Comments on: Dumping Solar: Study Sheds Light on Solar PV Trade Flows, US-China Manufacturing

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:37:00 +0000

solar panels produce more energy in a very short time than is used making them.

as for the other topic, it’s simply not the focus of this blog (CleanTechnica).

By: Futureone-1

Futureone-1 — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:22:00 +0000

what a weird world we live in, why argue about sustainable energy , when we should firstly address sustainable world population ? it seems China has addressed this with a one child pollicy , it is not about money , it is about population and sustainability of our planet one would think ? as for every person on the planet it will take more energy and it seems that people are the problem here !!! we need to think as one , the human race and where we will be in the future , it is time to stop wars and to make rules that apply to everyone evenly and for the good of the planet , not one nation or one company or one person after all we only need food in our stomach to live another day !!!! maybe we should get rid of our governments and start again with a better process ??? the question is how much energy does it take to produce solar energy over other energy sources ? but will anyone be honest about that ? certainly not the fuel industry , nuclear , hydro etc ….if people put as much energy in telling the truth than they do lying , that may be a good start !!!!

By: Akbweb2

Akbweb2 — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:34:00 +0000

Wrong-o…the results of the analysis do support CASM’s case…Picture at the top of the article has to do with justice, in this case as applies to the rules and laws governing fair trade…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:53:00 +0000

um nothing in the NREL slide deck suggests that NREL is supportive of CASM’s case. that’s the author’s subjective read of the deck. also that one chart is from GTM research, as NREL notes in their slide deck. aaand can we talk about the picture at the top of the article? what the hell is that? and what does it have to do with solar?

By: Roma

Roma — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:20:00 +0000

Irrespective of the extent of accuracy of the numbers, this article shows why we need an economy-wide carbon tax. Wouldn’t then need the government to institute piecemeal legislation to address these issues…..

By: Info

Info — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:43:00 +0000

Solar electric energy is ten times more expensive, $1/KWh, than typical utility electric energy $.10/KWh.

Attacking China for dumping solar panels is like a sail boat race without the wind. No one ever crosses the finish line but each says the other guy is cheating.

PV factories are notorious for not making money. It has been going on for 25 years, before the NREL even existed.

There are better ways to develop the PV industry right now than throw more American money away. Who would say the industry would be around tomorrow if incentives were gone, even with the current price of Chinese dumping.

I can buy a container of Chinese Suntech modules for $.95/watt plus shipping from China $.05/watt = $1/watt.

I can buy a container of Advanced Solar Photonics modules in the USA for $1.15/watt plus $.02/watt = 1.17 with immediate delivery instead of 45 days.

Solar World tries to make everyone believe their modules are far superior than the rest of the world’s because their German engineered and owned. They try to make their distributors sell at preset levels. They are some of the highest priced modules in the United States.

The whole solar industry is a joke. Grid connected systems make absolutely no sense. Solar farms are the most disgraceful wastes of tax payers money of them all.

I have been in the Photovoltaics industry for over 25 years and I have never known of a single manufacturer who has made money they have been going out of business way before the Chinese showed up Solavolt, Mobil, ARCO, Photowatt, Solarex.

NREL depends entirely on US DOE funding and therefore Congressional funding. Is there any reason why they wouldn’t rally behind US PV manufactures no matter how insipid it might be?

By: Muchos Huevos

Muchos Huevos — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:49:00 +0000

In actuality, they should make mandatory that every new home would come with solar lanels.

By: Edward Kerr

Edward Kerr — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:22:00 +0000

When trying to analyze why HREL would want to kill (or at least hobble) the solar industry I’m reminded that our congress is largely obligated to their “daddies” (as in who’s your daddy now?) that put them in office. Of course, anything that helps the fossil fuel industry would be part of the actual motivation regardless of the “official” reasons stated for their existence.

Maybe I’m just being paranoid but I smell a rat here.

By: MonkeySmart

MonkeySmart — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:09:00 +0000

Show me the evidence for your arguments?

By: Akbweb2

Akbweb2 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:09:00 +0000

“…how competition works”!?

You must be kidding!? We’re barely even playing the same ‘game’.

Let’s look at the ‘competition':-

– central gov’t controlled economy w/mandated mfg, production targets
– illegal mfg and export subsidies on a scale never seen
– restricted access to domestic mkts for foreign cos who must take on a local jv partner to have any chance of success
– a managed currency pegged to biggest trade partners…

Yes, by all means, let’s compete…

but I’m afraid your notion of competition will have Americans move faster into the poor house, and a polluted one at that…

By: Akbweb2

Akbweb2 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:37:00 +0000

“NREL’s continued missteps is an underlying desire to kill the solar industry.”

Yes, no doubt that’s there intention…

By: Akbweb2

Akbweb2 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:36:00 +0000

Looking into the details of the year-end imports from China, and not only those, as well as the scope and scale of Chinese subsidies clearly reveals that “competitiveness” is not defined by open, fair trade and adherence to internationally accepted trade rules…Whether China can continue to subsidize at the scale and scope raises the very real question of whether this recent price decline and ramp up in production is sustainable or healthy…

By: ldn3000

ldn3000 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:10:00 +0000

A fine example of unbiased reporting (not!)

Of course SolarWorld is prepared to manufacture the quantities of high-quality solar modules the US market demands at $0.04 less than Chinese manufacturer’s costs.

It appears that reliance on studies by NREL is one more reason the US solar industry is non-competitive. The only rational explanation for NREL’s continued missteps is an underlying desire to kill the solar industry.

By: Bingbangvroom

Bingbangvroom — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:20:00 +0000

Gosh, I wonder why exports accelerated at the end of the year? Has that ever happened before? Wait, just a minute, a little birdy just flew into my house… what now, she’s talking about how imports surge at the end of every year in markets all over the world. Apparently, Germany, the U.K. and Italy had import surges too. What’s that? The surges happened last year and the year before as well. This is the normal trade flow?

This little bird is a chatterbox. There’s more… NREL’s study is bogus – they cherry picked specific inflation numbers despite having more up to date and accurate information to build their arguments upon. Blue Bird says that’s pathetic – I agree.

Note that REC recently came out and was honest about how their uncompetitiveness was forcing them to close down some of their factories and reorganize production. The U.S. manufacturers should be honest about how competition works rather than cherry picking numbers and slinging around emotional accusations.