A Critique of the Prime Minister’s Solar Energy Proposal

Aleica Binns, 620126204

The University of the West Indies

SOCI1007: Introduction to Social Sciences

Erica Robinson

July 12, 2023

CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL 1

Every, if not all of Earth’s energy sources can be traced back to the power of the sun. The

photovoltaics are distinctive in that they directly change the sun's energy into electricity. This is so, as

the photons in the sunlight unbound the electrons from their links causing them to conduct electricity.

On the contrary, other energy sources like biofuels and fossil fuels use photosynthesis or the wind as a

middleman between solar energy and power creation (Baker, Fowlie, Lemoine, and Reynolds, 2013).

In other words, they are not direct, and so the obvious effectiveness of terminating the middleman to

straightway initiate electricity is a conceptually inviting characteristic of solar photovoltaics. In our

reality, solar energy has proven burdensome to note cost-effective ways in order to exploit its

potential (Binger, 2011). Jamaica an island heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels deemed the

establishment of solar energy plants as a means to constraint energy costs and concerns about

environmental health. It is, or better yet, while this is a fantastic idea, the microeconomic impacts, the

cost and benefits, and the social and environmental implications of promoting the renewable energy

sources at a community level ought to be examined.

Despite not being an oil producer, Jamaica's energy demands are almost entirely met by

imported oil. Binger (2011) argued that approximately 95% of the country's principal energy services

are provided by imported oil. Therefore, due to Jamaica's heavy reliance on foreign oil, the nation is

susceptible to both changes in the price of oil and disruptions in its energy supply, such as those that

occurred in 1973 and more newly since 2002 (Baker et al., 2013); when the once-a-year average spot

peak price of crude oil on the international market increased by 220% from USD 25 per barrel in 2002

to USD 80 per barrel in 2010 (Harris, and Roach, 2014). This is simply to say that at an estimated cost

of USD $2.9 billion, Jamaica purchased around USD $29 million barrels of oil in 2008. Thus,

Jamaica's oil demand has decreased as a result of efficiency improvements and so has the spread of

other energy sources, like solar, while rising costs are a result of oil price swings. With this in mind,

the economics of solar energy have recently shown some surprising patterns. That is to say that the

aggregate of solar photovoltaic technology installed globally increased from 26 megawatts (MW) of

undeviating current in 2000 to an estimated 21,000 MW in 2011 (Baker et al., 2013), around the same

time that Jamaica’s oil demand rate decreases. Hence, nations around the world are investing in

photovoltaic technology as it turns sunlight directly into electricity, a thing or notion that first-world
CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL 2

countries deemed vital for their economy and the environment. Thence, installations of such have

risen quickly as a result of policies that support renewable energy while the substantial oil demand

cost declines. While we think about this, economic evaluations of solar photovoltaics must take into

consideration numerous features that set solar photovoltaics apart from traditional thermal generating.

The fuel (sunlight) is free, to start (Coviello, 2005). This means the variable costs related to

the production of solar energy are almost zero. Second, when the grid-connected solar capacity rises,

fossil fuel generation often decreases (Lorenz, Pinner, and Seitz, 2008), which lowers the operating

costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and other pollutants as well. It is important to note that the operating

features and emission levels of the units that are displaced on either the operating or build margin rule

the marginal economic and environmental benefits associated with additional solar. Third, the solar

electricity generation is non-dispatchable (Coviello, 2005; Lorenz et al., 2008). This means it only

operates when the sun is shining and cannot be turned on and off as needed. According to Coviello

(2005), two problems result from non-dispatchability and they are the solar power is intermittent and

variable, with unpredictable fluctuations due to cloud cover. What this is saying is that these changes

are predictable over diurnal and seasonal cycles, and so given non-dispatchability, the fluctuation may

be favorable insofar as solar supplies are most productive during periods of high energy call when the

value of energy is at its highest. On the other side, intermittent solar resources might increase system

costs since they may necessitate more system reserves and backup power to keep the system reliable

(Lorenz et al., 2008; Harris et al., 2011). Thence, the time horizon over which benefits are achieved

and quantified determines the value of the solar plants and the methodologies used to evaluate it. To

back track a bit, though the above speaks on the potential economic benefits of solar factories at the

microeconomic level, the Prime Minister has to have a fair understanding that setting up such a plant

is costly at the start.

Therefore, thick film silicon, thin films, and third generation technologies are the three

subgroups of commercially viable photovoltaics technologies (Harris et al., 2014). Thus, the price of a

photovoltaic system is divided into two parts which are the price of the modules and the remaining

components of the system. According to Baker et al. (2013), inverters, mounting hardware, and labour

are normally included in the balance of system costs, but they can also be widely defined to cover
CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL 3

shipping, overhead costs, permit and fee charges, and installation profit. Historically, the balance of

system expenditures for both residential and commercial solar systems have made up about 50% of

the overall installed cost. Furthermore, the balance of system costs are currently getting close to two-

thirds of system costs due to the recent decrease in module prices, and so the costs, which are

frequently expressed in terms of $/Wp, or the price per peak Watt of direct current power of a module

or installed system are on the rise when comparing the different photovoltaic systems (Coviello, 2005;

Harris et al., 2013). Hence, this figure takes into consideration both the cost of producing the module

and the effectiveness of the solar cells.

Take for instance, if the Prime Minister was to start up the solar power plants using the

cheapest material, the thick film crystalline silicon technologies at only 5%, he’s looking at spending

over USD $1,000,000 per acre and for a one megawatt solar power plant, he is looking at over eight

acres which is roughly USD $8 mil. Now if the Prime Minister wants to establish such a plant, he will

have to take into account the fact that the Jamaica Public Service (JPS) has a power capacity of 629

megawatts, costing over USD $629 mil (Makhijani, Ochs, Weber, Konold, Lucky, and Ahmed, 2013)

and he will have to level up to such not only in MW but also in an increase in the percentage of

photovoltaic cells used. Now when that is calculated, the Prime Minister is looking at spending over

USD $1 billion. This is because when compared to other photovoltaic technologies, the thick film

technology is reasonably priced and dependable since the average cost of a module in the late 1990s

was USD $4.8/Wp (Baker et al., 2013), and these prices have sharply decreased in recent years as

base on Barbose (2012), modules cost USD $2.4/Wp in 2010. The majority of this decline happened

between 2008 and 2010, due to policies aiding renewable energy and so the trend persisted into 2011.

Also, a recent decline in the balance of system expenses, which were projected to be USD $3.8/Wp in

2010, has coincided with a recent decline in module costs (Harris et al., 2014). Therefore, this type of

solar photovoltaic plants offer a fair economies of scale at a microeconomic level when compared to

the thin and third. The only other suggested photovoltaic technologies of the three to recommend is

the third generation technologies. The so-called third generation technologies offer extremely high

efficiency but are exceedingly expensive to produce. These innovations stand out from thick and thin

film innovations in terms of quality. For instance, the multijunction cells optimise layers of materials
CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL 4

for the entire spectrum of light, while the quantum dots are made up of minuscule semiconductor

crystals only a few nanometers thick (Baker et al., 2013). Because of this, their scope to produce

several excitons for each received photon causes it to theoretically offer higher efficiency (Binger,

2011; Baker et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2014). Though these are vital information to have, one has to

debate cost vs quantity as the cost to use this material type on the power plant will be USD $5 billion

per acre with the exception of labour cost. In essence, at the microeconomic level, having solar power

factories with a dependence on the amount of sunlight and weather where the installation takes place,

can be less expensive than fossil fuels and would push the nation towards becoming decarbonized.

Coviello (2005), research and conjecture about Jamaica’s energy transition from fossil fuel

towards carbon neutrality have been extensive. More specifically, it has been claimed that both the

investments necessary and the resulting changes to the economy would be considerable. Thus, the hint

of a full transition to renewable energy in Jamaica will undoubtedly require much consideration from

both an economic and environmental conundrum. So whether private sector investments are made

(Bataille, Sawyer, Adamson, 2015), significant resources are committed by the government (ECCC,

2016), the fossil fuel industry is gradually phased out (Trottier Energy Futures Project, 2016), or a

comprehensive carbon cost model is put into place (Vaillancourt, Bahn, Frenette, Sigvaldason, 2017)

significant changes will occur regardless. Therefore, all decisions on the subject revolve around the

entire cost of such a transformation. Depending on whether photovoltaic transmissions are developed,

Dolter and Rivers (2018) posited that the decarbonization of the Jamaican energy sector will value

between USD $20.2 billion and USD $25.5 billion annually for just 8-10 acres and such figure will

continue to increase given Jamaica's economic state. The expenses of a whole photovoltaic Jamaican

energy transition would reach up to USD $63.3 billion a year until it attains a net-zero, while fossil

fuel savings will reach up to USD $98 billion once the photovoltaic factories are set up (Dolter et al.,

2018). These of course, though a lot to digest are heartening results because they represent modest

portions of Jamaica’s Gross Domestic Product. Notably, it is likely impossible for the Prime Minister

to consider Jamaica’s energy policy as a component of a unified national strategy. That is to say that

Jamaica’s electricity market, JPS, is not entirely integrated, and each parish will have to have its own

solar power factory to aid in steady energy production, transmission, and distribution (Pineau, 2012);
CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL 5

as it is not feasible to implement any kind of net-zero energy transition in Jamaica using one solar

factory. Therefore, with the expenses to start such, each parish will need to have some sort of policy

to handle its own solar problems (Fortes, Simoes, Gouveia, and Seixas, 2019), as future installations

will undoubtedly be impacted by ancillary expenses, the emerging of technologies, and the cost of

land. This means that the acquisition of land space for solar power factories can be particularly

difficult as solar systems produce very little energy per unit of land, hence it will require a very large

space. All in all, the main challenges the Prime Minister would face are those of expenses and land

availability when moving from fossil fuel to strictly solar.

Despite the challenges, the demand for and supply of energy produced from fossil fuels can

be decreased via energy efficiency and renewable energy laws. Although this decrease in demand may

have unfavourable effects such as income losses for the fossil fuel sector, it may have positive effects

on the economy, the energy grid, emissions, and society (Makhijani et al., 2013). First off, the demand

response strategies combined with energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives can help shield

electricity producers and consumers from the costs of expanding the system's capacity as well as from

the disruptions in the energy supply, volatile energy prices, and other reliability and security risks. It

means, initiatives involving energy efficiency and renewable energy sources have the potential to be

more affordable than other energy sources and to enhance Jamaica’s energy system. The initiatives

and investments in these renewable energy and energy efficiency benefit the primary and secondary

power systems (Lorenz et al., 2008). At the primary, the main advantages are those companies that are

typically acknowledged for their capacity to gradually lower the cost of overall electric service, such

as the avoided expenses of electricity generation or the avoidance of the need to construct additional

solar power plants. These advantages may materialise in the short term, the long term, or both. Most

of these advantages can be measured, and some of them are rather substantial. At the secondary level,

the benefits raise dependability and enhance energy security while also indirectly lowering all costs

associated with the photovoltaic system such as postponed long-term improvements. Though this is a

benefit, it is less commonly evaluated because they are more difficult to measure. However, in order

to correctly reflect the costs and benefits of energy efficiency and photovoltaic energy, it is necessary

to define these benefits and quantify them.

CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL 6

Second, the use of fossil fuels to make energy contributes to air pollution that endangers

human health by causing respiratory problems from ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution

(US EPA, 2016a). The main source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the world,

which contributes to global climate change, is the burning of fossil fuels for power. Reducing fossil

fuel-based generation and the negative effects it has on human health and the environment can be

accomplished by increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources. For instance,

particle pollution (PM), ground-level ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2),

nitrogen oxides (NOx), and lead (Pb) are examples of air pollutants that degrade air quality and may

be detrimental to human health (US EPA, 2016c). Thence, when fossil fuels are used to produce

energy, the amount of these pollutants in the atmosphere rises. Some air pollutants circulate widely

after being released, possibly over great distances. Also, some air pollutants, such as PM, CO, SO2,

and NOx, have an immediate negative impact on human health and the environment. When main air

pollutants and other precursor air pollutants, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), react or

interact, new air pollutants develop in the atmosphere (US EPA, 2016a). For instance, under specific

meteorological circumstances, air pollutants like NOx and VOCs combine to generate O3. O3 is a key

ingredient in photochemical smog, which can aggravate asthma, aggravate throat irritation, and induce

lung damage, make breathing difficult, and trigger coughing fits (U.S. EPA, 2016c). What all of this

means is that reducing air pollutants can have immediate positive effects because they have a quicker

local and regional effects and can disappear in a matter of hours or days. Hence, the Prime Minister’s

initiative like building solar power factories will minimise or limit the usage of fossil fuel energy and

certain air pollutants can. Through this, improved air quality will result in direct and immediate health

advantages for humans by reducing or avoiding dangerous air pollutants. The health of the ecosystems

can also be improved, as can crop and timber yields, visibility, and air quality. There can also be an

improvement in public health through lowering rates of early death, asthma attacks, respiratory and

cardiovascular disease, avoiding associated medical expenses, and lessening the days missed from

work and school due to illness.

Consequently, climate change is a result of greenhouse gases, which include carbon dioxide

(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride
CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL 7

(SF6). Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape to space. The

natural-source greenhouse gases keep the Earth habitable since without them, the world would be

much colder. However, greenhouse gases produced by human activity, such as the production of

electricity, are accumulating in the atmosphere and accelerating climate change (US EPA, 2017). So,

greenhouse gases emissions growth rate alters the climate system in ways that have an impact on the

economy, environment, and health. Climate change, for instance, may affect crop production, increase

the frequency of extreme heat waves, and exacerbate air quality issues (US EPA, 2016a). A strong

greenhouse gas, CH4, also aids in the creation of ground-level ozone, a dangerous air pollutant and

part of smog. Thence, the greenhouse gases build up over time and can linger in the atmosphere for

decades to centuries, having long-term effects on the earth's climate system. As a result, actions like

energy efficiency and renewable energy that instantly avoid or reduce greenhouse gases can have a

positive impact on the environment and human health as well as improve air quality and human health

in the near term.

Finally, initiatives focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources can offer a

variety of significant economic advantages to individuals, communities, and the state's economy as a

whole. As a result, the economic impact of renewable energy efforts is both direct and indirect

because they have an impact on both those who are more actively involved in the investment and

those who are not. According to the US EPA (2017), changes in sales, revenue, or employment due to

an immediate expenditure or demand shift are referred to as direct effects. The direct consequences of

measures affecting energy supply will be different from those affecting energy demand, such as those

that encourage commercial or residential sectors to invest in energy-efficient equipment (Baker et Al.,

2013). Meaning, initiatives involving energy efficiency and renewable energy that have an impact on

the demand side of the energy industry often alter the energy consumption habits of commercial and

residential users by lowering the amount of energy necessary for a given level of production and or

service. Therefore, the plans to increase demand-side efficiency result in direct expenses and savings,

including those for households and businesses as the price of buying and installing energy efficient

equipment for homes and businesses (Binger, 2011). It also takes into account dollars used to operate

the efficiency effort, including personnel costs, material costs, and participation incentives and the
CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL 8

energy cost savings which are the money that businesses, households, and industries are able to save

as a consequence of lower energy costs such as those for electricity, natural gas, and oil, lower repair

and maintenance expenses, postponed equipment replacement expenses, and rising property values.

To end, these direct expenses and savings cause a distribution of economic activity among various

economic actors (Harris et al., 2014). For instance, homeowners might increase their expenditure on

items that boost energy efficiency, such as foam insulation, which would in turn raise the income for

the businesses that manufacture and install foam insulation. They might also cut back on spending on

other goods and activities to pay for the insulation, which would lessen income for the companies that

would have otherwise benefited from it. Because of the insulation's ongoing energy cost savings, the

consumers may have more money available to spend on other goods and services. However, if the

state's utility revenue arrangements do not support program cost recovery or financial incentives for

energy efficiency projects, the reduced demand for electricity may result in lower utility revenue. So

the demand-side changes may collectively have macroeconomic repercussions on the entire economy,

including changes to income, employment, and overall economic production. Therefore, a state like

Jamaica can benefit most from a renewable policy's overall design if it is based on a study of the size

and direction of the impacts.

To conclude, for many Jamaicans, solar energy can prove to be a perfect source of power for

homes and businesses due to the rise in oil costs and, eventually, electricity bills. In order to achieve

this, the government has been promoting renewable energy consumption among Jamaicans as a way

to cut the price of electricity which weighs on the country’s economy, society and environment. Upon

the evaluation of the matter at hand, though expensive, one would encourage the Prime Minister’s

proposal on the establishment of solar power factories as in all areas it will be a win-win despite how

long it will take.

CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL 9

References

Baker, E., Fowlie, M., Lemoine, D., & Reynolds, S. (2013). The Economics of Solar Electricity.

Retrieved from:

Bataille, C., Sawyer, D., & Adamson, R. (2013). Pathways to Decarbonization in Canada. Retrieved

from:chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cmcghg.com/wp-

content/uploads/2015/07/Final-Canada-DDPP-Country-Report-July-14.pdf

Binger, A. (2011). Energy efficiency potential in Jamaica: challenges, opportunities and strategies for

Implementation. Retrieved from:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.cepal.org/sites/default/

files/publication/files/3855/S2011942_es.pdf

Coviello, M. (2005). Renewable energies potential in Jamaica. Retrieved from:

https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/4138-renewable-energies-potential-

jamaica#:~:text=On

e%20of%20the%20largest%20renewable,supplied%20to%20the%20public%20grid.

Dolter, B., & Rivers, N. (2018). The cost of Decarbonizing the Canadian Electric System. Retrieved

from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421517307140

Environment on Climate Change Canada. (2016). Climate Change. Retrieved from:

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change.html

Harris, J., & Roach, B.(2014). The Economics of Renewable Energy. Retrieved from:

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/12619/chapter/6

Lorenz, P., Pinner, D., & Seitz, T. (2008). The Economics of Solar Power. Retrieved from:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.acs.org/content/dam/

acsorg/policy/acsonthehill/briefings/solarenergy/report-mckinsey-the-economics-of-solar.pdf

Makhijani., S., Ochs, A., Weber, M., Konold, M., Lucky, M., Ahmed, A. (2013).

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.oas.org/en/sedi/dsd/

Biodiversity/Sustainable_Cities/Sustainable_Communities/Events/SC%20Course%20Jamaica

%202016/Module%20IV/Jamaica-Sustainable-Energy-Roadmap-InclAppendices-112013.pdf

Optimal Energy and Synapse Energy. (2011). Economic Impacts of Energy Efficiency Investments in
 CRITIQUE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S PROPOSAL
10
Vermont—Final Report. Retrieved from:

http://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Energy_Efficiency/

EVT_Performance_Eval/Economic%2 0Impacts%20of%20EE%20Investments_2011.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2016a). 2014 National Emission Inventory

Report and 2014 National Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014national-emission-inventory-nei-report;

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201612/documents/nei2014v1_tsd.pdf

U.S. EPA. (2016b). Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-andenvironmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm

U.S. EPA. (2016c). Health Effects of Ozone Pollution. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/health-effectsozone-pollution U.S. EPA. 2017.

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2015.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-usgreenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-

2015