Key Takeaways
On December 3, President Biden visited Angola and discussed the U.S.’s investments in the Lobito Corridor and clean energy projects with the country’s president.
During his speech, Biden misrepresented the benefits of solar energy to Angola.
Instead of highlighting solar, a costly and intermittent technology, Biden should have encouraged Angola to invest further in its fossil fuel reserves.
Increasing fossil fuel consumption will make Angolans better off, but greater prosperity also requires the country to reform its governing institutions to stave off conflict and corruption.
Early this month, President Joe Biden fulfilled his promise to visit Africa by traveling to Angola for a three-day trip and meeting with Angolan President João Lourenço in Luanda. Biden’s visit was the first time a sitting U.S. president visited Angola and the first visit made to an African country by a president since President Obama visited Kenya and Ethiopia in 2015.
Although it took until the end of his presidency for him to visit the continent, Biden made U.S.-Africa relations a core part of his foreign policy agenda. In 2022, his administration hosted the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, which focused on fostering economic engagement, reinforcing a commitment to democracy and human rights, and cooperation on numerous development-related programs. Although American foreign policy in Africa has primarily focused on counterterrorism and humanitarian assistance over the past two decades, the Biden administration has sought to expand this focus to include economic investment in specific countries to counter China’s influence via its Belt and Road Initiative.
Biden’s emphasis on investment explains his decision to visit Angola since it hosts the Lobito Corridor. The corridor is a strategically important railway project stretching from the Angolan port of Lobito to the city of Kolwezi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has some of the largest copper and cobalt mines in the world. The project is financed by the G7’s Partnership for Infrastructure and Investment, a Western version of the Belt and Road Initiative. Copper and cobalt are both important for clean technologies. According to the International Energy Agency, global copper and cobalt demand will rise by 40% and 60-70%, respectively, over the next two decades in a scenario aligned with Paris Agreement goals.
In addition to the corridor, Angola also possesses significant clean energy projects. Earlier this year, the U.S. Export-Import Bank approved a $1.6 billion loan to construct 65 solar photovoltaic (PV) mini-grids with storage facilities to power water collection, treatment, and purification systems in southern Angola. Additionally, the U.S. is supporting solar-powered irrigation and refrigeration equipment for farmers and plans on partnering with the Angolan National Transmission Company on cross-border and domestic transmission projects.
Biden and Lourenço discussed the investment in solar energy during a joint speech in Angola’s presidential palace. After Lourenço praised Biden for the U.S.’s “great contribution to our energy transition program in the construction of solar products in the southern part of Angola,” claiming that it “will always be remembered as a great contribution to food and energy security,” Biden responded that “[i]nvesting in solar energy” will “help Angolans generate 75 percent of its [sic] clean energy by next year.”
However, this 75% metric is an unachievable goal. Based on Angola’s current energy outlook (last updated in 2022), almost none of Angola’s energy consumption comes from solar PV. What Biden may have been referring to is Angola’s electricity distribution, which does include some solar. As of 2022, Angola’s total energy supply primarily came from biofuels and waste (46%), oil (40%), and natural gas (7%).
Furthermore, Biden’s decision to highlight solar’s role in helping Angola generate 75% of its electricity from clean sources ignores the expansive role played by hydropower. About 70% of Angola’s total electricity comes from hydropower, which takes advantage of Angola’s vast river network and, based on data from the U.S., has a capacity factor over 10% higher than solar PV. The next two highest contributors to electricity are oil (16%) and natural gas (11%), followed by solar PV at just 2.5%. Therefore, even if Angola doubles its solar output, it would achieve the clean energy goal Biden mentioned but only be 5% of the country’s total electricity. By exaggerating the impact of solar, Biden promotes his politically preferred energy sources and gives the technology undeserved credit for supplying Angolans with electricity.
When compared with alternatives, solar is a more expensive and less reliable energy source. Because it is intermittent, solar requires the overbuilding of panels and batteries to meet peak demand as well as additional transmission infrastructure since panels are built further away from the areas that need energy. While proponents argue that solar is the “cheapest electricity in history,” this claim is based on its levelized cost of electricity, which neglects concerns about reliability.
Even though increasing the amount of electricity available to Angolans is important, the economic tradeoff of higher costs that come from clean energy production through solar should not be ignored, especially in a country where almost 10 million people live below the international poverty line.
Only fossil fuels and freedom can make Angola wealthy
If the U.S. wants to help lift Angolans from poverty, it should encourage the country to make use of the abundant fossil fuel resources within its borders.
Angola holds nine billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves and 11 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. It is one of Africa’s largest oil producers, producing approximately 1.16 million barrels of oil per day. Despite this immense potential, investment in downstream production and distribution has been lacking as Angola imports 80 percent of its demand for refined petroleum products and less than 40% of its population has access to electricity. Angola has taken steps to increase investment in its hydrocarbons sector by working towards privatizing the country’s national oil company, Sonogal, and investing in a multinational consortium to develop the Quiluma and Maboqueiro gas fields. If these moves are successful, they will lower costs for companies that build refineries and natural gas power plants.
Increasing investment in hydrocarbon energy sources will make Angolans better off by granting them greater access to cheaper electricity and industrial inputs. Oil and gas provide reliable power for manufacturing and transportation and dispatchable electricity for businesses and households. With more oil and gas consumption, Angolans will be better able to power air conditioners that help mitigate the impact of heat waves, provide clean drinking water (which half of the population lacks) through water purification systems, and increase crop outputs with fertilizers.
More fossil fuels will also mean better air quality for Angolans. Currently, biofuels and waste make up almost half of the country’s energy consumption. Using biomass and waste as fuel leads to particulate matter emissions that worsen air quality and lead to detrimental health impacts. One study on biomass burning in the U.S. found “that burning wood and biomass in buildings and in industry had a combined public health burden of at least 18,000 deaths, higher than that of coal-fired power plants.” Natural gas, in contrast, produces significantly fewer particulate matter emissions than biomass when burned.
An administration that genuinely wants to improve the living standards of Angolans would recognize these facts and encourage Angola to increase fossil fuel production and consumption. However, bringing lasting prosperity via fossil fuels to Angola will require ridding the country of conflict and corruption.
Angola suffers from insurgent violence in its oil-rich Cabinda province, increasing production costs. In 2009, insurgents abducted a Chinese technician working for Sonogal and, in 2016, members of a rebel group boarded a Chevron gas platform and threatened workers. Besides the threat of violence in Angola, Freedom House’s 2024 Freedom in the World report gave Angola a one out of four on the question, “Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective?” Angola also received a low score on the Fraser Institute’s economic freedom index—it was ranked 155 out of 165 countries.
Angola will remain impoverished as long as its government remains corrupt because investments that would go to profitable enterprises are instead put towards those within patronage networks. In 2020, a series of investigative reports called the Luanda Leaks detailed how the daughter of Angola’s former president transferred state funds to offshore private companies controlled by herself and her allies. Corrupt governance leads to poverty in countries with substantial natural resources because it allows the state to focus on enriching the allies of the ruling elite through patronage rather than creating prosperity broadly through development.
Conclusion
On his trip to Angola, President Biden took time to praise the supposed achievements of solar, neglecting the fact that most of Angola’s electricity comes from hydropower and its energy production comes from biomass and fossil fuels. While providing Angolans with greater access to electricity is a worthwhile aim, the better way to do so would be by encouraging the country to take advantage of its vast hydrocarbon resources by implementing free-market policies that encourage investment. However, the benefits of these policies cannot be fully realized in Angola as long as conflict and corruption persist.
