Solar Power Is Booming — Why Do We Want To Kill It? 415
TaeKwonDood writes with a followup to the news we discussed over the weekend about tariffs being places on Chinese solar panels. He writes,
"According to Forbes, 'Solar power is booming. Imports from China were a tepid $21 million in 2005, but in 2011 installations totaled nearly $2.7 billion. That's a huge win. And just as advocates for solar power had hoped, a larger market drove down prices. Solar energy cost has declined by two-thirds in the last four years, meaning it will soon start to close in on fossil fuels.' There's just one problem: now the government wants to kill it. The article continues, 'As the market was flooded by both silicon (from silicon producers) and thin-film panels (by Chinese manufacturers), the price for thin-film panels came crashing down – along with Solyndra’s business model. ... Yet that isn’t the only instance of mismanagement. The whole clean energy program remains flawed, even at the consumer level. The people who are the most likely to be impacted by high energy prices, the poor, are the least likely to benefit from the solar rebate scheme because they lack the capital to pay for the installation.'"
CYA by the White House (Score:1, Insightful)
Chinese Subsidies (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe the tariffs are because the Chinese have been subsidizing their solar exports in violation of the trade agreements?
Part of the problem will of course be that photovoltaics aren't reliable. Concentrated solar onto molten salt and wind are much more reliable than photovoltaics. Or we could just go nuclear.
But isn't it still slightly helpful to the poor? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm not big of the idea of "the long tail" or "trickle down economics", I would think this would help the poor in a small manner. By those able to afford it having solar panels, the power companies have less demand for their energy and so the poor are less likely to see an increase in power prices (and, rarely, a slight reduction). This is, of course, assuming things like the able don't have their own, separate power station from the poor, enough able people install them to actually make some sort of dent, etc.
Even if they get no impact from it, "the poor still can't afford them" doesn't seem like a valid mark against such a program; I didn't see anyone complaining that the tax breaks to those who bought hybrids were bad because the poor still couldn't afford hybrids.
Re:Chinese Subsidies (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, we're trying to win in the long term at the expense of the short term, instead of the opposite.
Do you think the Chinese are going to sell us... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once they drive our domestic PV manufacturers out of business they'll be free to charge what the market will bear.
Re:"We" are not trying to kill solar... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's embarassing (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the other option? Let China do the same they done with rare earth metals? Factories and mining operations takes time to setup, especially with the red tape that exists in the US. Cheap panels now can mean expensive panels later (or worst, supply shortages). The free market only works when both sides are trying to maximize profit. While generally true, China, who has a heavy hand in it's economy, can easy change things to benefit China at the cost of less profit.
At the local economy, we have laws to prevent dumping to destroy your competitors, only to raise prices afterwards, there exists no such thing on the global economy.
Re:Chinese Subsidies (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to the Republicans.
On the one hand they scream (after MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZING their puppetmasters in the big oil companies and the corn lobby) about the subsidization of companies like Solyndra. They do this ignoring the fact that it didn't work because China was engaging in dumping and any trade with China is fundamentally unfair trade due to Chinese environmental-destruction and slave-labor practices.
Then they complain about how Solar power is "not financially viable", and likewise for wind, geothermal, and pretty much every other renewable resource we've got. The Republicans gave the corn lobby a massive gift when Dumbya's administration outlawed MTBE and forced 10% corn ethanol into gas nationwide, despite the fact that corn ethanol is a net loss of energy (1.8 units used for every 1 unit produced) to make. The subsidization of the oil industry is orders of magnitude larger than any subsidization we've ever given to clean power.
It's like when 50 years ago the Democrats became beholden to the Teamsters; in came big trucking and the subsidized interstate system, meanwhile rail shipping - far more energy efficient for long distances - got fucked up the ass having to eat the costs of maintaining the rail lines unsubsidized.
If you see a government policy that's fucked up on energy, follow the money. Chances are, this decade there's a Koch hand behind it - the decade you choose you may find someone else.
Re:From the bottom of my heart (Score:2, Insightful)
Changing the people in power is incredibly difficult. Those who would best run the country will not run for office. Those that run are not fit for office. That leaves us with people who are all about "collaboration" -- that is the people who honestly believe that reality is whatever the consensus says it is. pi=3 is good enough... Consensus builders have no patience for cold hard facts.
Re:My W-2 just shuddered with the Force (Score:5, Insightful)
The poor usually don't have their own roofs to put solar panels on. Their landlords may not bother to. Mounting them in the yard may not work either.
Let's focus on the markets that CAN take advantage of roof mounted or ground mounted solar. Or not.
Re:"We" are not trying to kill solar... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, dumping doesn't make sense here. Properly maintained, a solar installation can reliably last for many decades with only minimal replacement.
Dumping exists to cause a mad rush of adoption, to set the hook for lock in. If adoption also translates to reduced demand later (see eg, computer sales figures from 1990 to today for an indicator of saturation with durable goods), then dumping makes significantly less sense.
More likely, china is trying to bolster capital to rapidly develop a thriving industrial production infrastructure, and the current situation provides a ripe opportunity who's time has come.
The US populace *DESPERATELY* wants to be rid of expensive and toxic fossil fuel use. So much so that they are willing to break the bank on one-off investments on domestic solar. (Something highly uncharacteristic of the typical us consumer's demographic profile)
China says "we can make solar cells for you! We can make them DIRT cheap!"
US consumers shout "SOLD!"
US regulators go "Oh No! OMGWTF! If they all switch to solar, we won't have as many reasons to stay in a state of purpetual war with the middle east, and our out-of-channel campaign funding sources will diminish! This is terrible! We have to act! We have to drive the prices of these deleterious cheap solar installs back up to protect our interests!"
So, they institute tarrifs to drive the prices up, in the hopes of preventing widespread solar adoption.
I would bet dollars to holes in doughnuts that the leading voices behind the tarrifs have memberships in the GOP, and hold shares in energy companies.
Re:Chinese Subsidies (Score:5, Insightful)
MTBE, being water-soluble, was a mistake. Spills became uncontainable.
Ethanol is a loser, but neither party has the will to turn off the subsidies, and every other ethanol source besides corn is a loser as well.
Growing food for fuel is stupid.
Re:Chinese Subsidies (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't call what we're doing "massively subsidizing." When compared to the subsidies for petrochem and nuclear we're more offering minimal or token subsidies.
Re:But isn't it still slightly helpful to the poor (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too long of a way to go. Basically they need to get the panels + installation down another 25-50% (and technologically this is not insurmountable) but in addition to that, they have to do so with something resembling a respectable profit margin. RIght now companies are running things close to the wire trying to compete, and that's not sustainable on a financial plane.
Of course, if the price of competing energy goes up (if there is a recoveing economy, it will) then that makes the competitive point for solar easier to acheive. In some local markets, solar is already cheaper.
Re:CYA by the White House (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama's "Green" initiatives are about more than implementing a renewable technology such as solar. Just as important in that imitative is "Green Jobs". It is seen as a twofer, ween us off the eeeevil oil and bring manufacturing jobs back.
The reality is that most of that 21 billion was heavily subsidized by the tax payers, the purchase, the manufacturing and the installation.
You say that as if it is some kind of dirty secret. But isn't this what the Obama administration has been saying explicitly from the start? And why would they be ashamed of it? It sounds to me like a good investment of public money.
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
The US gov't believes it can run the economy for some reason.
I think the reason is the abject failure of the private sector to do so.
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet the subsidies that the fossil fuel companies get are above and beyond what the alternative energy groups get.
- it's false, because it makes no sense. The oil industry pays huge amounts of taxes and it provides the people with all the oil they need for all the uses.
The alternative energy industry LIVES on taxes, what does it provide people with? Bad business model and more taxes going towards some chosen contractors for political reasons.
Yup, efficiencies like free money from the Chinese government coupled with extremely low labor costs and extremely lax environmental standards.
- whatever, say thank you, Chinese government, for the subsidy that you are giving to people, who clearly are too dumb to understand that they are getting it (IF that's what the Chinese are doing - they are subsidising you at the moment.)
China, of course.
Unless you're thinking that we actually have a "Free Market," in which case I have several bridges and inland oceanside property to sell you.
- yeah, you have already been sold a bad bridge. Chinese people are NOT gaining, they are losing by subsidising your consumption, and it is done by their gov't destroying their currency in order to cause lower prices for the products that the Chinese are making via the fake exchange rate.
I already talked about it, clearly not everybody is getting the point. [slashdot.org]
it's inefficient (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CYA by the White House (Score:5, Insightful)
Common guys lets sit down and think about this for a second. The middle class makes money via manufacturing. People who own these companies make money by giving your money to the Chinese to do the same work for a whole lot less, with the added benefit of not having to see how the sausage is made.
Even if one company attains this insurmountable goal and eventually goes public, then by their responsibility to their shareholders alone they will be obligated to fire every one and send the work out east. So stop it with this stupid pipe dream and find something the Chinese CAN'T do at a fraction of the cost and work up from there. Trying to fantasize you can make a dead simple polymer sheet cheaper than the Chinese is just not going to happen.
Re:oil (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't keep me in suspense, does it work out to more or less than the 150 years it will take us to exhaust all the proven, unproven, and unconventional reserves of oil in the world?
Re:CYA by the White House (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we just paid good money (a few billion here, and a few billion there), using a loan with an significant interest rate (which will be counted as an asset, and never repaid), for an industry which will not profit, and I mean that in a more than monetary sense, its investors (it will neither provide the long-term jobs as promised, nor increase the absolute wealth of those involved, nor help in any meaningful way to achieve a sustainable 'green' agenda). It shows a supreme lack of vision (we'll talk solar when the efficiency of those cells increases to a competitive level with other technologies and the energy storage problem is solved), understanding of human nature (who didn't think the Chinese would steamroll this industry?), economics (spending money to make money, only not), and science (do we do that anymore? I see lots of paper, journals, publications, yet nothing noteworthy).
And yes, I am mindful that past presidents have also acted in an equally foolish capacity. However, that does not excuse the current guy; let's try to hold them to a higher standard from now on, right?
Finally, I feel as if I am watching an heir of an empire burn through his / her money, because "there will always be more." A little less the lovable eccentric who occasionally hits on a brilliant idea that leaves others questioning whether he / she is really insane, or just brighter than them (and keep said eccentric far enough in the black that his / her feet never really touch ground); a little more the loud, annoying frat kid whose father owns a car dealership, so it's cool to keep spending, because people always need cars, right?
KILL SOLAR! (Score:5, Insightful)
'Cos there ain't no meter on the Sun,
No, there ain't no meter on the Sun.
How ya gonna charge
Enough to keep ya livin' large
When there ain't no meter on the Sun?
Re:CYA by the White House (Score:3, Insightful)
Except solyndra was about payback for democratic political donors rather than developing tech.
If they really want to spur domestic production they should simply tie any subsidies or tax breaks for solar installations to using US made products. The chinese are deliberately trying to crush manufacturers of everything in the US. It's economic warfare and they're winning because we aren't even trying to play.
Taxing the chinese products is more proof that obama and the dems have absolutely no idea how to handle the economy. To them it's all magic, which is why so many of their policies turn out to be smoke and mirrors.
Re:CYA by the White House (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporate tax rate drops are a delusional lie.
The rich simply shift all the personal income into a corporation that they own, they also shift all their personal assets homes, cars, yachts into that corporation.
So now they get to yuck it up at the idiot middle class who pay full personal rate tax whilst the rich who can shift all the income into corporations pay less.
Here's the word of the day 'franked'. Fully franked dividends are dividends paid by corporations to their owners (the people who should actually be getting the money corporations make) which have been taxed. The reciever of that dividend can then take the tax paid as a deduction against their income if their rate of tax is lower.
Ah ha but of course the lying shit head multi-millionaire with their corrupt paid of politicians will leave everything in corporations, one 'private' corporation paying another 'private' corporation, all cheating on tax deductions and now what's left is charged at a less than salaried middle class rate. So why don't honest governments reduce corporate tax rates because it is a bull shit lie.
Solar energy subsidise are meant to reduce energy imports, reduce pollution in cities, promote a technology by generating larger volumes of production (as volume of production increases so cost's per unit decreases), so kick start an industry to self sufficiency.
So what is better pouring billions upon billions into armaments and munitions, only to throw them away or destroy or spending hundreds of millions on improving infrastructure, in this energy generation infrastructure.
Re:CYA by the White House (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's "Green" initiatives are about more than implementing a renewable technology such as solar. Just as important in that imitative is "Green Jobs". It is seen as a twofer, ween us off the eeeevil oil and bring manufacturing jobs back.
The reality is that most of that 21 billion was heavily subsidized by the tax payers, the purchase, the manufacturing and the installation.
You say that as if it is some kind of dirty secret. But isn't this what the Obama administration has been saying explicitly from the start? And why would they be ashamed of it? It sounds to me like a good investment of public money.
If it's a good investment, if it's actually "booming", it shouldn't need public money.
No one is claiming that Obama has been quiet about being bullish on green jobs / energy. The dirty secret is that the press has played up these numbers that are wildly inflated by federal spending. The dirty secret is the number of Obama campaign contributors who got this money.
And this is a symptom of the continuing problem with Keynesianism in the modern economy: in the past, the government could dump a ton of money into the economy and investors would believe that there was going to be a lasting surge in demand, and they would invest assuming that it would last. That additional investment would outweigh the contraction in GDP after the stimulus ceased. But now, with the Web and a deluge of financial information, investors know exactly when the economy will contract after the stimulus ends, so they don't make long term investments, and the contraction after the stimulus ends is even worse. This is what we're seeing with the green stimulus falling apart.
Re:CYA by the White House (Score:5, Insightful)
Rich Dude's company banks the rest of his money to buy out competitors or seal up exclusive contracts with suppliers. Money in the bank gives him a pop star status and allows his company to throw lavish business conferences (for tax puposes) that happen to coincide with his birthday or his wife's. Rich Dude is able to borrow against the equity in his business and take a $1 a year salary, make it 50k if your not Steve Jobs. Rich Dude's vacations include stops to visit customers and become business expenses.
Meanwhile Rich Dude's money is being hoarded by his bank who is afraid to loan too much in this business climate. Workers (Rich Dude's) don't make enough to pay back loans. The bank eventually decides to loan the money out anyway and package the loans up so suckers will buy them as investments. Or the bank buys credit default insurance. The bank eventually crashes the world economy and that "social welfare" group I mentioned above uses the bad economy to convince people to make sweeping changes to regulations and laws. The country stagnates. Rich Dude can't figure out where his customers went, so he retires to 3rd world country and lives in luxury for the rest of his days.