metatrends.substack.com/p/proof-of-abundance-and-how-to-survive?utm_source=profi...

The source data used for this claim does show a dramatic long-run cost decline, but it is not the sticker price of an entire battery.

The Our World in Data dataset cited in the post is explicitly titled "Price of lithium-ion battery cells" and says the values are "in US dollars per kilowatt-hour". In other words, the ~$10,000 figure for 1991 and the sub-$100 figure for 2024 are normalized cell costs per kWh, not the price of a complete battery.

That distinction matters. Dropping the per-kWh unit turns a standard industry cost metric into a false claim about what "a lithium battery" costs. DOE uses the same kind of unitized metric for EV batteries: its 2023 estimate is $139/kWh for a light-duty EV battery pack, again showing these figures are expressed per unit of energy capacity rather than as the total price of a whole battery.

So the trend is real, but the sentence is inaccurate as written because it converts cost per kWh of lithium-ion cells into cost of a single battery.

This overstates Pakistan's solar share by a wide margin.

Pakistan's own Annual Plan 2025–26 does not show solar anywhere near a majority. It projects the June 2026 generation mix at 1% utility solar plus 18% solar net metering, while hydel is 27% and other sources make up the rest. So even in the government's forward-looking mix, solar is about 19%, not "most."

A World Resources Institute analysis makes the same basic point using electricity-generation language: Pakistan is expected to get about 20% of all its electricity from solar by 2026. That's a remarkable boom, but it is still far short of a majority.

The article also says "energy", which is broader than electricity. Since solar is only around one-fifth of Pakistan's electricity in these sources, its share of Pakistan's total energy use would be lower still. So the statement is inaccurate on both the magnitude ("most") and the broader framing ("energy").