Comments on: CASE Responds to U.S.–China Solar Trade Dispute Finding & Story (Plus My Own Thoughts)

By: waterboys

waterboys — Fri, 18 May 2012 15:10:00 +0000

My concern is that this could kill off solar in the US just as it starts to become competitive. I believe that green energy is a special case and we need to start replacing fossil fuels. In the scheme of things who really cares about the fate of a few manufacturers. Why don’t they pick on Walmart, they have been importing stuff from China for years. It also seems like a desperate act by firms like to SolarWorld to stay in business.

This is economic Darwinism at work. The Chinese will continue to sell their panels elsewhere. System costs in Europe are already a lot lower than in the US. The question is whether the Chinese will start give up on the US market. RFP prices in markets like California will become more expensive.

I have heard it said that Solyndra was a great technology straggled at birth by the Chinese. Anyone familiar with Solyndra knows that it was a technological dead end. Equity analysts back in 2008 believed it wouldn’t work commercially and grew suspicious when they were not allowed to tour the company’s manufacturing facilities. PV isn’t really a high-tech industry.

By: None

None — Fri, 18 May 2012 02:49:00 +0000

Huh? Driving above the limit is ALWAYS against the law. Are you really trying to draw that comparison.

By: Akbweb2

Akbweb2 — Fri, 18 May 2012 02:39:00 +0000

These US-based solar PV players are exercising their right to voice their opposition to the Commerce decision…

Only thing is they’re doing it in the wrong country…If they’re calling for fair trade and free markets, they should be doing this in China, not the US!!

As Matt notes, the key point in terms of WTO rules on subsidies is not the size and effect of China’s subsidies, it’s their nature…

Contrary to WTO rules, and subsidies in the US and other WTO countries, federal subsidies do not favor exports to the harm of other WTO country competitors, which is the case in China…They are demand-side subsidies, not supply-side subsidies…

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 May 2012 23:38:00 +0000

China could have done supply side support, like the Germany FIT approach or a direct payment to people/company’s in China that put in PV. They could have been more agreesive in the supply side support, say a FIT 2 or 3 times Germany or refund 50%-90% the cost of installing. This would have increase demand which would have increase production and bring down cost. It would also have clean up China’s dirty power issue. That would have been complete in line with WTO rules.

Saying breaking the rules is ok, because it makes for a higher scoring game (at least for one side) is a good way to get the other people to quite the game.