“The Solar Basic Supply: Solar Power for Everyone” reads the title of a government press release from the end of June. Specifically, it refers to a scientific article by researchers at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa). What sounds appealing at first glance deserves a closer look.

In their paper, the researchers advocate that the state should provide every resident with 4,400 kWh of solar power per year “for free.” To put that number into perspective: it’s roughly the amount of electricity a family of four currently consumes annually.

Why this demand? The answer: state-provided electricity is meant to replace fossil fuels and drive the energy transition forward. To achieve this, solar panels would be installed on every third Swiss rooftop. And it’s meant to happen quickly: according to the Empa researchers, this would cost the government 58 billion CHF over five years. About 50,000 people would install the panels, ideally through a “solar year” program for young people as an alternative to military or civilian service.

The authors argue that providing electricity as a universal public service—like education or water—is justified.. However, this idea is built on shaky ground—for three reasons:

  • “Free” doesn’t exist: “Free electricity” raises false expectations because the state has to cover the 58 billion CHF somehow. It will either increase debt, raise taxes and fees, or cut spending elsewhere. Moreover, water isn’t free either, and drivers pay for road investments through highway tolls and fuel taxes.
  • Lack of supply security: Solar power isn’t always available when you need it. That’s why this proposal can’t truly be called a “basic supply.” Users don’t receive a guaranteed baseline of electricity to use as they wish. The math might add up across the year—but that won’t help when there’s too much electricity in summer and not enough in winter.
  • When there’s no price tag, there’s no incentive to use it wisely: Consumers have no incentive to use a resource sparingly or efficiently if its price is zero. It doesn’t help that the authors warn, “The free energy should not tempt people to waste it.” Today’s electricity system suffers precisely because there are too few price signals and hardly any incentives to align demand and production or to feed electricity into the grid when it’s needed.

Free nuclear power? What if…

Skepticism about the “solar basic supply” is justified. But if we’re seriously entertaining that option, it’s worth comparing it to nuclear—which is also CO₂-free, and not necessarily more expensive.

First: with 58 billion CHF, you could install solar power systems with a capacity of 39 gigawatts (1 GW = 1 million kilowatts). According to the authors, solar plants in Switzerland achieve 1,000 full-load hours per year, which corresponds to a utilization rate of 11.4%. This results in an average output of 4.4 GW.

Nuclear power plants supply electricity at least 80% of the time (Gösgen and Leibstadt have operated at over 90% in recent years). To deliver an average output of 4.4 GW, you would need to build nuclear plants with a capacity of 5.5 GW. The average cost for a new nuclear power plant in Europe and the USA is around 10,000 CHF per kW of capacity (costs are significantly lower in Asia). This amounts to approximately 55 billion CHF for 5.5 GW.

New nuclear power plants would therefore cost roughly the same as the proposed “solar basic supply.” Of course, nuclear power comes with challenges: the issue of radioactive waste disposal, frequent construction delays, and limited value of their electricity during summer months. Still, compared to solar power, nuclear plants have several advantages:

  • Winter power: Nuclear plants supply about half of their electricity during the winter months. For the solar initiative, additional investments would be needed to ensure sufficient power during these periods. This would involve wind turbines as well as gas power plants with carbon capture or green hydrogen—both of which are expensive.
  • Longevity: Nuclear power plants generate electricity for 60 to even 80 years, whereas solar panels need to be replaced after about 30 years.
  • Grid integration: New nuclear power plants, especially as replacements for older ones, are likely to integrate easily into the existing grid. In contrast, a rapid and massive expansion of solar energy would probably require additional billions to upgrade the grid infrastructure.
  • Storage needs: In the case of solar power, storage costs would be added—not only for the seasonal storage mentioned earlier but also for daily fluctuations. For illustration, let’s assume every second Swiss household installs storage (either individually or in multi-family buildings) to store solar power generated during the day for use at night. This would cost an additional 16 billion CHF (2 million households × 8,000 CHF each).

Conclusion: Solar alone won’t cut it

The Empa paper promotes a solution that seems obvious and inexpensive—but only at first glance. The researchers speak of a “sunflower society,” where electricity consumption aligns with the sun. They describe electricity storage as a mere “convenience.” However, for hospitals, industry, public transport, and others, a reliable electricity supply is an absolute necessity.

The energy transition should therefore aim to optimally balance the three goals of sustainability, economic efficiency, and supply security. Simply investing billions and relying on part-time efforts focused primarily on rooftop solar panels meets none of these objectives.

What’s needed is an affordable mix of CO₂-free energy sources to meet future electricity demand. Instead of state-provided “free” electricity, price incentives are necessary to encourage investments in the power system and prevent waste. And if the government wants to provide support, it should do so targeted—where problems exist, such as supply security in winter. The Empa proposal may sound good—but on closer inspection, the shine quickly fades.