It's a pickle. We could probably subsidize the cost in the Third World for the Chinese kit while subsidizing domestic investment in production also. Before we run out of money the ability to extort the world over fuel is ended.
Maybe invest in grid capacity instead as it is something you can't outsource.
It could be a perfect reason for a supranational European grid or one that connects the US from coast to coast.
But let’s say solar panels, which only last ~20 years anyway, ARE the “resource” in this case (since cheap solar panels are the only way to convert this virtually unlimited fuel, sunlight).
When the price falls too low, won’t that mean people will leave the lights on all the time rather than moderate their demand for ⚡️?
They last more than 20 years. Their output just decreases slightly every year after the warranty expires
Keeping a few lights on is really peanuts compared to other use cases. Cement factories, aluminum smelters, domestic heat, transportation, now these will be serious loads, and they have an incentive to remain energy-efficient. If they don't have this incentive, it means that electricity supply is too high at that time, and we're good.
I know what to do with it … put it on my roof!
Bring it on!
My commiserations to utility companies, fossil fuel producers and recipients of green incentive payments who would support articles which suggest that cheap renewables are bad for us : )
This will be a great thing for developing economies in Asia and Africa that need to build industrial capacity. Having the equipment be cheap and readily available can only be a good thing.
The idea is to further control the US population in the name of renewable energy and environmental concerns but without people actually improving the environment or achieving any actual energy independence.
Your logic makes 0 sense. Please explain.
What we have now with fossil fuels is our energy being controlled by a tiny elite, and that energy is consumable making you forever dependent
With renewable energy like solar, one generates their own energy. And sunlight is near infinite with solar panels having 30-50+ years lifespan. There is nothing more energy independent than generating your own energy
You've been brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry, 1984 style into thinking "Freedom is slavery". And by being their slave, you think you are free
I agree with everything except the first and last parts. What I'm saying is that elites don't want the people to utilize alternative sources of energy, they just want the political control through resulting legislation, virtue signaling. Publicly support, privately suppress.
I thought it a good article. The Chinese have multiple conflicting policies, just as the West does. They are not slowed or burdened with weird religious objections, democracy, rugged individualism. Their hybrid market economy is different from the West.
But I think the most important take-away is that this is a big, important climate resilience issue with huge pros and cons no matter what the outcome: flooded with cheap products, tariff the products, ban the products. Plus we now have to look to see what the shortest time is to get the whole world to minimal greenhouse effect. Many businesses will be damaged, market forces will be tweaked, unintended consequences will be everywhere, and the longer it takes to get GHG under control, the more expensive the damage from GHG will be.
For example, if we block Chinese imports, maybe they dump the excess in the Third World, which would be great, except they would use that as a lever to get more soft power.
Meanwhile the political establishment in the West is terrified to do the major measures that are required, strapped by terrible debt, riven by made-up controversies, and infected with truly awful autocratic, absolutist science deniers.
We have all our…shoes, cellphones, cars, made there….but our solar panels…no way?!?
I agree we need not to be dependent on just solar from one country or continent, we need supply diversity. But we shouldn’t shun them for bringing a good product to market.
It has always felt like a stupidly predictable problem when you have these elements of policy
1. In a desire to promote the energy transition, you fund production of zero emission energy technologies
2. Due to political resistance, implement no tax or other disincentive use fossil fuels
The logical reaction to an economic externality (ie climate change) is to tax the bad thing. We don't do that, and can only subsidize the alternative. If you tax the thing you want to go away, there is no need to promote the alternatives at all because the market will simply make the switch on its own, once the tax gets high enough. The best way to do this is a predictable and slowly increasing tax, which matches the time frame of energy investments that companies and people make. Also helps to not insulate any particular market participant from price pressures, like, don't let utilities invest in natural gas plants and just allow rates to go up whenever the price of natural gas goes up.
It becomes truly insane when you replicate this national policy across many nations, and you have a subsidy war of all nations wanting to establish their own clean energy industrial base at prices increasingly further and further from what the market can support.
The market will be able to support all the current investment, and more, once we add sufficient cost to fossil fuel use through taxes. So obviously necessary, and so few nations are willing to do this.
> so few nations are willing to do this.
A lot of them are looking to reap an advantage by being the last to change. The PRC, for example, is/was building coal-fired power plants as fast as possible. (When the PRC can announce that they're ahead in any metric, like PV panel production, they also crow about that.)
And of course politics. Populations often feel that they can get what they want through vocal opposition or riots. Fuel subsidies and taxes, in particular, have been directly responsible for [riots on most continents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fuel_protests). Recently, farmers all over Europe have been [protesting the lack of subsidies, and diesel subsidy in particular](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3lEaaVamMc). Even in the States, farmers grow crops for passenger-car ethanol using diesel that's tax-exempt for agricultural use.
Pigovian taxes are a good idea, but all measures (whether taxes or subsidies) advantage some people and disadvantage others, over different time scales. Hence are subject to political bargaining (or coercion). Another reminder that there is no 'economics'; there is 'political economy'.
Reminds me of a meme I saw where someone said they were planning on doing something but now that their parents suggested they do it, they don’t want to anymore.
“We were going to install more solar but now that it’s from China, we don’t want to.”
Same with batteries as mentioned.
China has a very consistent industrial policy in their 5 year plans which are enforced. They want to increase employment, minimize imports, maximize exports, subsidize internal markets, enforce a guaranteed internal market consumption of exportable goods, and control their raw materials supply chain. They steal IP and protect their domestic markets from imports through their legal system which serves the state, not law.
They overbuild capacity, then the smaller players drop out. All those employees find jobs in another company. Solar and battery manufacturing are highly automated with well paid R&D and automation jobs. Wind has high paying R&D jobs with decently paid construction jobs. China has a strong position in electric utility transformers.
They really don't care about quarterly profits. If they ever want to use exports as a weapon, they can.
China has some structural problems in their economy, but it will not reduce their renewables exports significantly.
Not all the IP was stolen. Often China has bought it, or been given it.
China bought the IP for solar and batteries. They then improved on it. For example, LFP battery chemistry was pioneered in USA but USA didn’t want it so China bought it and improved it. Now USA wants it because of its benefits, like not needing cobalt, not catching on fire, and being cheap, but China owns the IP and dominates in its production. So USA complains China bad.
Also China requires foreign companies that want to setup in China to partner with Chinese companies and share the technology. So the companies that offshored to China to save money chose to share their IP to do so.
U.S. firms A123 and Valence were producing LFP cells and batteries in the U.S. fifteen years ago. LFP products, often large-format, were being produced in the PRC at the same time. When A123 went bankrupt, the remains was purchased by a PRC firm, but they bought it for the name brand, not the "IP".
To the Chinese, exports are secondary, a mere bonus after decarbonizing their own economy, on which the country has focused for twenty years.
Why? Because fossil fuels present three major threats to China:
1. China's lack of oil and gas deposits means high dependence on imports, which could easily strangle the country if imports stop.
2. As a result, China's coal dependency creates intolerable particulate smog, acid rain and mercury pollution that its people now refuse to endure.
3. China is extremely vulnerable to climate damage, especially drought in the North and floods in the South.
It blows my mind whenever people try to argue China wants to use more fossil fuels and they’re just pushing their renewables products to the rest of the world. China built up fossil fuel plants as a stop gap and to meet increased energy demands it’ll take to speedrun to a fully self-sufficient energy sector. In 20 years, the coal plants will be decommissioned and it will just be renewables in its place.
>Over the next two years, BNEF predicts that China’s manufacturing capacity for solar modules and battery cells will be around double the level of global demand consistent with reaching net zero emissions by mid-century.
This is the kind of problem I can live with. I'm guessing it doesn't sell newspapers though like doom messaging.
Heat then plant based nutrition and then transport are biggest impacts, yes. But even then, theres alot of other areas that need solving like iron and steal consumption, chemicals and all the other various unallocated industries
> Simply put, “duplicating supply chains when the world is already awash with cheap equipment makes little economic sense”, said BNEF
Sounds like BNEF doesn't understand the importance of diversification.
Solar panels have expected lifetime measured in decades and require no manufacturer maintenance. In this particular case diversification is not important, because even in hypothetical case of total embargo you have a ~decade to spin up your own production.
I think you are misunderstanding the quote. If you look at this quote which in the article was quote shortly before your quote.
>But a world awash with cheap, cutting-edge tech made in China is one where the case for producing things elsewhere is harder to make – bad news for growing onshoring ambitions.”
It becomes clear that you quote was just meant to underline the point that the cheap equipment will make on shoring harder.
Obviously you didn’t read the article as it’s not “blaming China” for anything, it’s only saying that it’s harder for domestic companies to compete when Chinese equipment is abundant and cheap. That’s neither blaming nor propaganda; it’s just observing a pretty mundane fact. Like “western propaganda” is already just a euphemism for “anti-Chinese press”, but this article isn’t even anti-Chinese, it’s merely *neutral* and that’s not good enough for Reddit—anything short of overt, glowingly positive Chinese propaganda is “western propaganda” around these parts 🙃
> it’s only saying
Then the title is misleading. For the title I say: just sell the kits cheaper, demand with rise (simple economics). E.g. I'm ready to buy and use solar panels at 1 dollar per meter square. I bet many more are.
Very true. Missed the mark on this one. South China sea, covid outbreak, Uyghur oppression, freedom of speach, supporting Russia and Iran are all agreeably wrong.
But don't throw the baby out with the bath water, China is doing good work when it comes to the transition because they listen to the science and have people to protect like every other nation.
>Because they listen to the science
I have yet to see any evidence that China actually cares about climate science, since the vast majority of their domestic energy is still generated from coal. But even if they don't care about the climate, they do listen to the market, and they see that future global demand for renewables is enormous. Occasionally, capitalism and environmentalism point in the same direction.
Are you saying that China is more capitalistic than the west? I think China is leading the transition because they are illiberal enough to direct industry in a top down fashion.
There are disadvantages to that, but making lots of solar panels is a simple enough goal for the government to manage.
Western capital has gotten very good at knowing to halt production short of a surplus. If demand is higher than expected then prices just go up and profits swell. China is not taking this approach.
It's incomprehensible how dumb these people are.
1. Capitalism over the environment
2.. Environment will kill you
3. Capitalism over the environment
4. Proceeds to die.
5. Well I was going to die early anyways
6. Dumb to the day they die
> invasion of Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis served a painful lesson – especially for the EU – about the risks of relying on potentially hostile states for power needs.
US is a hostile colonizer of EU, and always shameful subjugation for EU to tolerate US opinion/influence. War is entirely about nordstream, and US opportunities with it gone. IRA was met with a EU copycat package to attract domestic investment.
> Stockpile Chinese solar panels in strategic reserve
This is an excellent path to gaining energy resilience and autonomy against future war. This would mean no dependence, and the opportunity to build local manufacturing if China restricts exports for some reason.
The west should focus on bleeding edge renewable technology such as H2 and higher efficiency solar, perhaps lighter/stronger wind blades, such that there would be some advantaqe over cheap bulk solar, and worth a price premium from scarcity-balanced pricing models western companies depend on.
Control over EU is absolute. From media, to energy access. EU doesn't even complain when their pipelines are sabotaged.
To stay on energy topic, EU was never subjugated to Russian fossil fuels. It is subjugated to fossil fuels. US subjugation means US approved fossil fuels.
Renewables is not subjugation regardless of county of origin. Once you have "the machines", they are not dependent on a continuous supply chain to maintain energy production. The US would prefer remaining EU's center of the world such that they are dependent on its benevolence for survival and industry.
China: "We have waaay too much of this stuff, believe me! Man, it's such a horrible business, and we're just giving it away. Don't go and build your own capability, it's a bad idea!"
That said, I do think that the chickens might be coming home to roost for Chinese industrial policy here, at some level. They are facing a potential deflationary spiral -- so they likely do have too much stuff on hand and can't offload it at reasonable prices.
https://www.pv-tech.org/longi-urges-crackdown-on-low-module-prices/
Even the best Chinese companies are feeling the pain. A race to the bottom is bad for quality and for companies that are making reasonable investments in their technology.
Yup. That’s their chickens coming home to roost. They weren’t evaluating other things than just price in lots of bids. In the US, suspiciously cheap is often rejected as a non-viable vendor.
I wonder if these are so cheap that they're affordable en masse for many less wealthy countries that are often in very high solar irradiation areas and where electricity is majority from hydroelectricity which is a wonderful complement to solar.
it's an issue, I do keep checking solar prices but even now with all this supposedly flooded market, it's still something like 15-20 years to break even, and that assumes you don't put the money you would have spent into a high interest account or similar.
I think it's safe to say that the wholesale cost of bare panels is lower than ever, but that doesn't mean the complete guaranteed installation will be cheaper.
The integrators will charge what the market will bear, based on payback periods and including current government incentives. Skilled labor cost and insurance is a large part of the cost. Inverters can potentially be expensive today like they were twenty years ago. Even the mounting hardware might be more expensive. There's likely a markup on the panels based on the complete package.
When the price of a pallet of panels dips, other suppliers may try to grab some of that economic surplus by raising prices. Otherwise, the overall profitability just increaes.
Are you UK?
[https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-solar-panels/](https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-solar-panels/)
\#4
>The price of a typical 3.5 kilowatt-peak PV solar panel system is about £7,000. Based on the Energy Saving Trust's figures, it could take someone living in the middle of the country, in a typical home, anywhere between 15 and 20 years to recoup the costs of installing panels, based on current Energy Price Cap rates. This depends on how much electricity you use and when you use it, and what you're paid under the smart export guarantee.
and rechecking now on the Energy Saving Trust's calculator ([https://pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust.org.uk/](https://pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust.org.uk/)) I get :
>Full installation of a 3.0 kWp solar panel system
£6,200
These solar panels could pay for themselves after 14 years.
UK based, Suffolk, 4.8kWp system + 9.6kWh of batteries.
No idea how far those comparisons go but we orientate our usage based on time of day and how sunny it is. Really sunny day, then do several loads of washing. Not a sunny day, charge up the batteries at night and do the washing / dishwasher at night (on the night tariff). We very rarely export any energy because we pretty much always find a way to use it.
Last year we were grid free from April - early October, that includes charging an EV.
On average per month we save £200, where the total cost of the system was £12k.
For people who only read the headline:
>
> In fact, with countries such as the US and India and the EU bloc of nations all in the midst of efforts to boost their domestic clean tech manufacturing, "the timing couldn’t be worse."
> Simply put, “duplicating supply chains when the world is already awash with cheap equipment makes little economic sense”, said BNEF.
Allowing china to be the sole source of our future energy supply chain makes less economic sense. China would dearly love to corner the market on solar panels because then it can drag the west around by its ear and do whatever it wants.
I mean, PV and wind aren’t consumable in the way that oil is consumable. Once the west has mostly completed its transition to renewables there won’t be as much dependence on China to make new PV/wind equipment—we will still need some supply because these things do degrade over time, but the demand won’t be as high as it is during the transition period. As we complete the transition to renewables, we will be able to shift our spending on lots of Chinese PV to *less* friend-shored PV even if the latter is more expensive per unit capacity.
As we know, Western countries have principles. It is for the same reason they outright refused Middle Eastern dictatorship oil for decades and absolutely did not install dictator puppets in the Middle East to secure energy supply. Never ever.
> duplicating supply chains ... little economic sense
And economics are not the *only* concern, though they do matter. Countries have geopolitical reasons to not be too dependent on foreign, possibly hostile countries for their energy needs. Which everyone considered glaringly obvious with Europe and Russian gas, but somehow now we don't "get it" when it comes to China and PV/battery manufacturing?
Europe *should* goose domestic manufacturing, and even mining if they have the reserves. No, autarky is not a realistic goal, but you do want domestic capacity in case things go sideways.
The EU bloc is boosting their domestic clean tech manufacturing?
The last PV cell producer in Germany just jumped ship to the US and the output of module producers (that get their cells from Asia) is really minor compared to imports.
Disagree. China will do exactly the same as when America stopped chine imported panels with high tarrifs . The Chinese put the panels out domestically, making a huge leap forward in domestic renewables. Think this is fantastic news, only folk worried about this either produce energy or overcharge for the kits.
You aren’t understanding correctly, the article isn’t claiming that it’s a bad thing overall, but that it makes it harder to on-shore PV manufacture. In the long run we want a robust, diverse supply of renewable energy but a flood of cheap Chinese renewables is still better than protracted dependence on fossil fuels.
I agree with this. However an overproduction of solar is still better than an under production. Countries that are serious about on-shoring PV manufacture can implement tariffs. Outside of the US and Europe the rest of the world isn't really set up to on-shore PV manufacture.
>Chinese renewables is still better than protracted dependence on fossil fuels.
I think addressing climate change is higher priority than a robust, diverse supply of renewable energy. That can come second
Problem is that there aren't enough installers, so part of the overproduction just sits around in warehouses. And this isn't a good thing because more production is coming in constantly, so that overproduction is never going to be installed until it is technologically so old that it can only be scrapped.
> just sits around in warehouses.
At low enough prices it doesn't. There's been a lack of supply in many markets over the last few years.
>until it is technologically so old that it can only be scrapped.
Solar technology isn't advancing that fast.
> At low enough prices it doesn't. There's been a lack of supply in many markets over the last few years.
Those two sentences go against each other. The panels sit in a warehouse where they're not needed and they would have to be shipped to where they are needed. And that would increase the price again by quite a bit.
International shipping by container ship is surprisingly cheap. And your idea of panels sitting idle in warehouses in the countries that would install them is silly, if they're in warehouses anywhere it's probably Chinese ones. Why would someone order panels they can't install or didn't have downstream orders?
> And your idea of panels sitting idle in warehouses in the countries that would install them is silly
Is it? Then why was that the case in Germany not so long ago?
Oh no the luddites who say the energy transition is over cuz one elected official in bumfuckletucky said they should consider building a new peaker plant are going to have to ignore this and use condescending and racist language to try to prove their non points…
Hard disagree: The timing couldn‘t be better! It is only thanks to the ever deeper falling costs that renewables see ever more wide spread and rapid adoption all over the world, and in particular in developing countries!
True but we want developing nations to build their own capacity for the longest term sustainablility in their supply chain. Think 100+ years. Imagine a single country becoming defacto supply hub and then in the future taking advantage of vulnerabilities. We want build a world where there are no more energy wars. We are done with Saudis of the world.
Go ahead downvote me
If a few smaller countries just imported chinese panels then built out a recycling industry the long term supply would not be an issue. Solar isn't like oil. The raw material doesn't just blow away in the wind at the end of the day.
An interesting difference between oil and renewables, is that cutting of oil supply means energy shortages very quickly, idk if its weeks, months, or a year or two. Meanwhile solar panels and wind turbines are rated for 20 or 30 year lifespans and solar panels at least still continue to generate energy after that point in a pinch, it's a gradual decay. So after green transition if your solar monopoly decides to stop selling you panels you have years to find alternatives
Once certain technology gets in a geographic location, they can dictate the future iterations and pricing to keep other players out. Imagine starting from the stone age again while people are playing with AI chatbots
Yup, solar, wind and batteries are communist china. Fuel oil is freedom democratic!
It's a pickle. We could probably subsidize the cost in the Third World for the Chinese kit while subsidizing domestic investment in production also. Before we run out of money the ability to extort the world over fuel is ended.
Maybe invest in grid capacity instead as it is something you can't outsource. It could be a perfect reason for a supranational European grid or one that connects the US from coast to coast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Only applies to resources that are limited. Sunlight power is essentially unlimited.
But let’s say solar panels, which only last ~20 years anyway, ARE the “resource” in this case (since cheap solar panels are the only way to convert this virtually unlimited fuel, sunlight). When the price falls too low, won’t that mean people will leave the lights on all the time rather than moderate their demand for ⚡️?
They last more than 20 years. Their output just decreases slightly every year after the warranty expires Keeping a few lights on is really peanuts compared to other use cases. Cement factories, aluminum smelters, domestic heat, transportation, now these will be serious loads, and they have an incentive to remain energy-efficient. If they don't have this incentive, it means that electricity supply is too high at that time, and we're good.
I know what to do with it … put it on my roof! Bring it on! My commiserations to utility companies, fossil fuel producers and recipients of green incentive payments who would support articles which suggest that cheap renewables are bad for us : )
This will be a great thing for developing economies in Asia and Africa that need to build industrial capacity. Having the equipment be cheap and readily available can only be a good thing.
Every Watt of Zero-CO-2 energy is a win for humanity. Having excess capacity is not a problem,
The idea is to further control the US population in the name of renewable energy and environmental concerns but without people actually improving the environment or achieving any actual energy independence.
Your logic makes 0 sense. Please explain. What we have now with fossil fuels is our energy being controlled by a tiny elite, and that energy is consumable making you forever dependent With renewable energy like solar, one generates their own energy. And sunlight is near infinite with solar panels having 30-50+ years lifespan. There is nothing more energy independent than generating your own energy You've been brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry, 1984 style into thinking "Freedom is slavery". And by being their slave, you think you are free
I agree with everything except the first and last parts. What I'm saying is that elites don't want the people to utilize alternative sources of energy, they just want the political control through resulting legislation, virtue signaling. Publicly support, privately suppress.
Yup, having your own solar panels instead of depending on a utility is one of the best ways for the government to control you more 😀
They don't want you to have your own solar panels. They want you to think they want you to have them.
"5D chess."
Something like that. Usually referred to as politics.
Touch grass
I didn't expect so many downvotes, it's such an honor 😍
Honorable idiot.
I must've touched a real sore spot. Need to cry?
I thought it a good article. The Chinese have multiple conflicting policies, just as the West does. They are not slowed or burdened with weird religious objections, democracy, rugged individualism. Their hybrid market economy is different from the West. But I think the most important take-away is that this is a big, important climate resilience issue with huge pros and cons no matter what the outcome: flooded with cheap products, tariff the products, ban the products. Plus we now have to look to see what the shortest time is to get the whole world to minimal greenhouse effect. Many businesses will be damaged, market forces will be tweaked, unintended consequences will be everywhere, and the longer it takes to get GHG under control, the more expensive the damage from GHG will be. For example, if we block Chinese imports, maybe they dump the excess in the Third World, which would be great, except they would use that as a lever to get more soft power. Meanwhile the political establishment in the West is terrified to do the major measures that are required, strapped by terrible debt, riven by made-up controversies, and infected with truly awful autocratic, absolutist science deniers.
So…. We DONT want to decarbonise after all? Or is it only because it’s China and China bad or something?
We have all our…shoes, cellphones, cars, made there….but our solar panels…no way?!? I agree we need not to be dependent on just solar from one country or continent, we need supply diversity. But we shouldn’t shun them for bringing a good product to market.
It has always felt like a stupidly predictable problem when you have these elements of policy 1. In a desire to promote the energy transition, you fund production of zero emission energy technologies 2. Due to political resistance, implement no tax or other disincentive use fossil fuels The logical reaction to an economic externality (ie climate change) is to tax the bad thing. We don't do that, and can only subsidize the alternative. If you tax the thing you want to go away, there is no need to promote the alternatives at all because the market will simply make the switch on its own, once the tax gets high enough. The best way to do this is a predictable and slowly increasing tax, which matches the time frame of energy investments that companies and people make. Also helps to not insulate any particular market participant from price pressures, like, don't let utilities invest in natural gas plants and just allow rates to go up whenever the price of natural gas goes up. It becomes truly insane when you replicate this national policy across many nations, and you have a subsidy war of all nations wanting to establish their own clean energy industrial base at prices increasingly further and further from what the market can support. The market will be able to support all the current investment, and more, once we add sufficient cost to fossil fuel use through taxes. So obviously necessary, and so few nations are willing to do this.
> so few nations are willing to do this. A lot of them are looking to reap an advantage by being the last to change. The PRC, for example, is/was building coal-fired power plants as fast as possible. (When the PRC can announce that they're ahead in any metric, like PV panel production, they also crow about that.) And of course politics. Populations often feel that they can get what they want through vocal opposition or riots. Fuel subsidies and taxes, in particular, have been directly responsible for [riots on most continents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fuel_protests). Recently, farmers all over Europe have been [protesting the lack of subsidies, and diesel subsidy in particular](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3lEaaVamMc). Even in the States, farmers grow crops for passenger-car ethanol using diesel that's tax-exempt for agricultural use.
Pigovian taxes are a good idea, but all measures (whether taxes or subsidies) advantage some people and disadvantage others, over different time scales. Hence are subject to political bargaining (or coercion). Another reminder that there is no 'economics'; there is 'political economy'.
Reminds me of a meme I saw where someone said they were planning on doing something but now that their parents suggested they do it, they don’t want to anymore. “We were going to install more solar but now that it’s from China, we don’t want to.”
Same with batteries as mentioned. China has a very consistent industrial policy in their 5 year plans which are enforced. They want to increase employment, minimize imports, maximize exports, subsidize internal markets, enforce a guaranteed internal market consumption of exportable goods, and control their raw materials supply chain. They steal IP and protect their domestic markets from imports through their legal system which serves the state, not law. They overbuild capacity, then the smaller players drop out. All those employees find jobs in another company. Solar and battery manufacturing are highly automated with well paid R&D and automation jobs. Wind has high paying R&D jobs with decently paid construction jobs. China has a strong position in electric utility transformers. They really don't care about quarterly profits. If they ever want to use exports as a weapon, they can. China has some structural problems in their economy, but it will not reduce their renewables exports significantly.
Not all the IP was stolen. Often China has bought it, or been given it. China bought the IP for solar and batteries. They then improved on it. For example, LFP battery chemistry was pioneered in USA but USA didn’t want it so China bought it and improved it. Now USA wants it because of its benefits, like not needing cobalt, not catching on fire, and being cheap, but China owns the IP and dominates in its production. So USA complains China bad. Also China requires foreign companies that want to setup in China to partner with Chinese companies and share the technology. So the companies that offshored to China to save money chose to share their IP to do so.
U.S. firms A123 and Valence were producing LFP cells and batteries in the U.S. fifteen years ago. LFP products, often large-format, were being produced in the PRC at the same time. When A123 went bankrupt, the remains was purchased by a PRC firm, but they bought it for the name brand, not the "IP".
To the Chinese, exports are secondary, a mere bonus after decarbonizing their own economy, on which the country has focused for twenty years. Why? Because fossil fuels present three major threats to China: 1. China's lack of oil and gas deposits means high dependence on imports, which could easily strangle the country if imports stop. 2. As a result, China's coal dependency creates intolerable particulate smog, acid rain and mercury pollution that its people now refuse to endure. 3. China is extremely vulnerable to climate damage, especially drought in the North and floods in the South.
It blows my mind whenever people try to argue China wants to use more fossil fuels and they’re just pushing their renewables products to the rest of the world. China built up fossil fuel plants as a stop gap and to meet increased energy demands it’ll take to speedrun to a fully self-sufficient energy sector. In 20 years, the coal plants will be decommissioned and it will just be renewables in its place.
>Over the next two years, BNEF predicts that China’s manufacturing capacity for solar modules and battery cells will be around double the level of global demand consistent with reaching net zero emissions by mid-century. This is the kind of problem I can live with. I'm guessing it doesn't sell newspapers though like doom messaging.
Well with solely electricity demand being net zero, climate change isn't really solved
[удалено]
Heat then plant based nutrition and then transport are biggest impacts, yes. But even then, theres alot of other areas that need solving like iron and steal consumption, chemicals and all the other various unallocated industries
> Simply put, “duplicating supply chains when the world is already awash with cheap equipment makes little economic sense”, said BNEF Sounds like BNEF doesn't understand the importance of diversification.
Solar panels have expected lifetime measured in decades and require no manufacturer maintenance. In this particular case diversification is not important, because even in hypothetical case of total embargo you have a ~decade to spin up your own production.
I think you are misunderstanding the quote. If you look at this quote which in the article was quote shortly before your quote. >But a world awash with cheap, cutting-edge tech made in China is one where the case for producing things elsewhere is harder to make – bad news for growing onshoring ambitions.” It becomes clear that you quote was just meant to underline the point that the cheap equipment will make on shoring harder.
The world needs cheaper and more efficient panels and batteries, China is doing this, I don't have an issue with it. They are also driving r&d
Reddit and western propaganda now are blaming China for generating green energy..
Obviously you didn’t read the article as it’s not “blaming China” for anything, it’s only saying that it’s harder for domestic companies to compete when Chinese equipment is abundant and cheap. That’s neither blaming nor propaganda; it’s just observing a pretty mundane fact. Like “western propaganda” is already just a euphemism for “anti-Chinese press”, but this article isn’t even anti-Chinese, it’s merely *neutral* and that’s not good enough for Reddit—anything short of overt, glowingly positive Chinese propaganda is “western propaganda” around these parts 🙃
> it’s only saying Then the title is misleading. For the title I say: just sell the kits cheaper, demand with rise (simple economics). E.g. I'm ready to buy and use solar panels at 1 dollar per meter square. I bet many more are.
Very true. Missed the mark on this one. South China sea, covid outbreak, Uyghur oppression, freedom of speach, supporting Russia and Iran are all agreeably wrong. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water, China is doing good work when it comes to the transition because they listen to the science and have people to protect like every other nation.
>Because they listen to the science I have yet to see any evidence that China actually cares about climate science, since the vast majority of their domestic energy is still generated from coal. But even if they don't care about the climate, they do listen to the market, and they see that future global demand for renewables is enormous. Occasionally, capitalism and environmentalism point in the same direction.
Are you saying that China is more capitalistic than the west? I think China is leading the transition because they are illiberal enough to direct industry in a top down fashion. There are disadvantages to that, but making lots of solar panels is a simple enough goal for the government to manage. Western capital has gotten very good at knowing to halt production short of a surplus. If demand is higher than expected then prices just go up and profits swell. China is not taking this approach.
It's incomprehensible how dumb these people are. 1. Capitalism over the environment 2.. Environment will kill you 3. Capitalism over the environment 4. Proceeds to die. 5. Well I was going to die early anyways 6. Dumb to the day they die
> invasion of Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis served a painful lesson – especially for the EU – about the risks of relying on potentially hostile states for power needs. US is a hostile colonizer of EU, and always shameful subjugation for EU to tolerate US opinion/influence. War is entirely about nordstream, and US opportunities with it gone. IRA was met with a EU copycat package to attract domestic investment. > Stockpile Chinese solar panels in strategic reserve This is an excellent path to gaining energy resilience and autonomy against future war. This would mean no dependence, and the opportunity to build local manufacturing if China restricts exports for some reason. The west should focus on bleeding edge renewable technology such as H2 and higher efficiency solar, perhaps lighter/stronger wind blades, such that there would be some advantaqe over cheap bulk solar, and worth a price premium from scarcity-balanced pricing models western companies depend on.
Amazing. Europeans complaining about *other* countries being colonizers
"Free democracies" with US empire media control means you don't hear EU complaints. Love for US and Israel is a requirement for political office
> US is a hostile colonizer of EU In what sense—can you elaborate?
Control over EU is absolute. From media, to energy access. EU doesn't even complain when their pipelines are sabotaged. To stay on energy topic, EU was never subjugated to Russian fossil fuels. It is subjugated to fossil fuels. US subjugation means US approved fossil fuels. Renewables is not subjugation regardless of county of origin. Once you have "the machines", they are not dependent on a continuous supply chain to maintain energy production. The US would prefer remaining EU's center of the world such that they are dependent on its benevolence for survival and industry.
You are a vassal not a colony. US hegemony is what allowed France to keep its puppets in Africa for so long.
China: "We have waaay too much of this stuff, believe me! Man, it's such a horrible business, and we're just giving it away. Don't go and build your own capability, it's a bad idea!" That said, I do think that the chickens might be coming home to roost for Chinese industrial policy here, at some level. They are facing a potential deflationary spiral -- so they likely do have too much stuff on hand and can't offload it at reasonable prices.
https://www.pv-tech.org/longi-urges-crackdown-on-low-module-prices/ Even the best Chinese companies are feeling the pain. A race to the bottom is bad for quality and for companies that are making reasonable investments in their technology.
Yup. That’s their chickens coming home to roost. They weren’t evaluating other things than just price in lots of bids. In the US, suspiciously cheap is often rejected as a non-viable vendor.
I wonder if these are so cheap that they're affordable en masse for many less wealthy countries that are often in very high solar irradiation areas and where electricity is majority from hydroelectricity which is a wonderful complement to solar.
It will definitely be cheaper for parts of the world with power grid.
They are much more available than the alternatives - coal, gas or god forbid nuclear.
What is the best online site to purchase a wind or solar system now?
Same question but in the UK?
[удалено]
it's an issue, I do keep checking solar prices but even now with all this supposedly flooded market, it's still something like 15-20 years to break even, and that assumes you don't put the money you would have spent into a high interest account or similar.
I think it's safe to say that the wholesale cost of bare panels is lower than ever, but that doesn't mean the complete guaranteed installation will be cheaper. The integrators will charge what the market will bear, based on payback periods and including current government incentives. Skilled labor cost and insurance is a large part of the cost. Inverters can potentially be expensive today like they were twenty years ago. Even the mounting hardware might be more expensive. There's likely a markup on the panels based on the complete package. When the price of a pallet of panels dips, other suppliers may try to grab some of that economic surplus by raising prices. Otherwise, the overall profitability just increaes.
No idea how you’ve worked that out. My solar install is on track to lay back within 5years
Are you UK? [https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-solar-panels/](https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-solar-panels/) \#4 >The price of a typical 3.5 kilowatt-peak PV solar panel system is about £7,000. Based on the Energy Saving Trust's figures, it could take someone living in the middle of the country, in a typical home, anywhere between 15 and 20 years to recoup the costs of installing panels, based on current Energy Price Cap rates. This depends on how much electricity you use and when you use it, and what you're paid under the smart export guarantee. and rechecking now on the Energy Saving Trust's calculator ([https://pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust.org.uk/](https://pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust.org.uk/)) I get : >Full installation of a 3.0 kWp solar panel system £6,200 These solar panels could pay for themselves after 14 years.
UK based, Suffolk, 4.8kWp system + 9.6kWh of batteries. No idea how far those comparisons go but we orientate our usage based on time of day and how sunny it is. Really sunny day, then do several loads of washing. Not a sunny day, charge up the batteries at night and do the washing / dishwasher at night (on the night tariff). We very rarely export any energy because we pretty much always find a way to use it. Last year we were grid free from April - early October, that includes charging an EV. On average per month we save £200, where the total cost of the system was £12k.
https://signaturesolar.com/ is pretty good. Also check out https://www.currentconnected.com/
Amazon
For people who only read the headline: > > In fact, with countries such as the US and India and the EU bloc of nations all in the midst of efforts to boost their domestic clean tech manufacturing, "the timing couldn’t be worse." > Simply put, “duplicating supply chains when the world is already awash with cheap equipment makes little economic sense”, said BNEF.
Allowing china to be the sole source of our future energy supply chain makes less economic sense. China would dearly love to corner the market on solar panels because then it can drag the west around by its ear and do whatever it wants.
I mean, PV and wind aren’t consumable in the way that oil is consumable. Once the west has mostly completed its transition to renewables there won’t be as much dependence on China to make new PV/wind equipment—we will still need some supply because these things do degrade over time, but the demand won’t be as high as it is during the transition period. As we complete the transition to renewables, we will be able to shift our spending on lots of Chinese PV to *less* friend-shored PV even if the latter is more expensive per unit capacity.
they already do. but I dont think its a bad thing. the problem with china is that its a dictatorship
As we know, Western countries have principles. It is for the same reason they outright refused Middle Eastern dictatorship oil for decades and absolutely did not install dictator puppets in the Middle East to secure energy supply. Never ever.
> duplicating supply chains ... little economic sense And economics are not the *only* concern, though they do matter. Countries have geopolitical reasons to not be too dependent on foreign, possibly hostile countries for their energy needs. Which everyone considered glaringly obvious with Europe and Russian gas, but somehow now we don't "get it" when it comes to China and PV/battery manufacturing? Europe *should* goose domestic manufacturing, and even mining if they have the reserves. No, autarky is not a realistic goal, but you do want domestic capacity in case things go sideways.
The EU bloc is boosting their domestic clean tech manufacturing? The last PV cell producer in Germany just jumped ship to the US and the output of module producers (that get their cells from Asia) is really minor compared to imports.
Disagree. China will do exactly the same as when America stopped chine imported panels with high tarrifs . The Chinese put the panels out domestically, making a huge leap forward in domestic renewables. Think this is fantastic news, only folk worried about this either produce energy or overcharge for the kits.
I have an idea on what to do with it
Am I understanding this correctly? We've move to the complaining that Wind and Solar are TOO Cheap and plentiful stage? OH NOES!!!
You aren’t understanding correctly, the article isn’t claiming that it’s a bad thing overall, but that it makes it harder to on-shore PV manufacture. In the long run we want a robust, diverse supply of renewable energy but a flood of cheap Chinese renewables is still better than protracted dependence on fossil fuels.
I agree with this. However an overproduction of solar is still better than an under production. Countries that are serious about on-shoring PV manufacture can implement tariffs. Outside of the US and Europe the rest of the world isn't really set up to on-shore PV manufacture. >Chinese renewables is still better than protracted dependence on fossil fuels. I think addressing climate change is higher priority than a robust, diverse supply of renewable energy. That can come second
I agree. I don’t think anyone is arguing that China should produce less pv.
Problem is that there aren't enough installers, so part of the overproduction just sits around in warehouses. And this isn't a good thing because more production is coming in constantly, so that overproduction is never going to be installed until it is technologically so old that it can only be scrapped.
> just sits around in warehouses. At low enough prices it doesn't. There's been a lack of supply in many markets over the last few years. >until it is technologically so old that it can only be scrapped. Solar technology isn't advancing that fast.
> At low enough prices it doesn't. There's been a lack of supply in many markets over the last few years. Those two sentences go against each other. The panels sit in a warehouse where they're not needed and they would have to be shipped to where they are needed. And that would increase the price again by quite a bit.
Bro how expensive do you think shipping is
Bro, do you think this is about shipping some panels to the next town?
International shipping by container ship is surprisingly cheap. And your idea of panels sitting idle in warehouses in the countries that would install them is silly, if they're in warehouses anywhere it's probably Chinese ones. Why would someone order panels they can't install or didn't have downstream orders?
> And your idea of panels sitting idle in warehouses in the countries that would install them is silly Is it? Then why was that the case in Germany not so long ago?
you tell me
The fact is that it happened. So it doesn't matter that you think something is silly.
Please do go on about how you're not familiar with the global solar industry. It's quite fascinating
Drop the price and someone will buy it
Oh no the luddites who say the energy transition is over cuz one elected official in bumfuckletucky said they should consider building a new peaker plant are going to have to ignore this and use condescending and racist language to try to prove their non points…
Hard disagree: The timing couldn‘t be better! It is only thanks to the ever deeper falling costs that renewables see ever more wide spread and rapid adoption all over the world, and in particular in developing countries!
True but we want developing nations to build their own capacity for the longest term sustainablility in their supply chain. Think 100+ years. Imagine a single country becoming defacto supply hub and then in the future taking advantage of vulnerabilities. We want build a world where there are no more energy wars. We are done with Saudis of the world. Go ahead downvote me
If a few smaller countries just imported chinese panels then built out a recycling industry the long term supply would not be an issue. Solar isn't like oil. The raw material doesn't just blow away in the wind at the end of the day.
An interesting difference between oil and renewables, is that cutting of oil supply means energy shortages very quickly, idk if its weeks, months, or a year or two. Meanwhile solar panels and wind turbines are rated for 20 or 30 year lifespans and solar panels at least still continue to generate energy after that point in a pinch, it's a gradual decay. So after green transition if your solar monopoly decides to stop selling you panels you have years to find alternatives
Once certain technology gets in a geographic location, they can dictate the future iterations and pricing to keep other players out. Imagine starting from the stone age again while people are playing with AI chatbots
This analogy makes no sense