08/10/2026
Locally generated renewable energy is energy independence! And energy security!
One of the most common criticisms I hear about solar is that it's "foreign-owned" or "made in China."
Fair concerns to raise. But what I don't understand is why they almost always stop at solar, not just to build the infrastructure, but to keep it operating.
Take nuclear power. In 2024, only about 8% of the uranium delivered to U.S. reactors came from domestic sources. The remaining 92% was imported, primarily from Canada (36%), Kazakhstan (24%), Australia (17%), Uzbekistan (9%), Namibia (4%), and Russia (4%). Even beyond mining, uranium must be converted, enriched, fabricated into fuel, and transported through an international supply chain.
Solar is no different. China has become the world's dominant manufacturer of solar cells and modules, although U.S. manufacturing capacity has expanded rapidly over the past several years. The industry still depends on a global supply chain for silicon, wafers, cells, glass, aluminum, electronics, and other components.
Then there are fossil fuels. People often think of oil, coal, and natural gas as purely American because we produce so much of them domestically.
But unlike a solar panel or wind turbine, fossil fuels require continuous extraction.
Every single day.
That requires steel for drilling rigs, pipe, compressors, turbines, pumps, valves, electrical equipment, control systems, specialized drilling tools, refineries, LNG terminals, shipping, tankers, and other international commodity markets.
Even when the fuel itself is produced in the United States (which is certainly not always the case, either), the equipment, replacement parts, industrial minerals, electronics, and manufacturing that keep the system running are deeply tied to global supply chains.
And when domestic production can't meet demand, or when markets shift, the United States imports millions of barrels of crude oil and petroleum products from around the world. Energy has always been an international business.
None of this is an endorsement of the status quo.
In fact, I think it’s an argument for investing more heavily in American production across the board.
That means strengthening domestic manufacturing for energy infrastructure. It means responsibly developing American supply chains where it makes sense. And it also means recognizing that responsible agrivoltaics can strengthen another form of national security: our food supply.
One of the overlooked benefits of colocation is that it allows farmland to continue producing food while also producing electricity. Sheep continue grazing. Cattle can graze. Pollinator habitat supports nearby crops. And don’t forget about fruit, vegetables, and yes - row crops. If done thoughtfully, agrivoltaics doesn't have to replace American agriculture. It can help keep farms in business and domestic food production on the landscape.
To me, that's a much more productive conversation than pretending we have to choose between food security and energy security. We should be pursuing both.
But if foreign involvement only becomes a concern when we're talking about solar (and not imported uranium, globally manufactured gas turbines, Chinese rare-earth processing, internationally sourced electronics, or the global supply chains that support fossil fuels), then we're not really having a conversation about foreign dependence.
We're having a conversation about one technology while giving every other technology a pass.
If the goal is greater American energy independence, stronger domestic manufacturing, and a more resilient food system, you'll find me in that conversation every time.
But let's be honest about the fact that every energy source depends on the rest of the world in one way or another. The question isn't whether foreign involvement exists. It's where we want to reduce it, and how we're going to do it.
