China dumping solar panels in US market

[lilpup]

So much for our new, economy-saving industry

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/bu...l?ref=business

Chinese companies have already played a leading role in pushing down the price of solar panels by almost half over the last year. Shi Zhengrong, the chief executive and founder of China’s biggest solar panel manufacturer, Suntech Power Holdings, said in an interview here that Suntech, to build market share, is selling solar panels on the American market for less than the cost of the materials, assembly and shipping.
Backed by lavish government support, the Chinese are preparing to build plants to assemble their products in the United States to bypass protectionist legislation. As Japanese automakers did decades ago, Chinese solar companies are encouraging their United States executives to join industry trade groups to tamp down anti-Chinese sentiment before it takes root.

[Sstashmoo]

Don't say I didn't tell ya so.

Quote: " their United States executives"

There is your culprit right there. Traitors, not traders.

[gazhekwe]

Yes, it was predicted early on. We have lost our edge. Instead of innovators, we are followers, desperately trying to catch up to modern times. How is that free market is helping us, again?

Oh, how the mighty are fallen...

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Yes, it was predicted early on."

Yeah, by me. When everyone else on here was rationalizing why we don't need our old industries, because we have green tech manufacturing to look forward to.

Quote: "We have lost our edge."

No we haven't. The Lobbyists and Government are Screwing over the middle class in this country. This is no accident, get ready for 3 bucks an hour if you can find it. "Globalization" A person has to be pretty friggin simple to believe that shit.

[gazhekwe]

I predicted it too. We have been slacking off on innovation in 21st century industry. Too many loud voices squawking about Al Gore. Too bad. I also agree with you about our standard of living eventually descending to the third world level instead of others coming up to our standard. Deflation is also predicted, because how can you maintain a middle class lifestyle and BUY things if you only make $3 per hour. In India and China, you can BUY things on $5000 a year. We used to be able to BUY things on $6000. a year or less.

[lilpup]

Honestly, I think any non-politician within an arm's length of the auto industry predicted this.

[gazhekwe]

I'd bet you're right, pup.

[Sstashmoo]

I wonder what it is going to take for people in this country to finally wake up or will they at all? The above article is where the jobs are going in this country, this is why why we have unemployed in double digits, this is why we have hard working people in foreclosure, this is why we are headed for a depression worse than the early 30's.

Obama isn't turning this around. Some say he's only been in office X months. I say as dire as the situation was and is, if him and his cabinet was worth two pinches they would have been ready to go on Day1. Attacking key issues. Keeping in Credo with all the promises he harped about through his whole campaign. We were duped again and certainly can not afford it this time.

[gibran]

This is not anyone one person's issue..it's all of ours and yes it is predicted as long as their is imbalance in trade..read Jeffery Sachs "common wealth" he offers a realistic view of Globalization with division...I beleive Obama inherited a mess and has hit the ground running...but to turn a frieghter around in a swirling river you need all hands on deck...aand that hasn't really happened. The opposition is loving the struggles for their own partisian gains..putting thier needs ahead of America...got to love those free markert corrections now.eh

[Bobl]

While the opposition takes advantage for their own selfish reasons, putting the needs of the country at risk, calling anything that they don't like "socialism" [[which has replaced the word "liberal" as the new boogyman):

"...Backed by lavish government support, the Chinese are preparing to build plants to assemble their products in the United States to bypass protectionist legislation..."

So called Free Trade trumps the needed Fair Trade, at the expense of the public, and at fiscal and political profit for a few.

[oladub]

This is not anyone one person's issue..it's all of ours and yes it is predicted as long as their is imbalance in trade..read Jeffery Sachs "common wealth" he offers a realistic view of Globalization with division...I beleive Obama inherited a mess and has hit the ground running...but to turn a frieghter around in a swirling river you need all hands on deck...aand that hasn't really happened. The opposition is loving the struggles for their own partisian gains..putting thier needs ahead of America...got to love those free markert corrections now.eh

Obama did inherit a mess and is doing a successful demonstration project to show how to make things even worse. He didn't turn the freightor around. He increased its speed. Examples relating to dumping.

• instituting new middle class cap and trade taxes to make manufacturing even more attractive in China.
• 53% of new cars purchased in the first month of Cash for Clunkers had other than big 3 nametags,
• approving the import of Chinese cars through Government Motors.
• doing nothing to take on NAFTA or the WTO.

[ccbatson]

Don't forget the toxic cadmium in the panels [[as well as various other materials taking up space), the low efficiency, and the still relatively high cost making this a novelty as opposed to a true energy source.

[lilpup]

Solar is no longer a novelty. It's burgeoning everyday use can be seen simply by looking at mobile construction zone signs and other traffic route related uses.

[ccbatson]

That, my friend, is a great example of MY point...a novelty, at best.

And a darn toxic one at that. However, at least they don't emit that noxious gas...CO2, you know, the stuff that comes out of lungs, the stuff that is going to put New York under water and cause global warming. Nope, none of that vile stuff, just good old homestyle cadmium by the pound.

[lilpup]

and some schools and entire roofs of GM factories and a number of other applications that are not "novelties"...

[gazhekwe]

There you go again, CC, screaming about Al Gore. It is so counter productive to business interests it is hard to understand why you keep doing that. We can't get back to work here without businesses that make things investing in OUR communities. Exploring new things to make is key, yet here we have let China get ahead of us again. Tsk tsk. They even plan to come here and use our manufacturing resources to make things, our people, our water, our land. At least there will be jobs here.

[ccbatson]

How much energy do they provide [[at a monetary saving of what)? You can plaster them wherever you like, but if they are negligibly productive and cost ineffective, all you are doing is making a statement [[albeit a stupid one) that you "care" about the Earth....[[I guess toxic cadmium is like mother's milk to good old planet E).

[gazhekwe]

Are you aware that we have plenty of products that use cadmium already. If it is such a threat, we should get rid of NiCad batteries, pigments, PVC and electroplating on airplanes.

[ccbatson]

So, we need more? So that argument negates the toxicity? So, added toxicity plus inefficiency and cost are OK because Cadmium is used [[correctly) in other applications?

[Sstashmoo]

My last read on solar cells was to the effect, not one solar cell had ever paid for itself in energy produced.

Traffic signs flashing a few HILED's with solar? Try starting your homes AC unit. Your roof isn't big enough.

We can get energy at least supplemented from solar but it ain't gonna be cheap. Careful what you ask for.

[ccbatson]

Come on, don't try and argue the rational with liberals [[the irrational defined).

[oladub]

The OP article said that solar operating costs have been cut in half in the last year. That means that the operating cost differential between solar and cheaper conventional energy souces had been slashed by an even greater percentage.

Solar is already cost competitive, cheaper, or handier for some limited uses like solar powered electric fences, highway construction lights, and hand held calculators. Cutting the relative cost difference in half will make new uses of solar generation cost efficient.

I have a friend who sells LED lights of every application and size. His son teaches in China and made the acquantance of an LED wholesaler. Anyway, LED lights consume only 10% as much electricity as regular lightbulbs and 33% as much as fluorescents. New technologies like LEDs further expand the market for solar panels. It might be a lot cheaper to use LEDs and solar panels to light a billboard all night than to run powerlines long distances for instance.

Some of you guys who value independence should relish the idea of going off grid. No more sales tax on your electric bill for one thing. No more planning commissions lording over electrical utility extentions for another.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Solar is already cost competitive, cheaper, or handier for some limited uses like solar powered electric fences, highway construction lights, and hand held calculators."

Yes, a novelty and of little consequence. To power the above mentioned needs with solar is like someone putting themselves on a personal budget, and scratching chewing gum off of their shopping list. It's meaningless.

The realities are some of the needs, as in industry, consume huge amounts of electricity. There's the aluminum industry, it takes astronomical amounts of power to smelt and refine aluminum. Often these plants own their own power station or must be situated close to a public power generating station. Trying to achieve that process with solar energy would be impossible. Aluminum would probablu be more expensive than gold by weight. Bye bye aircraft industry.

What makes solar seem feasible is people for the most part do not understand electricity, where voltage in milliamps is literally nothing. What Calculators and LED's consume.

Here is a good read on the solar fraud, from the article:

""The movement toward "renewables" has been given a fearful advance by the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted in early August to require electric utilities to provide between 11 and 15 percent of their generating capacity from "renewables"--which would supposedly be achieved primarily through wind and solar power. For a medium-sized state, such as my home state of Arkansas, providing 11 percent of electrical generation via solar power would mean green generation by 2020 of about seven billion kWh of electricity. To meet this with solar generation, Arkansas would need 10-15 solar plants, each with the capacity of SEGS occupying 16,000 to 24,000 acres--25 to 27 square miles. The cost? Who knows? Construction costs of green power facilities are carefully concealed in a twisted maze of grants, subsidies, credits, and other ways to disguise their outlandish costs."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

[Lorax]

Television was a "novelty" at the 1939 World's Fair. It took a decade and a half, but most of America was sigining onto the "novelty."

I guess you'd still be advocating for buggy whips and saddle soap when Ford rode down the street in his first auto.

[gazhekwe]

There are reasoned reports on the cost and effectiveness of solar to counter these Machiavellian fogbank reports that throw around partial info to support their cause. Think highway projects using solar is trivial? Permanent signage using solar? How about if everyone who has landscape lighting [[Lots and lots of people) replaced electric with solar. I have them, they work. Reasoning is needed for sure. Whole house solar is more effective in sunny areas. I doubt it would be much good in Detroit in February. Meantime, such projects currently would be paid for by the home or building owner, maybe with tax breaks, so the overall cost to the taxpayers would not be 100%.

Here is a opinion article from San Antonio, where they get lots of sun:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/...s_bad_rap.html

Two misconceptions about solar energy must be cleared up before any CPS Energy board or City Council vote on nuclear takes place: That solar is too expensive and that it is unreliable.
Those who say solar is costlier than nuclear fail to consider both volume construction and the steadily, rapidly declining cost of solar while nuclear costs are going up....

Unreliability of solar is no longer an issue. Thermal storage, easier and less expensive than storage of electricity, takes care of the solar intermittency problem, and is needed for short periods only. [The article spends some time on this issue, this is just the intro sentence.]

Sandia National Laboratories began a solar project in 2000 working with American Indian tribes: http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2000/solar.htm

And they have unveiled their Suncatcher power system just last month.
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources.../stirling.html

Continuing R & D will make these options more and more feasible as we progress into the future, especially for sunny areas like Albuquerque. It is time to get on the bandwagon with this new technology.

Here is an article about an Australian solar scientist who has come to the US to work on solar. A quote from an article about his work:

"If David Mills gets his way, America's sun-bathed states and the deserts of Asia and Africa will become hubs of clean-power generation for their respective continents."

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources.../stirling.html