American manufacturing of solar panels -- worth protecting?

[DanKegel]

I think the validity of your original question was destroyed by your tacit inference and unnecessary addition turning it into a dichotomous choice between jobs and free trade, or the emotion of a brighter future or lost jobs.

Hmm. What I wrote was

Should the US engage in industrial policy here to preserve American manufacturing jobs and energy independence, or let free trade reign and enjoy the low cost imports while they're there, and not worry about the trade imbalance?
And might the President want to use solar import duties as a patriotic way to gently guide the country away from wasting resources on renewable energy, and back to good old red-blooded American coal and oil?

I was trying to summarize the issues very succinctly in terms familiar to proponents of both sides, I wasn't trying to sway anybody. Sorry if I wrote poorly.

Personally, I don't think there are many manufacturing jobs at stake. I do worry about what happens if the dollar goes down; seems like we'd want to keep a couple local manufacturers going just in case so they could ramp up if that happens. That's relatively expensive, but it's a form of insurance, and it could be valid policy. Above my pay grade.

[J.P.M.]

You wondered why people don't mention the environment more. Your post above is a good example of why people are dissuaded from doing that. Which is fine; every forum has its own character, and this forum has little tolerance for environmentalism. (Note that while Dan is the most frequent environmentalist poster here, he is far from the only one; the others are just chased off more quickly.)

But it's a bit silly to chase such people off then wonder where they are. Even if you consider your reasons for doing so (i.e. "they are ignorant, they should leave if they can't stand the heat") to be valid. IMO, of course.

Again, that's fine; any forum can have any character it wants, and this one is pretty extreme in that regard (i.e. personal attacks are common and seem protected.) But that means you will drive people away, and thus you will not see anything like a representative cross section of people here.

And I'd suggest that such organizations have methods to ensure that they get a valid sample pool, as opposed to this place where a segment of potential posters is driven off. Those methods usually work pretty well.

Agreed. And as the NYT article mentioned, people have a threshold of what they are willing to pay for a degree of sustainability. That's an average, of course, and as solar costs come down, more people will find themselves on the side of "it's low enough cost that I will do it."

Understood. Thank you for your comments.

A lot of us are very concerned about the environment, but that's not what seems to be the main focus of why folks show up here, or what most of the conversations are about. I believe this forum is pro environment, but seemingly, this being the forum of few(er) illusions, doesn't give what is sometimes a lot of environmentally incorrect information as easy a pass as some other venues.

There are forums dedicated to that subject. I've been on them. They are, in general about as uninformed about R.E. as most on this forum are uninformed about the environment. There is some union of sets, but neither type of information is the main thrust of what the other seems to focus on.

Maybe why environmentalism isn't bigger on this forum might also be a chicken/egg thing. Or supply/demand. I don't agree that people are routinely intimidated off this site for their environmental opinions. It just might be, at least partially or in some cases, that some such opinions are viewed as simplistic B.S by the majority of those reading such opinions. All opinions are valid. But simply because one has an opinion says nothing about it's ability to fit reality, or that following it will lead to a good outcome. Like an umpire's job, that's a call for the mods and as we all know, not an easy one at times.

Or, and I'm going out on a limb here, maybe folks are not driven off this forum as much as they are proactive enough to see that their technical rigor isn't up to the nature of what can be required, and so, the ones with common sense, manners and respect for others go elsewhere to discuss their proclivities, or at least seek information here and perhaps learn, rather than rudely and inconsiderately waste time and, perhaps most importantly, mislead others unnecessarily by stridently pushing their own agenda rather than improving the quality of the content.

Perhaps analogously to a lot of Dan's actions around here, I'm sort of an amateur mathematician, but if I got on a math forum and started ignorantly bloviating, besides pissing people off and detracting from the general quality of the content, I'd do little more than embarrass myself, and if I had as much as one eye and one balloon knot, expect to get slaughtered. To think otherwise would be stupid.

As for Dan being the most frequent environmentalist poster here, I'd say I know of at least one other poster here, who, is a more frequent poster and who, again my opinion only, is at least as concerned if not more so about the environment and R.E.'s role in protecting and improving it than Dan is concerned.

[J.P.M.]

Actually I would add not only hydro but geothermal and with hope some day even tidal.

There are a lot of forms of natural energy that can be converted to electricity. Some processes cost more than others and some are very hard and expensive to tame. Until we can conquer those difficulties it requires a very energy hungry country to use what it has to generate electricity which for the time being and into the near future will be FF in some form or another.

Or maybe think of and develop ways to use less energy to accomplish the same goals.

[DanKegel]

maybe folks are not driven off this forum

You forgot the comic sans!

[J.P.M.]

You forgot the comic sans!

I only use that font when I'm being sarcastic or attempting humor.

[SunEagle]

Or maybe think of and develop ways to use less energy to accomplish the same goals.

+1. I'll vote for that action.

We just have to find a way to get the teenagers to turn off their bedroom lights.

[Sunking]

Dan Oil Subsides are not subsidies. It is the best investment the government can make with huge ROI's that would be illegal if it were not government. It would be called Racketeering like Loan Sharking with 500% yearly interest rate. Solar produces almost not tax revenue. Every EV owner and Grid tied user is a Free-Loader paying no road fuel tax or energy tax on energy they generate. Those subsidies you talk of pay for all the roads. Time you paid up and shut up hypocrite.

Like I said every reply and post you make is to start trouble. You cannot take a hint you are not welcome here. That is why you cannot post links anymore. They are telling you to get lost.

[DanKegel]

Dan Oil Subsides are not subsidies.

Freedom is slavery, too.

[DanKegel]

Back to the original thread topic, the LA Times had a story on this recently.
It mentioned that Suniva's trade case isn't against a single country (like most dumping cases are), but rather is asking for a tariff on all imports, which potentially makes the stakes higher.
latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-solar-20170703-story.html

[Mike90250]

It also comes down to whether one ignores scientific consensus. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere does far more than induce plant growth.

Global Warming, Ever since the last Ice Age. Or before that, NASA's Snowball Earth, where most of the oceans froze. No Eskimos with blubber lamps to warm that up. So maybe something else causing global heating and cooling. Is it anthropogenic ? Not the last couple ice ages. That was variable solar output or volcanic activity.....

And so we are supposed to believe ultra complex Global weather forecasts, when we can't get weekly or monthly forecasts.

[Sunking]

Global Warming, Ever since the last Ice Age. Or before that, NASA's Snowball Earth, where most of the oceans froze. No Eskimos with blubber lamps to warm that up. So maybe something else causing global heating and cooling. Is it anthropogenic ? Not the last couple ice ages. That was variable solar output or volcanic activity.....

And so we are supposed to believe ultra complex Global weather forecasts, when we can't get weekly or monthly forecasts.

According to Global Warming Advocates and Alarmist back in 2005 that the Oceans and Seas would rise 20 feet by 2015 putting Manhattan and many coastal cities underwater. Guess that explains why Al Bore bought a lot of property in San Francisco Fisherman's Wharf area with his profits made from Inconvenient Truth. Or his profits made starting Carbon Trade Exchange. It is all about money and control.

[karrak]

It is all about money and control.

I would have thought that you would have wanted to generate your own electricity so you have control and not be at the mercy of the POCOs. Wouldn't it be great if everyone could be their own power station and export power back to the grid at the going wholesale power rate, not the rate dictated by the POCOs. Not going to happen unless the government legislates for it to happen and I can't see it happening without a fight from the POCOs and other vested interests.

FWIW in Australia the big power generators have been caught playing the wholesale market at the expense of customers and grid reliability. On top of this the gas producers are manipulating the gas market so that although we are a large exporter of gas our gas is costing more in the local market that what it costs delivered in Japan. So much for hands off government and letting private enterprise regulate itself.

[karrak]

Global Warming, Ever since the last Ice Age. Or before that, NASA's Snowball Earth, where most of the oceans froze. No Eskimos with blubber lamps to warm that up. So maybe something else causing global heating and cooling. Is it anthropogenic ? Not the last couple ice ages. That was variable solar output or volcanic activity.....

And so we are supposed to believe ultra complex Global weather forecasts, when we can't get weekly or monthly forecasts.

From http://xkcd.com/1732/

[J.P.M.]

I would have thought that you would have wanted to generate your own electricity so you have control and not be at the mercy of the POCOs. Wouldn't it be great if everyone could be their own power station and export power back to the grid at the going wholesale power rate, not the rate dictated by the POCOs. Not going to happen unless the government legislates for it to happen and I can't see it happening without a fight from the POCOs and other vested interests.

FWIW in Australia the big power generators have been caught playing the wholesale market at the expense of customers and grid reliability. On top of this the gas producers are manipulating the gas market so that although we are a large exporter of gas our gas is costing more in the local market that what it costs delivered in Japan. So much for hands off government and letting private enterprise regulate itself.

If you believe you are at the mercy of the POCOs, that may mean you've let them manipulate your thinking into a belief that you are helpless, that they are as precious to life as water and air, and they have power over you and the direction(s) you take your life and lifestyle. Another way to look at that situation is that you have all the power you want, but, for whatever reason(s) - some of them understandable - you don't choose to exercise that option.

As a practical matter, the POCO product is a pretty good value compared to what most folks can do on your own in terms of quality and cost, and most folks who have availability of that product choose it over other methods. It's usually a no brainer. Or again, choice.

But that is not to say that if you don't like the way the game is run you don't have the power to deal yourself out.

Most folks would like to pay less for power. I'd also like to pay less for food. Or clothes. Or less for the other necessities of life. If the prices of those things piss me off enough, I could always shift priorities, spend less on other things, buy some land, grow my own food, cotton and sheep, drill a well and head toward self sufficiency. But, still being of mostly sound mind and still lazy, I choose to instead pay a price for some one else to provide those and most of the other necessities of life.

As for unreasonable profits and graft, not to accept them at all, but I don't believe such things are unique to the power generation industry, although I'm not sure how much graft and screwing of the public is in, for example, the wool business (although those high boots sheep herders wear give me cause for suspicion ).

One way I've found to minimize, or at least reduce the influence graft and human greed can have on my wallet by lowering my power bills that really works - and I'll share it with you here - for free - I've found that using less energy is a very effective method of lowering my power bills along with more efficient use of what I do use after the reductions. Another free bonus: I actually seem to have recovered at least the feeling that I have some control the mean, old, nasty and rapacious POCO has tried to steal from me.

Pay your money - take your choice. Just seems a bit silly, or mentally sluggish at least, to make a choice to use POCO power and then do little to minimize the price but instead do little more than bitch about the price without at least realizing you can take actions to minimize what you buy.

In such cases, The POCO has your mental understanding exactly where they want it. Some call that mind control. In some respects, looks to me anyway, not unlike the attitude of those who get sucked into cults.

[DanKegel]

... global heating and cooling. Is it anthropogenic ? Not the last couple ice ages. That was variable solar output or volcanic activity.....

Now *that's* a question for climate science! Let's see what those guys have figured out. I looked around a bit on Google Scholar just now; the 6th hit for
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=what+caused+ice+ages&hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C29 &as_ylo=2010&as_yhi=
looks reputable and related (and 148 other papers cite it already, so it seems relatively influential, too):

science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060 "Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming", 2013
Full text at awi.de/32547/1/parrenin2013s_accepted_all.pdf

Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO₂ concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO_2...

That's consistent with the hypothesis that CO2 increases can drive warming, and with the current increase in both atmospheric co2 and temperature.

I'm sure there's a better and more complete answer to your question out there; I could keep looking if you like.

As for your question about how climate forecasting can be useful over a longer time scale than weather forecasting:
it's because climate forecasts only predict average temperature for a large region and long time period. That's a lot easier than predicting whether it will rain on a particular city on a particular day. See e.g. skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm