Slashdot Mirror
Solar Power Is Booming — Why Do We Want To Kill It?
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.'"
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.
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.
To the government that the US can no longer sustain a competitive domestic solar panel industry. This was predicted in shockingly accurate detail by HBS researchers 3 years ago. Protectionism is only going to make it worse -- amazing that these ideas still fly.
Poor also don't have the money to get the subsidy for the Tesla cars. They're missing out on like 10 thousand dollars!!!!
Once they drive our domestic PV manufacturers out of business they'll be free to charge what the market will bear.
Probably because you can recognize horseshit when you smell it. Apparently, this article's author has never heard of solar lease programs, which are intended for precisely that market. Instead of paying money to the power company, you pay a lower power bill to a company that sticks panels on your roof (and presumably reaps the profits if production exceeds your usage). There's usually zero up-front cost, and these programs are readily available in many places.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Firstly to address the article, one is a start-up loan guarantee to offset the risks in surmounting what is a huge barrier to entry, the other is a continued subsidy to aid an established industry. Sure they're both in the same vein of using public funds to bolster industry, but not quite comparable beyond that, are they? Continued subsidy of established industry is one of the major arguments made by those who are against US agricultural subsidies, and they make a reasonable point regarding the negative impact it has to the outside world. Many countries feel justified to place tariffs on US agricultural products because of this.
Now to address your post, let's look at the not so apparent inconsistency in the rhetoric surrounding the motivations behind the subsidy. If the Chinese government indeed only wanted to make renewable energy more affordable for the average Chinese person, as many say is the sole motivation, it could very well have implemented a tax rebate policy with low-income allowances for Chinese consumers (as it's typically done in the US, at least the rebate part) -- and if fearing the money drain to imported panels, they could even have made "for use on domestically made panels only" a condition for such rebates/allowances. Under such a policy, imported solar panels would find it difficult to compete in the Chinese market, but it wouldn't be as big of a deal. That's not what happened. By continuing to subsidize the already established manufacturers directly, it places anti-competitive behavior behind the rather more difficult-to-assail rhetoric of "making energy affordable for the average Chinese person." Unfortunately, this rhetorical sleight of hand is able to misdirect many people.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
To expand a little bit.
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. China is undercutting all of the domestic manufacturers by doing the same thing. It's kind of ironic that we subsidized our solar industry but now they want tariffs because China does the same thing, only much more.
In the end, the tariffs are a last ditch effort to salvage the whole green jobs thing.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Precisely. Consider what happened with water in my area; we entered a conservation phase, and they promptly jacked up the water rates "to ensure minimum funding to maintain the system." Water conservation phase ended, usage increased and... hey look the rate stayed the fucking same.
Reminds me of seasonal gas price hiking. Nothing to do with politics, everything to do with greedy-ass oil execs and Saudi princes.
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.
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.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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.
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.
Someone had to do it.
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.
I spent six years in Tucson and I know folks who have PV panels on their rooftops which provide most of their power. There are lots of urban areas that get a shitload of sunshine.
I agree, though -- solar isn't going to provide baseload power. It's not just coal and oil, though -- nuclear can, too. So can geothermal.
I do not see the anomaly. the market for solar power cells was not driven by any big need for solar power production, and so it all hinged on subsidies to the producers, be they the producers of solar infrastructure or the installers/managers. Moreover, when the size of the market was small the impact on energy bills at the wider level was negligible, like having a 0.01c tax surcharge.
Fast forward to today, and things are quite expectedly different: the installed base is BIG, the subsidies are a botload of money, and the shift between the have and havenots has widened. On the "have" side, big producers of energy receiving subsidies, which given the expenditure were well off to start with, all the infrastructure managers (politician), and the lobbyists who have to be paid to make sure the merry go round keeps going. On the "have not" side, traditional energy producers and especially network managers, who have to justify the expenditures required to adjust to a wildly varying power source (backup generators, more transmission lines, etc); small businesses and individuals, who do not have the clout to say that they do not want or can afford to pay money on top of electricity simply because someone goofed ten years back. And goofed they did: If the level of subsidies would be cut to the level rendering viable only the latest and cheapest generation of solar plants, the "stranded asset" problem would be enormous, since may if not all of the older plants would tank.
the saving grace for the old solars is simple and crude: since most of the installations were financed through bank loans, and banks are the "little princes" of western governments, non one will force the situation, unless the taxpayers really get upset.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
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.
Someone had to do it.
In the end, the tariffs are a last ditch effort to salvage the whole green jobs thing.
Except this backlash isn't exclusive to the USA.
"Here is a pair of graphs that demonstrate most vividly the merit order effect and the impact that solar is having on electricity prices in Germany; and why utilities there and elsewhere are desperate to try to rein in the growth of solar PV in Europe. It may also explain why Australian generators are fighting so hard against the extension of feed-in tariffs in this country."
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/03/27/why-generators-are-terrified-of-solar/
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
You can't handle the truth.
There is one market where solar is becoming a must, and that is RV-ing. With all the electric-hungry appliances that are running off 12 volts, coupled with the fact that batteries take a long time to come up to full charge, solar is becoming a must have for anyone with a RV who isn't just staying on an RV park's shore power 24/7/365. With rigs getting larger, there is plenty of space to add panels.
Add to this flexible solar panels that can be rolled up, and I can envision someone able to run appliances like the A/C or microwave off a battery bank that is recharged by the solar panels on the ceiling, awning, and perhaps an extended room.
So, for RV-ers, it is something that allows for the comforts of home without having to break out the generator.
I mean, they're nice and if you can get them, do it. But! I went off-grid in '80 or so, when subsidies were hard to find, solar was $7/watt for panels or more, and it still paid off. I just doubled what I have here so as to have enough extra to charge my new Volt too - and it's a pretty big deal to just tell the gasoline man to get lost entirely - more panels is also more times the house system needs no backup. Finally there. !00% NOT Chinese stuff, though I have no axe to grind with them as a people. I just prefer poly xtal big, thick, reliable, conservative cells, that's all - I've got them 30 years old at still 80% of original spec. Even those are down to 3.50/watt or so now, made in USA if you care (I don't much, I'm just trying to get the most kWh/buck). It was hard at first, but built good habits of no waste, and now its fantastic - and no monthly bills...just internet. I got a much better subsidy thusly - I bought raw land and homesteaded on it. Power companies are in a lot of places, in charge of enforcing the building permit and inspections regimes. So, if you're not and never become a customer - well, my buildings are taxed as barns and sheds even though I obviously live here. In today's tax environment - lookee, no property taxes to speak of.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Basically they need to get the panels + installation down another 25-50%
A good way to do this is to standardize the mounting brackets, and then change building codes so the brackets are required to be pre-installed on all newly constructed buildings. As prices drop, they can install the panels cheaply because the brackets are already there. This will be much cheaper than retrofitting panels onto an existing roof.
You guys make me laugh. Even if a hand full of companies employ local workers and produce at competitive prices to the Chinese what makes you think these companies won't in turn out source those jobs to China to become "More Profitable(TM)"?
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.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
I hear this same argument all the time here in Anguilla where I live. "we don't want solar unless it reduces the cost of electricity for the poor man".
It's nonsense because solar is not going to drop the wholesale price of electricity, the differential from the price of NG or Nuke is never going to be substantial enough. Electricity in America is very very cheap. There is little point in trying to reduce the cost further, it is mostly administration charges at this stage.
The reason countries like the USA and other are promoting solar is because it is a renewable source. OIl and other fossil fuels are filthy and news of their imminent demise is not exaggerated. They will run out. America has a responsibility as a first world nation to reduce emissions.
Turning to renewable sources allows more time before the end of oil and for the technologies to develop. You can't expect we can transition once there is a crisis. Unless we start now and incentivize the use of RE, we will never get to a point where we can manage without fossil fuels. Great strides are being made and the discovery of grid based storage at economical cost will be a game changer.
Another reason to promote RE sources is energy independence. If countries that are not in the Middle East could survive on domestic production and renewable sources, the politics of the world would change dramatically, and the price of energy would drop, spawning another economic boom. At present, the US public is crying about high gasoline prices caused by geopolitical issues, but at the same time complaining about subsidies for renewable sources aimed at developing solutions to this issue. And blaming Obama for both.
Let's make this very clear. Oil will get more and more expensive until it runs out, the planet will warm in the mean time from CO2, and there will be instability in the Middle East and Venezuela. Or you can believe the Forbes and Fox News stories that tell you the opposite.
I live in a country that has probably the highest electricity costs in the world, 43c/KWh, unlimited sunshine, and refuses to allow people to install solar. Figure that policy out. Very soon we will not be a viable state because of high energy costs, but there is still no vision or will to move out of the dark ages.
Be glad you at least have the right to install solar or wind or whatever.
CM www.cometenergysystems.com Blog: http://caribbeanrenewable.blogspot.com/
Have you been to a non-electrified camping ground that allows RVs? People who drive huge vehicles towing huge campers and sometimes an extra vehicle, ATV or boat achieving a paltry 8-13mpg have absolutely no qualms about breaking out the gasoline generators.
They can't leave the comforts of home behind, including the noise and smog.
We have the best government that money can buy.
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?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
We just talked to a sales rep from Verango, they do just this type of system. Sunrun buys the panels and maintains them. Quoted us 27.5 cents/kwh to start in the first year to replace the 131%+ tier power that we are charged higher rates in California on.
I created a spreadsheet to calculate our average cost/kwh over the last year in the upper tiers, and it worked out to 32.5 cents. So we could save 5 cents/kwh, or $31 per month if our usage stayed the same the last year. Not enough for me to bite, even if it costs us nothing. I'd rather find ways to reduce usage and cut our bill by more than that. We'd planned on doing that, which means the savings would be even smaller because our usage in the top tiers would be going down anyway.
Incidentally, part of his pitch is that energy costs increase 6.9% per year. The 20 year solar contract locks in increases of 2.9%. So part of the argument is that over time, solar costs will go up at a much slower pace than electricity costs from PG&E. The only thing is, there has apparently been so much outrage over electricity costs in California that last year they got the highest tier rates lowered from around 40.4 cents/kwh to 34.2 cents/kwh, and the next highest tier also had a decrease from around 33 cents/kwh to around 31 cents/kwh. (Baseline and 101-130% tier rates went up a little) Which kind of negates the argument that energy costs go up every year, and reinforces the fact that energy companies are regulated by the government, so there are ultimately some political factors involved (aside from market forces, etc) in determining rates that are charged.
Stupid Water Barons!
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
And hence the tariff. To overcome the difference in labor costs.
(Although labor is not nearly as large a component in the solar industry as it is in others, the process is largely hands off automated machinery).
But a good portion of the problem is also the US corporate tax rate. US corporate tax rate is about 40%, China is about 25%. Everybody likes to bitch about obscene corporate profits and how little they pay in taxes and then wonders why they ship jobs overseas.
Yes, there are lots of tax dodges in US law and almost no company pays the full 40%, but the same is true in China and elsewhere, so we don't even need to revisit that old saw, do we?
Simply dropping the Corporate Tax rate levels the playing field and actually favors US companies keeping high tech jobs local.
Obama has proposed cutting the corporate rate to 28%, and Mitt Romney proposes a 25% rate. So why are we still booking 40% and adding tariffs to compensate?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Taxed through inflation, income, sales taxes to pay wealthier people to put panels on their roofs. It's generally morally sickening, but no more sickening than the rest of the corruption.
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.
That's purely because you are incapable of using Google.
e.g.
http://97.65.137.56/202194/ron-paul-right-again-electric-car-subsidies-transferring-wealth-from-the-poor-to-the-rich
Deleted
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?
I am John Hurt.
PV panels not earning back their energy production costs is an urban legend. The actual earn-back period including production, transportation, and installation is only a couple of years.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
'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?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
According to documents filed with the SEC, the publicly traded Chinese firms I follow (~70% of production) have net gross margins for the entire period in question. Granted, they are still running at operating losses for a myriad of other reasons..So either these firms are fraudulent (a pretty serious allegation, far worse than dumping or this is all protectionist garbage) Yet, the majority of opinions on this forum are based on this easily falsifiable U.S. financial media reporting. The evidence of positive gross margins is publicly available via the SEC... Where is the critical thinking here people? Isn't the burden of proof on those who make the accusations? Instead, the firms behind these allegations remain anonymous and fail to provide any evidence. I'd also like to see evidence that Chinese subsides are larger than U.S. subsidies... The big public firm behind this, SolarWorld, is well connected politically and couldn't compete with China even with a 50% tariff ...
Except Solyndra didn't actually outsource their manufacturing to China. They had millions of square feet of factory space in CA.
It's not good for those natural gas/diesel plants, as well as coal plants, all whom have enormous capex costs they're locked into.
Would you want to be a nuclear power plant owner, with ~$1 billion sunk into your facility if someone invents (for the sake of argument) an arc reactor that fits in the palm of your hand and generates all the power you'll need for months at a time in a few seconds?
Entrenched interests fight the new guy, film at 11.
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.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
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.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Taxing the chinese products is more proof that obama and the dems have absolutely no idea how to handle the economy.
It's actually a pretty standard response to an unfair subsidy: China pays $X to reduce the cost of Chinese solar panels, we charge $X in taxes to offset the subsidy and destroy the unfair competitive advantage. And China then loses all incentive to continue the subsidy, because the money isn't actually going to their solar industry anymore, it's just going to pay the tariff which would be eliminated if they stopped paying the subsidy.
Of course, the smart thing to do would be to impose a tariff on Chinese solar panels which doesn't capture the entire subsidy, and then pay the money collected to the domestic manufacturers to eliminate the competitive advantage created by the remainder of the subsidy which isn't collected as a tariff. The consequence is that China is then subsidizing world-wide, rather than only Chinese, manufacturing of solar panels. That's a good thing.
And, if you want to be strategic, make it known that you won't discontinue this arrangement until few years after China discontinues the subsidy, to give them an incentive to keep it -- since discontinuing the subsidy would then make their solar manufacturing totally uncompetitive for a few years, but keeping it (and thereby subsidizing everyone) would leave their industry on the same playing field as they would have been if they didn't decide to play this game in the first place.
"Green" energy is sustainable:
- Clean energy is competitive with other types of energy
- Clean energy creates three times more jobs than fossil fuels
- Clean energy improves grid reliability
- Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels
- Investments in clean energy are cost effective
- Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy
For more details on these points:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/28/453122/fact-sheet-6-things-you-should-know-about-the-value-of-renewable-energy/
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
You're burying the lead here guys. The tarrif is supposedly in response to unfair competition (dumping) - not the larger underlying issues of endemic competitive advantages / disadvantages. Equally good and valid discussion but here the larger issue seems to be - is the capability to produce "green" energy sources from within the country crucial enough to protect at the expense of the taxpayers.
It's not profitable if you are trying to make money by selling the energy you make from it.
But I dont give a rats ass about that. I use it to reduce my expenses. I make up 50% of my electrical use in solar. I hope to increase that in the next 4 years to be 110% of my electrical use in solar.
Why 110%? so I can have a reserve, maybe even be wasteful. I might shoot for 150% and buy an electric hot tub.
The companies selling quality panels are doing just fine. In fact they are quite profitable. What is not profitable in solar is the cheap and low end, or trying to make money off of selling power from it.
That is the problem. It's perfect for meeting a need so that you get free power - costs of maintenance. It also requires the owner to have a higher than normal IQ and education. This is what keeps it from being wide spread.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
You can hide corporate earnings forever and you can spend them
Ok, which is it going to be, hide earnings or spend them? You can't have it both ways.
Rich Dude has his company buys 4 Limos and a New mansion.
Cadillac and Lincoln pocket some cash. Most of that goes to pay wages, buy parts.
Those workers buy their own cars, houses, food.
Or Rich Dude spends nothing, and it sits in the bank. Which loans it out so someone can build a house, start a business.
Lets not talk about profound naivety until you demonstrate even a modicum of understanding about how money works.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
What was the interest rate, if it was so significant? I thought the government was currently able to borrow money for less than the rate of inflation, or nearly so.
And in our current situation, we SHOULD be borrowing/printing, and spending. The economy is underperforming, people are unemployed, and have been for some time. When the economy is healthy again (as it was during the latter Clinton years) we can run surpluses and balance the budget.
Space solar is not likely to be a win under realistic assumptions, especially when we could be deploying solar on the ground right now. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/
Except that China doesn't pay that tariff - the US importer pays the tariff. That's how tariffs are assessed in the US - on the entity bringing that product into the US. Now, increasing the tariff can make it harder for the US importer - because his costs are higher. But unless that negatively impacts his sales, it in no way damages or monetarily impacts the Chinese manufacturer - it only taxes and lowers the profit of the US importer.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Here read and learn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_imputation and if you don't get it, well, tough luck for you.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Until someone says "Surplus! We should spend that!"
Federal budget problems are like a leaky roof: "If it's raining, can't fix it. If it's not raining, it doesn't leak."
We were doing just fine (with our surplus) till we got the bright idea to (s)elect Bush. What you describe most nearly fits the (recent-decades) Republican approach to government deficits. As recently as Bush-the-elder, Republicans were somewhat more responsible in their approach to taxing and spending. (Yeah, you can tell where my sympathies are, but I think I am merely recounting history with a healthy dollop of snark.)
False. If Chinese solar companies started raping us with price, then a new company (located in EU, US, India, Korea, or even China itself) will rise-up and sell the panels for less.
Spoken like somebody who has no understanding of engineering at all and learned about business from political screeds. Somebody's going to invest the money in complex high tech manufacturing plants to compete with a monopolist who can undercut his prices any time it wants?
You seem to think actual experience and practical know-how aren't factors in competitiveness. That's to be a common American delusion these days, that money capital can conjure intellectual capital out of thin air. The killer advantage Chinese solar companies have isn't low labor prices, it's not even government subsidies anymore. It's the practical manufacturing expertise they obtained with those subsidies. And because China is now producing solar panels on a scale larger than anyone else, they've got know how that enables them to bring technical advances in solar technology to market faster than any startup could.
Ironically, undervaluing know-how was the mistake the Maoists made in the Great Leap Forward. They thought all they needed to do to supply their needs for something like steel was to study the theory of steel production then build steel mills starting from first principles. They didn't understand that actual experience designing and operating a successful mill was critical to getting past the cottage industry stage. The *next* generation of Chinese leadership learned that lesson, which is why China's economic development policies all make acquiring know-how the top priority. Cut a sweet short term deal with foreign companies, but insist the production happen in China so that China gains the most valuable asset that company has: practical know-how.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Note that we have been at war since 2003 with no substantial tax increases the entire time - unlike all of the major wars the US participated in during the 20th century. I'm not advocating government waste, but a huge part of our current deficit problem is that in these two wars, for the first time in over a hundred years, the government decided to fund it entirely by borrowing.
Also consider that we were in a recession that was arguably a depression, and just about any way to rapidly pump money into the economy that did something other than sit in a bank account was worthwhile.
Last but not least, I think your assertion that modern science has nothing noteworthy is absurd. Amazing progress is being made in many fields - computing, quantum physics, medicine, biology, astronomy, psychology. What we haven't figured out how to do is enable the poor and middle class in America to accumulate wealth at the same rate that they could forty or fifty years ago. We have a situation where the people who already have wealth are finding it relatively easy to acquire more and everyone else is out in the cold - and despite all their speeches and posturing, it's very clearly that no Democrat or Republican knows how to fix it.
People pay taxes, corporations are legal people, so they should pay taxes.
Cheap storage VM.
or Rich Dude underpays his workers and uses an economically damaging manufacturing method. Rich Dude funds a "social welfare" group that lobbies for corporate "freedom". Things that will "level the playing field with other countries", like disbanding the EPA, or doing away with minimum wage. His accountants decide that these are necessary business expenses and tax deductible, it doesn't hurt that the organization he is donating to has no legal requirement to disclose donors.
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.
Cheap storage VM.