What The Economist thought about solar power

WHAT APPEARS to have been our first article about solar power, in 1955, mostly dealt with water heaters, cooking stoves and the like. But it also noted, “among the more ingenious low powered devices…the Bell Company’s solar battery”—which is to say the first silicon-based solar cell, unveiled by AT&T’s Bell Labs the previous year. Indeed we were sufficiently impressed by this “simple-looking apparatus, consisting, in essence, of thin wafers of silicon, specially treated” (and pictured above) that in 1956 we featured it in an encomium to America’s remarkable research record: “Even an account of such diverse achievements as the Salk vaccine, the solar battery, the discovery and synthesis of the “miracle” drugs, the atom-powered submarine and the breeding of Santa Gertrudis cattle, would give only a small hint of work in progress.” (Quite how Santa Gertrudis cattle made it into this hall of fame remains a mystery.)

Following this burst of enthusiasm, The Economist, like almost everyone else not involved in building satellites or installing radio relays in the back of beyond, saw no need to say more on the subject until the oil shocks of the 1970s made alternative sources of energy a hot topic. In 1975 we reported that Vicomte Davignon, the Belgian head of the International Energy Agency, wanted to see industrial countries “encourage the production of more exotic fuels such as shale oil and solar energy”. America’s Energy Research and Development Administration expected solar energy to provide 7% of America’s needs by 2000 and 25% by 2020: “Americans no longer talk of whether, but when, the sun will be a major source of their energy,” we wrote in response. But we feared that the case for solar power in America was “alternately flattered by attention and crushed by indifference”.