American manufacturing of solar panels -- worth protecting?

[J.P.M.]

import taxes to level the playing field, to tax imports to make them cost comparable to domestic products (EPA, OHSA etc) is fair.
Taxes to impose desired social engineering, is wrong headed and eventually fails

Fair ? Unfair ? To whom ? To mfg. in protected countries ? To those folks it's more than fair, it's a windfall, with potential for producing some of the same results as gov. subsidies: Higher prices and less need for competition driven product improvement or customer service. Import duties can be red herring excuses to raise prices (and profit margins for those protected) while providing no product improvement. Those protected manufacturers win, along with the peddlers of their products who may and often take a markup in the tariff inflated prices they pay to manufacturers. Consumers in protected countries lose by higher prices and less competition induced product improvement.

In the context of "fair" to current U.S. manufacturers (and BTW, are there really any, Or just a couple ? Or just a few U.S. assemblers of foreign mfg. products ?), I'm sure (and think I know, having put up with a fair amount of it myself) B.S. bureaucratic compliance is an expense, but my admittedly less experiential based opinion is that such expense is probably present in other countries besides the U.S.. Where such B.S. costs are less, there's perhaps and also the likely costs associated with greasing the poles of corruption that scumbag political hacks slid down to a greater or lesser degree.

If the argument is about saving U.S. Jobs: To the degree that solar manufacturing is automated, I say the jobs argument is B.S. It's to the point that labor, like it or not, is now a more/less fungible commodity. Those in the labor force who retrain and scratch for what will be an ever declining need of their services will probably do better than those who bemoan the passing of the glory days of labor. Either way, a lot of jobs are gone - some out of the U.S. for sure because of that labor fungibility. But at least as many or more have simply vanished into a future of increased automation driven productivity. Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player here.

Overall, I don't buy the idea that U.S. required B.S. compliance is that much greater than other places, at least not to the extent that tariffs can be justified. Such tariffs do not work to give better prices or to improve products anyway. If anything, they tend to be regressive.

[DanKegel]

Wind works, solar does not. Take away the free money and it all goes away.

Not all.

Solar is already economical without subsidies in areas without a grid.

Also we're starting to hear about unsubsidized wind and solar farms being built in 1st world countries, e.g.
dw.com/en/german-offshore-wind-park-to-be-built-without-subsidies/a-38430493
pv-tech.org/news/foresight-kicks-off-european-unsubsidized-solar-acquisitions-with-portugues
That's rare, but if solar and wind prices continue falling, it'll become more common.

But getting back to the topic of the thread, I gather you don't feel the US should work
to encourage local solar panel production, correct?

[SunEagle]

I think once they see how people like Dan are treated, they wisely keep quiet on that front.

On other solar forums that is discussed a lot more openly without the personal attacks and demands for banning that happen here.

=====================
Millenials say sustainability is a shopping priority

11/05/2015 Nielsen

Despite the fact that Millennials are coming of age in one of the most difficult economic climates in the past 100 years, a recent Nielsen global online study found that they continue to be most willing to pay extra for sustainable offerings

Fine. If they don't mind paying more then I would expect them to park their ICE cars and turn off their electrical devices at night when most places do not have RE power generation. They can also find a way to purchase those great home based batteries and live the life of RE and Storage.

But until I see those cars being turned in and the lights going out on those homes I will stick by my post that carbon dioxide in the air is not an issue for the Millennial or that they feel needs to be immediately addressed because it really isn't an issue with them. It is just lip service without them wanting to put any of their skin in the game.

[SunEagle]

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

That is a belief of some but can't be that important to most since they still drive their ICE and like to keep the lights on when RE is not presnet.

[J.P.M.]

Subsidies are indeed important. How big a total subsidy are fossil fuels getting in the United States these days? Is it more or less than the total subsidy for wind and solar together?

priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/07/OCI_US_FF_Subsidies_Final_Screen.pdf has some figures:
page 19: Total Annual U.S. Federal Fossil Fuel Exploration and Production Subsidies: $18.5 billion
page 21: Total Annual U.S. State Fossil Fuel Exploration and Production Subsidies: $3.1 billion
page 22: Total Annual U.S. Federal Consumption Subsidies: $9 billion
page 23: Total Annual State Consumption Subsidies: $2.2 billion
page 26: 2013 Total exim bank financing: $4.4 billion
That's $37.2 billion annually subsidizing fossil fuel production or consumption... not to mention the health and other costs from burning those fossil fuels.

Doesn't sound like a level playing field. If fossil fuels are so great, why do they need those subsidies?

In a truly free market, no subsidies exist.

Damning or at least implied damning of existing subsidies given to existing industries, and then using such subsidies' existence as a justification for increasing the use and application in and for what are implied to be identical subsidies for darling industries and positions you ignorantly shill for is illogical. It's also B.S.

Also, getting into he said/she said finger points and specious arguments about wasted tax resources (fed. solar subsidies, or boondoggles like Solindra for example) are useless.

I'd agree with SK that this thread is another example of threads you start that have, as one goal at least, to be a breeding ground for raising visibility your own one sided and often ignorant ideas. My opinion is your being here is not as much about dealing with things that are the stuff of what's related to the sign over the door that says "Solar Panel Talk" as much as it is about feeding your ego and drawing attention to yourself by muddying the waters and causing disruption not unlike like you did with that sporting event disruption some years ago.

[jflorey2]

Fine. If they don't mind paying more then I would expect them to park their ICE cars and turn off their electrical devices at night when most places do not have RE power generation.

And some of them do. Most, as explained by the article, are willing to spend more - but want their lights at night.

But until I see those cars being turned in and the lights going out on those homes I will stick by my post that carbon dioxide in the air is not an issue for the Millennial or that they feel needs to be immediately addressed because it really isn't an issue with them. It is just lip service without them wanting to put any of their skin in the game.

They are willing to support it with their dollars but not by losing their ability to see at night, I guess. I suspect most people are the same - willing to go to some lengths to achieve their goals but not any lengths. Which is good IMO; fanatics are generally not good for anyone.

[DanKegel]

Fine. If they don't mind paying more then I would expect them to park their ICE cars and turn off their electrical devices at night when most places do not have RE power generation.

I did. I switched to LEDs, got solar for my house, sold my ICE car, got an electric one, and signed up for green power from LADWP for my nighttime needs.

Now, I'm an early adopter, I was willing to go against the grain... and I actually own a house in LA, which is out of reach of most millenials.
I hear from millenial friends that they'd consider an electric car if they had some place to plug it in... but since they live in apartment buildings, they don't.
As EVs become more available, apartment owners could respond to demand by at least offering 120v outlets in their garages.
lmgtfy.com/?q=los+angeles+apartment+ev+charging shows there is some motion in that direction.

But I'm not sure giving up an ICE means paying more. I bought my Leaf for $12,500; it uses 3kWh/day, which costs me far less than a millenial spends on coffee

[SunEagle]

And some of them do. Most, as explained by the article, are willing to spend more - but want their lights at night.

They are willing to support it with their dollars but not by losing their ability to see at night, I guess. I suspect most people are the same - willing to go to some lengths to achieve their goals but not any lengths. Which is good IMO; fanatics are generally not good for anyone.

I agree some type of "balance" needs to be agreed to. I just don't think anyone really knows the TRUE cost for energy storage & RE to keep the lights on at night.

To keep the costs within a reasonable range it will take some other type of power source which unless we go to Nuclear will be a FF burning power plant. Why is that so hard to understand?

[jflorey2]

To keep the costs within a reasonable range it will take some other type of power source which unless we go to Nuclear will be a FF burning power plant. Why is that so hard to understand?

Not hard at all - and pretty much everyone understands that. (If you add hydro to your list of non-solar and non-wind power sources, that is.)

[DanKegel]

I'd agree with SK that this thread is another example of threads you start that have, as one goal at least, to be a breeding ground for raising visibility your own ... ideas.

I started this thread to ask the simple question: what do people think, should the US work to preserve domestic solar panel manufacturing?

Answers so far (I think):
- SunEagle: maybe: "Maybe if the import fees from foreign manufactures could be used to help the US buyer along with a starter funds for a US solar panel manufacturer"
- SK: no: "It will kill the market plain and simple. US companies cannot compete. Take away all the free money (subsidies), pay the real cost, and solar is bust."
- JSchnee: maybe: "How about we just gussy up the Federal tax incentive? Perhaps even give preferred rebate status for "American" equipment."
- emartin00: no: "The tariffs being sought by Suniva will inevitably kill tens of thousands of jobs. "
- mike: maybe: "import taxes to level the playing field, to tax imports to make them cost comparable to domestic products (EPA, OHSA etc) is fair."
- jflorey2: no to import duties, yes to education and basic R&D
- ButchDeal: no opinion given on the question?
- JPM: no: "protected manufacturers win, consumers lose by higher prices and less competition induced product improvement."

So three maybes, three nos, and one complex answer so far (correct me if I'm wrong).

[jflorey2]

- jflorey2: no opinion given on the question?

I'll give you my answer.

We should not use government to protect any one segment of the economy. (Which includes solar.)

We should invest in both education and basic scientific research so that we can make better PV panels than anyone else, and preserve domestic solar panel manufacturing that way. (Or license the technology to other countries for a hefty fee; I am fine with that as well.)

[J.P.M.]

I think once they see how people like Dan are treated, they wisely keep quiet on that front.

On other solar forums that is discussed a lot more openly without the personal attacks and demands for banning that happen here.

=====================
Millenials say sustainability is a shopping priority

11/05/2015 Nielsen

Despite the fact that Millennials are coming of age in one of the most difficult economic climates in the past 100 years, a recent Nielsen global online study found that they continue to be most willing to pay extra for sustainable offerings

Dan is a big boy with his own agenda using this forum to spew misleading and IMO, pretty much useless fluff or repeats of stuff easily found elsewhere that tends to misinform or mislead others only slightly less ignorant than himself, often by taking stuff out of context, and/or by cherry picking information , or other dishonest tactics and manipulation of people's perceptions, needs and fears.

Others here, of which and FWIW, and IMO only, include myself, you and some others, are a whole lot more informed about things dealing with the sign over the door and less about ignorantly shilling for the solar scammers.

As for other less in your face, and more politically correct forums, my observation is that they tend to be a bit less technically correct and, to my eye at least, probably a bit less objective in terms of optimism about R.E. capabilities and limitations. Maybe Dan might be happier on one of those other sites. I'm not there as I wouldn't be. If Dan can't take the heat, maybe he ought to get out of the kitchen.

Bottom line, I see his actions as doing more harm than good to the cause of Renewable Energy in ways similar to those I've seen coming from those feeding off the solar ignorance of others since I got the solar bug 40+years ago.

Seems to me that often, but not always, a lot (but by no means all) of the rancor that occurs around here comes about when the more technically astute call a spade a spade and do so in ways that are viewed as abusive (and, admittedly but equally unapologetically may be over the line at times) by the technically ignorant who are sometimes and equally unapologetically viewed as thin skinned snowflakes who are out of their knowledge depth. Others, when challenged on a point, usually respond in objectively and cogently. You, for example do not seem as illogical or defensive as Dan when challenged on a point or opinion, nor do I suspect you need to be.

Staying with my prior observation of who shows up here, and how often the concept of sustainability is even mentioned, much less a priority in the decision making process, I'd suggest that Nielson's sampling methods may challenged as to validity, with some of what looks to me as possible confusion between what seems to be the detached notion of paying for some ill or poorly defined concept of sustainability and the reality of seeing financial assets decrease as a consequence of paying for the verbal and mental commitment to the concept.

I'd suggest that priority may be more esoteric or ethereal than a practical and realistic buying or actual lifestyle decision. Or, sustainability, however that's defined, may be detached from their self centered lifestyle and therefore irrelevant in a actual or real sense.

Take what you may want of the above. Scrap the rest.

[SunEagle]

Not hard at all - and pretty much everyone understands that. (If you add hydro to your list of non-solar and non-wind power sources, that is.)

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.

[jflorey2]

Dan is a big boy with his own agenda using this forum to spew misleading and IMO, pretty much useless fluff or repeats of stuff easily found elsewhere that tends to misinform or mislead others only slightly less ignorant than himself, often by taking stuff out of context, and/or by cherry picking information , or other dishonest tactics and manipulation of people's perceptions, needs and fears.

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.

As for other less in your face, and more politically correct forums, my observation is that they tend to be a bit less technically correct and, to my eye at least, probably a bit less objective in terms of optimism about R.E. capabilities and limitations. Maybe Dan might be happier on one of those other sites. I'm not there as I wouldn't be. If Dan can't take the heat, maybe he ought to get out of the kitchen.

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.

Staying with my prior observation of who shows up here, and how often the concept of sustainability is even mentioned, much less a priority in the decision making process, I'd suggest that Nielson's sampling methods may challenged as to validity

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.

some of what looks to me as possible confusion between what seems to be the detached notion of paying for some ill or poorly defined concept of sustainability and the reality of seeing financial assets decrease as a consequence of paying for the verbal and mental commitment to the concept.

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."

[J.P.M.]

I started this thread to ask the simple question: what do people think, should the US work to preserve domestic solar panel manufacturing?

Answers so far (I think):
- SunEagle: maybe: "Maybe if the import fees from foreign manufactures could be used to help the US buyer along with a starter funds for a US solar panel manufacturer"
- SK: no: "It will kill the market plain and simple. US companies cannot compete. Take away all the free money (subsidies), pay the real cost, and solar is bust."
- JSchnee: maybe: "How about we just gussy up the Federal tax incentive? Perhaps even give preferred rebate status for "American" equipment."
- emartin00: no: "The tariffs being sought by Suniva will inevitably kill tens of thousands of jobs. "
- mike: maybe: "import taxes to level the playing field, to tax imports to make them cost comparable to domestic products (EPA, OHSA etc) is fair."
- jflorey2: no to import duties, yes to education and basic R&D
- ButchDeal: no opinion given on the question?
- JPM: no: "protected manufacturers win, consumers lose by higher prices and less competition induced product improvement."

So three maybes, three nos, and one complex answer so far (correct me if I'm wrong).

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. It's B.S. Like asking someone if they still beat their wife.

Another example of your divisiveness and pot stirring for your own stage.

Also, looks to me by your own reckoning there are 4 no's, one of which is only as complicated as you think it might be, which complication, to the degree it may exist at all, is not necessarily a bad thing. Some things are more complicated than less critical thinkers or those with short attention spans are able to accommodate.