manufacturing capacity is “65% higher than the level required to satisfy deployment needs under the NZE Scenario in 2030.”
To be sure, solar isn’t everything, and while the battery sector is similarly ramping up, other key technologies, like wind, are relatively stagnant. Still, we’re at the point where the question isn’t whether we can make enough solar panels to hit climate goals, but how much we’ll need to reconsider the energy mix in these scenarios and just lean more into solar.
The sufficiency of the global supply chain shouldn’t paper over the fact that the vast majority of this investment and production capacity is taking place in China.
There have been many welcome announcements about investments in clean tech production taking place in the United States and Europe, especially in the wake of last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, but nothing compares to the Chinese renewables industry. Italy’s Enel announced it would build a “massive” solar-panel facility in Sicily — its planned capacity: 3 GW. The new IEA report explicitly defines “major projects” as those over 20 GW a year, all of which so far are located in China.
This pattern of development makes clear the dangers of decoupling from China. The EU can’t come close to hitting its goal of installing 400 GW in the next seven years without relying on Chinese panels. But if Europe and North America boycott Chinese-made solar, then these game-changing investments might evaporate.
However, to paraphrase Mao, the solar revolution is not a dinner party.
All of this construction and production is needed to meet our climate goals, but there remain critical questions about how neatly supply and demand will sync up.
Venture capitalist Dipender Saluja calls the energy transition “the biggest opportunity in the history of the world.” He’s thinking about profits when he says this, but profits don’t arise merely from investing in a growing sector. Cutthroat competition, material constraints, time inconsistency, managerial capacity, logistical difficulties, geopolitical pressures, interest rates, financial stability, global pandemics, and more all mean profits in renewable energy are hard won.
For example, the solar sector saw prices of polysilicon, a critical component of solar panels, collapse from $36 per kilogram in December to below $20 in mid-February, only to see it quickly rebound back to $30 by the middle of February before sliding back down below $20 now. This kind of volatility wreaks havoc on the supply chain.
Indeed, the major manufacturers fear that price pressures and overcapacity are going to lead to businesses shuttering. Bloomberg’s eminent solar watcher Jenny Chase said just this week “there will be a price crash, it will hurt, and there will probably be bankruptcies across the industry.”
But the supply and demand issue is not only on the manufacturing side of China’s solar boom. Deploying dozens of gigawatts of solar means unleashing tons of cheap electrons onto a grid that can quickly fall victim to duck/canyon curves where spot prices are essentially zero on a sunny day but ramp up immensely when the sun sets. California was a world leader here, and Chinese provinces like Shandong are increasingly grappling with similar dynamics.
These kinds of difficulties can be seen in data around electricity generation. Despite record expansion in installed solar capacity across China, the growth displayed in generated electricity is mediocre. Solar provided 84.6 TWh in China over the first four months of the year, only 7.5% more than the same period in 2022. And, of course, it’s the energy generation that matters.
Now it just might have been unusually cloudy, and the dust storms and air pollution surely aren’t helping. We know grid connections are lagging as well.
But all of this potential needs to actually start generating electricity fast because climate change isn’t waiting for us. It’s here now. Beyond the storms and droughts and heatwaves, in the electricity sector, climate change is demolishing hydropower production. The past two months have seen China produce the least amount of electricity from hydro since 2015. And, as ever, scale matters. Even with such low production, hydro is about three times the generation from solar, meaning coal makes up the gaps.
The pieces for an energy and economic revolution are assembling, but in China and elsewhere, it’s going to require a lot of effort in designing and planning the future.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”