Mass Insanity: Following a guy who is using 1970 policies of fossil based regression and trade collapse nearly 50 years later. What a total loser this guy is! We are losers too for following this sad excuse for anything.
3
The solar industry has fought hard to improve process and reduce costs so it no longer requires hand-outs. The remedy as proposed by Suniva will simultaneously make solar installations dramatically less competitive with fossil fuels and establish a potential new job growth engine (domestic manufacturing) upon the back of subsidy.
About 5% of domestic solar jobs in the USA are in manufacturing and 95% in installation. This will devastate the momentum of the solar industry and is horrible policy unless you love coal. Oh, yeah...
About 5% of domestic solar jobs in the USA are in manufacturing and 95% in installation. This will devastate the momentum of the solar industry and is horrible policy unless you love coal. Oh, yeah...
3
Fair trade is fine. Dumping artificially priced items is not.
1
Let's add the true costs of fossil fuel, such as spill clean ups, health problems caused by pollution, armed forces costs to keep fuel shipping lanes safe, costs of seawalls that are and will be needed because of global warming, etc. as fees to those companies extracting fuels in the US or importing them.
Then use some of that money to help scale up photo voltaic, thermal solar, wind, wave and other clean energy production and storage so we can be competative or better lead on clean energy technology and manufacturing. Let's stop propping up losers like coal and oil and even gas.
But, let's also provide for ample training, health care, and other needs of displaced workers in these old unclean energy jobs.
Everyone benefits from clean energy as long as the workers are protected and not tossed aside.
As for companies like Exxon, they can take their billions in profits and invest in clean technologies.
Then use some of that money to help scale up photo voltaic, thermal solar, wind, wave and other clean energy production and storage so we can be competative or better lead on clean energy technology and manufacturing. Let's stop propping up losers like coal and oil and even gas.
But, let's also provide for ample training, health care, and other needs of displaced workers in these old unclean energy jobs.
Everyone benefits from clean energy as long as the workers are protected and not tossed aside.
As for companies like Exxon, they can take their billions in profits and invest in clean technologies.
5
Tempest in a teapot. No matter what happens in this fight, we, as Americans, benefit. There may be short-term pain in a shift from "Made in China" to "American Made", but it would still employ more Americans. If not, we would still roll out more solar (renewable) energy for actual use.
Take your pick, but the future indeed looks bright.
Take your pick, but the future indeed looks bright.
1
The solar industry has accomplished extraordinary price reductions over the past decade to the point we are now the cheapest form of new energy production available even without subsidy or external fossil fuel costs considered. That is a HUGE story and one I think few appreciate.
Unfortunately your comment illuminates that you have not done a cost stack for the product; I have been doing them for 10 years. The proposed remedy is not subtle, it puts a 100% to 200% tax on solar panels depending upon how you interpret the request. Worse yet, Trump can do anything he wants, the remedy is entirely at his discretion.
I challenge any industry to survive a doubling or tripling of product cost and just brush it off; that won't happen here. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake and even worse will be the loss of momentum for what is a great American success story.
Unfortunately your comment illuminates that you have not done a cost stack for the product; I have been doing them for 10 years. The proposed remedy is not subtle, it puts a 100% to 200% tax on solar panels depending upon how you interpret the request. Worse yet, Trump can do anything he wants, the remedy is entirely at his discretion.
I challenge any industry to survive a doubling or tripling of product cost and just brush it off; that won't happen here. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake and even worse will be the loss of momentum for what is a great American success story.
6
This is a complicated topic, but Chinese photovoltaic panels are inexpensive primarily because the country built massive, fully integrated PV factories that make all the vital, expensive component parts that go into the panel: cells, electronics, etc. The investment in lower-cost components, massive facilities, automation, and overall efficiency resulted very low cost, high-quality PV panels. A small US manufacturer can’t compete with that scale. US manufacturers will inevitably have to get some if not all of the component parts from China (probably from a company related to the solar PV panel manufacturer accused of dumping); assemble them into a panel here at a less efficient factory built on more expensive real estate, using much higher labor costs. It's a mirror of countless other product sectors: textiles, consumer electronics, etc.
Why focus on solar? Perhaps because the tariffs will make PV unaffordable and the fossil fuel industry will get to say they told you so: solar doesn’t make economic sense [as opposed to the massively subsidized Earth-killing fossil fuel cash cow that defers land grabs, health care, and pollution impacts to taxpayers]. And even though it will cost 100,000s of thousands of potential PV industry job losses, that will be ignored and the administration will get to say they created 10,000 fossil-related company jobs! It's win-win for the fossil fuel industry and the administration...a sad, cynical, temporary victory.
Why focus on solar? Perhaps because the tariffs will make PV unaffordable and the fossil fuel industry will get to say they told you so: solar doesn’t make economic sense [as opposed to the massively subsidized Earth-killing fossil fuel cash cow that defers land grabs, health care, and pollution impacts to taxpayers]. And even though it will cost 100,000s of thousands of potential PV industry job losses, that will be ignored and the administration will get to say they created 10,000 fossil-related company jobs! It's win-win for the fossil fuel industry and the administration...a sad, cynical, temporary victory.
20
DUMPING IS DUMPING. AMerican solar manufacturers can compete & renewables are not in jeopardy,whether owned by CHinese or Germans . American jobs & technological innovation can be ours if you keep that in mind. Most of everything in a smart phone is based on American technology yet made in Asia. It will be interesting to see if Trump holds true to job creation, he hasn't done anything yet. The faster we embrace renewables , the better we establish our energy indepedence. Oil & carbon has its place ,not in energy but building materials ,plastics & infrastructure. Currently we have no vision for the 22nd century, that is our problem. People need to take a look at solar metal roofs, new durable roof generating power. Optic lenses that bend light to capture light to focus EV panels. Simple long term solutions to multiple problems.
7
This is a tough one. I am pro-renewables but find it hard to stomach that US-developed technology is(or was) owned by Chinese firms that enjoy direct state support.
China, in order to keep its citizens employed has overbuilt production capacity in an increasing number of goods. It blithely thought it could just export the excess to the rest of the world (a view which the rest of the world, until recently, actually encouraged).
The world has changed in that regard.
Maybe as a result we can actually get out of this deflationary rut we are in.
China, in order to keep its citizens employed has overbuilt production capacity in an increasing number of goods. It blithely thought it could just export the excess to the rest of the world (a view which the rest of the world, until recently, actually encouraged).
The world has changed in that regard.
Maybe as a result we can actually get out of this deflationary rut we are in.
3
Check out the book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, in which author Chris Anderson argues that the Internet is driving costs and prices down to nothing. Oil is at high prices because of profits and high extraction costs and political volatility. Solar is a huge disruption that will ultimately bring the price of energy to a fraction of what it is today. Trumpists, including our Secretary of State, Mr. Exxon Mobil, will do what they can to retard its progress. Inevitably, oil is doomed because energy "wants to be free."
1
I've been working in the solar industry for 18 months. The SEIA recently concluded that if the tariff imposed as requested will lead to 88,000 jobs lost in the USA. Hey Times, why did you not mention this and why is your poorly researched article appearing nearly 3 months after the petition was filed to the ITC? I could very well lose my job amongst many other great people that I know. So what's more important? A few hundred manufacturing jobs lost from companies that aren't even American owned or the livelihoods of 88,000 people that spend every single day mitigating climate change, as their families rely on the income they bring in?? Meanwhile, the rest of the world zooms ahead of the US in the transformation to renewable energy. NY Times, please rewrite this piece and emphasize the cost to American livelihoods, the environment, and the ability for the USA to stay competitive in global energy markets.
19
TBut usa will retain the last coal job instead of competing in solar.
8
If we want to really save money let's have special visas to bring in foreign labor to do the installation work. This would really bring down costs. As a nation we just can't afford American labor anymore. Hooray for Globalization, there's just no stopping it!
7
I'll say that your comment is the most interesting here. So maybe labor achieves a similar globalized status that finance has achieved?
Let's say the Koch bros don't want competition on toilet paper, so they strip all the G&A out of the overhead and put it somewhere else, like on a government contract. Then they sell the wipes at direct labor and direct materials, then provide a rebate to the buyer to cover logistics charged to the buyer. All legal.
But China does the same thing and it's dumping? The simple minded will say "but China is a government". So what. Governments can't be run like businesses? I've heard paulie ryan whine that government should be run like a business. Well?.?.?.?
But China does the same thing and it's dumping? The simple minded will say "but China is a government". So what. Governments can't be run like businesses? I've heard paulie ryan whine that government should be run like a business. Well?.?.?.?
4
With regards to your Koch analogy, it is flawed in two fatal ways. The first is that the issue is not Chinese companies competing, it's that the Chinese government is competing to control worldwide power manufacturing. This is both an a trade issue (dumping) and a strategic problem. The second major problem with you analogy is that playing such tricks to undercut competitors is illegal for monopolies.
I keep hearing about all these people who are employed by the solar industry. That that count door-to-door sales people, who are likely to quickly leave the business have striking out too many times?
My neighborhood has approximately 200 homes. I have seen a grand total of one house with rooftop solar panels. I rarely see them in other neighborhoods.
Given all the publicity and hype, so far it has been a total fail. Cheaper Chinese imports are not going to do the trick.
My neighborhood has approximately 200 homes. I have seen a grand total of one house with rooftop solar panels. I rarely see them in other neighborhoods.
Given all the publicity and hype, so far it has been a total fail. Cheaper Chinese imports are not going to do the trick.
2
Joe, it simply might be your location.......almost every home from my view in Santa Clara County has a solar array. I guess this is all location-specific.
11
I recently moved from Tucson, where solar is becoming more common, especially on new houses, to a small town in Gila County, where you'd be hard-pressed to find any solar panels on rooftops. I suspect that solar is more popular and accepted in upscale cities, especially on the coasts.
2
joe: Get out, take a ride, smell the flowers, and SEE the solar panels..
2
I hope more soccer teams adopt this community approach. Nobody, least of all in the Americas, need to spend money on polyester soccer jersies. Go Guatemala!
1
One more thing. Let the Chinese have an even larger share of the solar market. Every rooftop with Made In China solar panels. Forget about the dumping argument. Chinese solar panels help to reduce global warming. From this perspective, exemption should be made to let the Chinese flood the US solar market.
9
Once again, we find ourselves scapegoating China, or any other low-wage country, even though the fault is our own. Pretty much all we care about is low cost, even at the expense of middle-class jobs here at home. We blame China, but the blame is better focused on U.S. businesses seeking better returns for their investors through lower production costs. And ultimately on ourselves for demanding unrealistically lower and lower prices on consumer goods.
27
The 600 pound gorilla in the room is economics. Solar energy is expanding in the US and around the world because the Chinese can economically make the hardware. The low prices have spurred rapid growth in implementing clean energy. The fact is that the US manufacturers cannot compete on price. Cost of production here, with the high cost of living in our country, prevents us from making panels as cheaply as the Chinese, and that's not going to change. We benefit from the low cost Chinese products overall, while a few people in the manufacturing sector lose their jobs. (The mechanism is the same for all the other industries that have withered in the US under Chinese competition.)
There are many more people employed in the US installing these systems than there are employed in manufacturing the modules. If tariffs are enacted, the cost to the consumer to install a solar system will rise, reducing the demand for new systems. This will put more installers out of work while only a few will gain employment in manufacturing jobs. The net effect is a loss of jobs and reduced economic activity. We'll produce less clean energy and spend more money on fossil fuel.
While I hate to see more jobs lost in the manufacturing sector, we are the net beneficiaries of low-cost imports. Imagine the effect on our purchasing power is all those low-cost foreign products disappeared and we were left with only an American-made option that costs three times as much. Can you spell "inflation"?
There are many more people employed in the US installing these systems than there are employed in manufacturing the modules. If tariffs are enacted, the cost to the consumer to install a solar system will rise, reducing the demand for new systems. This will put more installers out of work while only a few will gain employment in manufacturing jobs. The net effect is a loss of jobs and reduced economic activity. We'll produce less clean energy and spend more money on fossil fuel.
While I hate to see more jobs lost in the manufacturing sector, we are the net beneficiaries of low-cost imports. Imagine the effect on our purchasing power is all those low-cost foreign products disappeared and we were left with only an American-made option that costs three times as much. Can you spell "inflation"?
28
"There are many more people employed in the US installing these systems than there are employed in manufacturing the modules"
That same argument (you know, there are many more people employed selling sneakers at higher wages than those manufacturing them) has been at play for decades now. It would be nice (and strategically significant) if, at this point, we even had an "American made option" and firmly believe American workers want to compete. Unfortunately when one looks at our trade deficit, budget deficits, national debt, crumbling infrastructure, and community blight one wonders if the "hidden costs" are considered, a little inflation (I'm not sure where you came up with three times as much) as an alternative, makes one question the "beneficiaries of low-cost imports" thesis.
That same argument (you know, there are many more people employed selling sneakers at higher wages than those manufacturing them) has been at play for decades now. It would be nice (and strategically significant) if, at this point, we even had an "American made option" and firmly believe American workers want to compete. Unfortunately when one looks at our trade deficit, budget deficits, national debt, crumbling infrastructure, and community blight one wonders if the "hidden costs" are considered, a little inflation (I'm not sure where you came up with three times as much) as an alternative, makes one question the "beneficiaries of low-cost imports" thesis.
6
China wanted to profit from opening it's market to tech. So China demanded the manufacturing facilities be located there, and that it's under-skilled population be taught manufacturing. Those employees could then afford to buy the product, and Chinese directors could take a big share of the resulting profit. The irony is that many, or most, of those Chinese directors were educated right here in the US. After which they got a little work experience and went home.
The US (colleges & universities) exports education to the direct detriment of our own workforce, and the detriment of our economic stability and security.
The US (colleges & universities) exports education to the direct detriment of our own workforce, and the detriment of our economic stability and security.
1
Bill McGrath: Can you spell " race to the bottom"? It's short term thinking such as yours that has put America and whoever sold the American panel company to the Chinese giving them our technology, that has created the problem. When you can figure out how to import correspondingly cheap cost of living factors ( such as a roof over ones head)to allow American workers to work for the same wages as Chinese workers let me know or are you of the mind that we should endorse slave labor in this country, which by the way we are already doing as illegal workers are doing entry level construction jobs for a fraction of what a decently paid a Union Man might make. we must either learn to share and acknowledge we're in this together or the situation will continue to deteriorate and we will truly find ourselves in an oligarchy or a banana republic, we're not that far from it now if you consider the security measures taken by C.E.O.s. I live in Palm Beach part of the time and you never see the high profile guys like Peltz, Cohen, Schwartzmann or their ilk out and about, I imagine their time is spent only at their club among their own kind and I do know in these golden parachutes there are often security benefits that run to seven figures a year. To think that Henry Ford II or III, whatever, used to be a regular morning fixture at a Taboo(local watering hole) in the early seventies during the season, or that Truman left the Whitehouse with Bess and drove home, my how things have changed.
6
We need more solar installations to save the planet. If one company or another can't hack it, too bad. Let whoever can produce the cheapest win the day, getting off fossil fuels is too important to worry about who's got a job and who doesn't. Sorry to be hard about it, but we're in big trouble!
10
So true...
2
The issue here, as the article notes, is that China manufacturers have been dumping panels AT BELOW COST. That must stop, one way or the other!
16
Two months ago I purchased a PV system and installed it myself. I bought Suniva panels and found out that very day Suniva had filed for bankruptcy or re-structuring. I chose Suniva because it is an American based company and the panels were best suited for my application. Yes China is dumping panels worldwide but Suniva and other US manufacturers are subsidized with local, state and federal tax incentives. Whats the difference? I am in favor of any incentive that will make energy production cleaner and Chinese dumping does just that. Only problem is I now have no warranty on the panels.
5
That's the claim, but has it been demonstrated beyond doubt that they're truly dumping?
1
One country's dumping is another's efficiency. If China shipped these panels for free, we would be crazy not to accept the gifts: the installation and accessories industries would thrive, and we would enjoy endless, pollution-free power. It's Economics 101: Comparative Advantage.
Just to put some numbers here, I had a 2.75kW solar system installed on my house. The system cost $10,000 including installation and permits. Most of this cost was not the panels themselves. I could have bought the same panels for about $2500. There is also the inverter, meters, wiring, mounting hardware, and the installers services (professional engineer, electrician, sales, city permit inspector, etc) My point is that about half of the money stayed in my local community as wages for the services provided with the installation. If we charge tariffs to increase the costs of the panels and these lead to a reduction of the number of solar installations, it will be a net loss in local jobs because more of the jobs are in the installation than in the manufacture of the panels.
In case you are wondering: There was a local power company rebate of $1800 as well as state ($4700) and federal ($2500) tax credits. So my total cost was only about $1000. It reduces my power bill by about $250/year. Also it increased the value of the home by about $5000. So it is way beyond grid parity from my wallet's perspective.
In case you are wondering: There was a local power company rebate of $1800 as well as state ($4700) and federal ($2500) tax credits. So my total cost was only about $1000. It reduces my power bill by about $250/year. Also it increased the value of the home by about $5000. So it is way beyond grid parity from my wallet's perspective.
36
All those tax credits and rebates and you're only saving twenty dollars a month?
4
If the manufacturers want to increase short time profits that hurt the businesses that install solar panels, I say buy from China and pay the installer.
2
As I understand this scenario, we are talking about the trade-off between several hundred solar-panel manufacturing jobs in USA vs. importing low-cost solar panels moving our nation toward a low-carbon future with 50% more solar installations due to lower costs. That is not a hard decision to make when looking at the bigger picture.
How is this fundamentally different than FoxConn and others making the electronics for Apple, Samsung, LG and others in overseas plants due to lower labor costs?
American labor simply cannot compete on cost alone with less-developed nations under current global trade agreements. This is why Ford is shipping manufacturing jobs to China vs Mexico vs Detroit.
The US consumer benefits significantly from lower costs resulting from global trade even as US manufacturing jobs disappear. Seems to me to be a straight-forward macro-economics progression, and one that our government can help via training programs for displaced workers.
How is this fundamentally different than FoxConn and others making the electronics for Apple, Samsung, LG and others in overseas plants due to lower labor costs?
American labor simply cannot compete on cost alone with less-developed nations under current global trade agreements. This is why Ford is shipping manufacturing jobs to China vs Mexico vs Detroit.
The US consumer benefits significantly from lower costs resulting from global trade even as US manufacturing jobs disappear. Seems to me to be a straight-forward macro-economics progression, and one that our government can help via training programs for displaced workers.
14
Fascinating comments as submitted, but I beg to differ with this aspect:
"American labor simply cannot compete on cost alone with less-developed nations under current global trade agreements. This is why Ford is shipping manufacturing jobs to China vs Mexico vs Detroit."
If this were true, why has Honda been so successful over many years in assembling its brand of small cars in Indiana and Ohio? Given the parity in the Big Three's two-tier wage scheme, there's not a whole lot of difference in manufacturing cost between the Big Three and Honda.
I suspect Ford's primary interest in shipping the manufacturing of small cars to China is to simply boost shareholder profits and little else.
As a 67 year old child of former Ford workers, it will be a cold day in hell when I buy a Big Three vehicle assembled in China.
"American labor simply cannot compete on cost alone with less-developed nations under current global trade agreements. This is why Ford is shipping manufacturing jobs to China vs Mexico vs Detroit."
If this were true, why has Honda been so successful over many years in assembling its brand of small cars in Indiana and Ohio? Given the parity in the Big Three's two-tier wage scheme, there's not a whole lot of difference in manufacturing cost between the Big Three and Honda.
I suspect Ford's primary interest in shipping the manufacturing of small cars to China is to simply boost shareholder profits and little else.
As a 67 year old child of former Ford workers, it will be a cold day in hell when I buy a Big Three vehicle assembled in China.
9
Honda is a Japanese company.
And assembled in the U.S. by American workers.
America just cannot compete on the low end. Due to economy of scale the Chinese will always have cost advantage. Anti dumping charge is just an excuse to hide the inability to compete. Focus on the niche high end market and let the Chinese have the consumer grade market.
1
Suniva had a strange business, they made cells in the Georgia shipped the cells to China and used low labor to assemble the cells into solar modules and then shipped the completed modules back to the US for sale - claiming to be American made. The US has made and exported crystalline to China for cell fabrication, mainly from areas with low cost hydro power. Refining sand into pure silicon is energy intensive.
While the US developed solar technology, it was China who decided to invest over 60-billion dollars creating a low cost solar industry. Our bad for not doing the same as the US instead continued to support oil and coal. China modules are cheap because they have invested in highly automated manufacturing plants. Its not cheap labor - its robotics that allows China to make cheap modules.
While the US developed solar technology, it was China who decided to invest over 60-billion dollars creating a low cost solar industry. Our bad for not doing the same as the US instead continued to support oil and coal. China modules are cheap because they have invested in highly automated manufacturing plants. Its not cheap labor - its robotics that allows China to make cheap modules.
47
I'm a true globalist through and through. Not being a fan of tariffs and trade wars, if anyone, and that would include the US, can make a better product more cheaply, have at it. If they're government chooses to grant a particular industry subsidies, better for the consumer.
1
If our domestic companies cannot compete in price to foreign manufactures, why can't the government subsidize solar energy industry? If money is the object, why not buy fewer F-35 stealth planes and build fewer carrier? I think money spend on environment is more useful than money spend on weaponry.
20
We have to make a decision for monetary and economic benefits. China is, and will be our economic adversary in several ways over the next 25+ years.
Do we go for the least expensive products in the short run made by China or others? Or do we preclude them, the same way they preclude us in China, and pay more for our own produced products, but we help our economy by retaining production and jobs?
These are the same issues that we have had with the TPP and TTIP, which had potentially negative impacts which would deprive us of our legal rights and hurt our economy, as American citizens, while those outside of the US could sue us and prevail.
Do we go for the least expensive products in the short run made by China or others? Or do we preclude them, the same way they preclude us in China, and pay more for our own produced products, but we help our economy by retaining production and jobs?
These are the same issues that we have had with the TPP and TTIP, which had potentially negative impacts which would deprive us of our legal rights and hurt our economy, as American citizens, while those outside of the US could sue us and prevail.
2
Why do you have to speak in terms of "adversaries"? We can do well and they can do well. Is the only goal to do so well that you wipe the other guy out?
I was in the solar business back in the 70's-early 80's. That is until Ronald Reagan drove a stake through the heart of the business. It has been great seeing the comeback of the industry but I doubt that trump will care to support it against his desire to dig more coal. It seems funny to write that, but I do not see him having any interest in supporting anything but a campaign promise and that did not include solar. Here he gets a twofer. He plays to coal, superficially, but that is the way he does everything and he can show that he is tough on China. He is the one in a room of mouse traps and a ping pong ball on each trap who will throw the first ball and ignore the outcome. "Did you see how beautifully I threw that ball?"
7
It's history repeating itself. Reagan took the solar panels off the roof as part of an effort to rid the nation of anything "Jimmy Carter". What was to follow were the unfair trade practices of "dumping" by the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans which was to destroy or (in some cases eliminate) many of our industries particularly solar panels, flat screen production, furniture, textiles, and steel. We may never know to what extent unfair trade deals, our desire for all things cheap, or our lack of competitiveness were to blame. To be sure though, our astronomical debt, crumbling infrastructure, and the destruction of our middle class shows it was not without a cost.
2
A regressive strategy, going in the opposite direction to the rest of the world.
The fake idea of protecting a few jobs in the fossil fuel industry will make us noncompetitive and a laughing stock on the world stage.
Foolish & Sad.