CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power chinawto

Published on June 17th, 2012 | by Andrew

22

German Solar Industry Getting Hammered by Cheap Chinese Imports

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

June 17th, 2012 by  

Cheap imports of silicon solar photovoltaic (PV) panels from China, sharp cuts in subsidies, and the ongoing euro zone debt crisis is taking a heavy toll on Germany’s once world-beating solar energy industry.

“The golden era of the German solar energy sector is over,” according to a June 16 Deutsche Welle (DW) article. “At its peak, Germany had a 20-percent share of the global solar energy market, but now the figure stands at just 6 percent. After a rapid decline in recent months, more job cuts are expected to hit the industry.

Oh, the Bitter Irony… of Solar FiTs… Combined with State-Run Economies

Solar PV supply has grown faster even than fast-growing demand. Chinese silicon solar PV manufacturers have been exporting some 95% of the silicon solar panels they produce. They’ve now captured more than 50% of the global market for silicon solar cells and panels.

Ironically, Germany and other European governments’ pioneering solar energy Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs) created the demand and market growth that led the Chinese government to launch a massive solar PV manufacturing subsidy program geared specifically at ramping up exports.

While that’s been the primary driver in bringing about a dramatic drop in the price of solar panels worldwide, it’s also come with substantial downside for domestic manufacturers, essentially putting the foundation of the entire industry value and supply chain in Chinese hands.

German and other European Union countries with FiTs — which stimulate demand regardless of product origin — have made the EU the primary destination for Chinese exports. Their low cost and easy availability have led German and other EU solar PV project developers and installers to buy them as opposed to solar panels made in Germany or other countries. Essentially, a significant portion of EU solar subsidies have been flowing through to Chinese silicon solar PV manufacturers.

Realizing the Ramifications; Better Late than Never?

The cutthroat price competition brought about in large part by China’s manufacturing subsidies has led German and solar PV manufacturers in other countries, including the US, to skimp on R&D, particularly when it comes to investing in improving manufacturing processes.

“We realized on numerous occasions that, in comparison to traditional, long-established industries like automotive engineering, a lot less was being invested,” Hummel told DW. “Many companies preferred to import good-quality solar panels from Asia than to carry out research,” DW relates. “And when innovation did occur, little attention was given to developing a mass-production process.”

Driven by government’s industrial policy, the Chinese juggernaut isn’t expected to slow down much, either. In fact, it’s growing. China’s latest Five-Year Plan includes as much as $1.5 trillion in subsidies, along with production and cost reduction targets, for seven strategic emerging industry sectors. Among them is thin-film solar PV, which doesn’t bode well for thin-film manufacturers outside China.

Chinese manufacturers’ rapid rise to market dominance has benefited other solar PV industry segments besides project developers and installers, but the returns have been diminishing. Manufacturers of silicon solar ingots, wafers and cells, and solar PV production equipment — a market in which German manufacturers have figured prominently — have benefited from surging Chinese demand.

“German machinery and facility builders were able to export up to 90 percent of their products to Asia,” German Center for Solar Market Research’s Wolfgang Hummel told DW. “There, complete factories for the production of solar modules and solar cells were constructed with German and Swiss assistance.”

The Chinese have been going to school on imports of European and US imports in order to build up their own capabilities. They’ve progressed to the point where Chinese producers of raw, solar-grade silicon, as well as silicon solar wafers and PV cells, have quickly gained market share and are now among the world’s leading producers.

Chinese Imports, FiT Subsidy Cuts, Rising Trade Tensions

Ironically, the flood of cheap Chinese imports, along with the persisting hangover of bad debts accumulated by banks and government during the credit boom that lasted for most of the first decade of the 21st century, has led to significant cuts in German and EU solar FiT subsidy rates.

“The funding rates have been halved in the last three years,” Carsten Körnig, who leads the German Solar Industry Association told DW. “No other technological sector has had to reduce its costs as much to keep up as the solar power sector.”

The pressure on German solar PV industry players has only been increasing, evident in a growing list of insolvency filings. That’s led to increasingly strident assertions that Chinese solar PV companies are dumping product in Germany and other EU markets. SolarWorld AG’s US subsidy has successfully led the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing’s (CASM) WTO dumping and unfair subsidies cases in the US, where the Commerce Dept. and ITC have issued preliminary penalties on imports of Chinese silicon solar PV cells and panels.

“The Chinese offer their customers a price that’s below cost,” DW quoted SolarWorld AG manager Frank Asbeck as saying. “By doing this, the Chinese government forces the good, technologically advanced companies into a dire financial straights [sic.] so they can ultimately monopolize the market.”

The likelihood of German solar PV companies filing similar petitions is growing. That would escalate trade tensions and the possibility of retaliatory actions at a time when the global economic recovery remains fragile.

Avoiding a Trade War That’s Been Going On for a Decade

Seeking to avoid an all-out trade war, the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), the Global Solar Council (a recently formed industry group of silicon and solar PV production equipment manufacturers), and the US Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) have been urging the Commerce Dept., the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Obama Administration to take a more diplomatic, conciliatory approach to resolving the issue.

Perhaps they haven’t noticed — or cared to notice — but the trade war they seek to avoid has been going on for about a decade now, and China’s stolen a march on everyone else. A level international playing field with enforceable rules needs to be established quickly if any form of open, competitive “free market” for solar PV cells and panels is to survive. Clearly, China’s not going to alter course without external pressure.

One hugely and mutually beneficial step the Chinese government could take is to redirect its supply-side manufacturing and export subsidies by reallocating them to more aggressively stimulate demand for solar solar energy installations inside China, particularly at the residential and commercial levels.

This would soak up excess supply, while at the same time boosting GDP and green job creation, not to mention the the tremendous benefit it would yield in terms of reducing CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions and the increasingly costly effects of a warming climate. It wouldn’t generate the international trade surpluses and foreign exchange reserves that China’s primarily relied on in becoming the world’s second-largest economy, however.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

I've been reporting and writing on a wide range of topics at the nexus of economics, technology, ecology/environment and society for some five years now. Whether in Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Americas, Africa or the Middle East, issues related to these broad topical areas pose tremendous opportunities, as well as challenges, and define the quality of our lives, as well as our relationship to the natural environment.



  • http://ronaldbrak.blogspot.com.au/ Ronald Brak

    I would write about supporting protection for national industries but the fossil fuel industry pays close attention to everything I post online and will just twist my words into justifying national support for coal mining and oil and natural gas extraction, so I’m afraid I can’t go there.

  • Jim_Bell

    All of this is connected. I offer the article below as the solution.
    TRUE-COST-PRICING
    Using Free-Market Forces To Save Our Life-Support System
    By
    Jim Bell – http://www.jimbell.com

    The ecology of our planet is the foundation of everything we do, including what we do under the heading of economy. When we damage our planet’s life-support system through inappropriate economic activities, we undercut the potential for economic activities in the future. For example, most of the food humans consume is grown in ways that deplete, poison or otherwise contaminate air, water and land alike. Organic agriculture causes much less life-support and human health damage than non-organic agriculture, but it’s still not completely sustainable.

    Today, almost everything humans do causes life-support system harm. More precisely, it’s not so much about what we are doing, but about HOW we are doing it. The ways we support ourselves now depends on using up ever more non-renewable resources and using renewal resources in ways that make them difficult to renew. The result of this is over flowing landfills and evermore destruction of virgin land for raw materials to replace those buried in landfills.

    “True-cost-pricing” is a free-market strategy aimed at integrating the principles of life-support sustainability with economically sound business practices. The basic idea is to include all the costs, cradle to cradle, of all products offered for sale in the common retail marketplace to pay for any damage those offerings cause from the procurement of raw materials, their refinement, product manufacture, product use, and their disposal. 

    Currently, the public, through taxes, health costs, property damage, etc. pays the health, environmental and social costs associated with health and ecologically damaging products. By paying these costs, the public is caught in the ironic position of actually subsidizing the very products and processes that are harming them and their life-support system. Even worse, these subsidies retard the development of technologies that are more health and ecologically benign or even positive by artificially lowering the retail cost of ecological, health and socially damaging products, technologies, etc. With true-cost-pricing, these costs, would be included in the market price of all market offerings, In other words, the health and life-support-costs of product offerings would be determined by an independent body, (perhaps Consumer Report Magazine would be interested in this job) and these costs would be included in the retail price of every product being offered for sale. Of course, there would be no cost added to the cost of health and life-support benign products and services.

    Including these costs up-front would cause the consumer price of health and life-support damaging products and services to rise, but even here we would save money over what we pay now because its always less expensive to avoid creating health and environmental problems than it is to cure sick people and heal damage to our common environment.

    As technologies become more ecologically sophisticated there is no reason for commonly used products to be any more expensive to purchase than they are now. In fact, in spite of the subsidies supporting health and life-support damaging products, the market price of some “Green” product is already lower than harmful products they replace and they usually work better too.

    But even if green products and technologies end up costing more at the point of purchase, under true-cost-pricing they would still be more cost effective to society. It’s less expensive to prevent ecological and social problems, than to fix them after they have been created.

    An additional true-cost-pricing benefit would be the elimination of solid waste disposal. With true-cost-pricing everything sold in the marketplace would be designed to be reused, recycled or composted. When all costs are included, this is the most cost effective thing to do.

    There is a general view that the free enterprise system is the antithesis of a healthy environment. With true-cost-pricing, however, free market forces can be powerful tools toward creating a secure life-support sustaining future.

    This article is based on a concepts developed in detail in Chapter III of Achieving Eco-nomic Security On Spaceship Earth, published in 1995. The book is available free at http://www.jimbell.com, click on “Jim’s First Book” (on the left side of your screen.)

  • Bob T

    Good to see a free market working on renewable energy PV manufacturing. Like Germany like the US market over charging for solar panels for years, china has invested in state of the ark equipment which brings forth low cost production using Australian minerals. Australian silicon is the best in the world to manufacture PV cells. Australia university people out of Sydney  help to investe in china long term production like suntech  biggest  out put in the world of PV, that why Australia no longer manufactures wind and solar power products any more.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I’m afraid you don’t know how the market works.

      Had we waited for the “free market”/private money to develop solar panels we’d still be waiting and waiting long into the future.

      The “free market” only shows up once short term profits are obvious.

      New technologies are generally very expensive to get off the ground.  If you think private money/the “free market” innovates at the emergence level then list some examples.

      Here’s a start:  Do not include intercontinental railroads, the electric grid, jet airplanes, computers, the internet, GPS, modern medicine, …. 

    • Akbweb2

       Let’s see, they have the best and cheapest silicon yet they can’t compete even with the added cost of shipping to China…There’s much more here to look into…

  • Jan

    Solar panels are about USD 0.60-0.90 per Wp (in any large European port) total cost installed  is about USD 2.00-3.00 per Wp, The difference is largely work (for installation) inverters (best are still German made) and proffit. Still good for the German economy. Do we also complain that all Ipods are made in China?

    • Akbweb2

       Foxconn?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AYBR3WCD5247GTBLNNDHSO4A5E Matt

     I like your article, but disagree with it on some points. For one, toting CASM’s line that China out-subsidizes the U.S., or “dumps” panels on U.S. markets is a fact that I have not yet seen proven. Especially given that the U.S. has been more than happy to export both raw silicon and the machinery to stamp out p/v cells to China over the years.

    A “level playing field” is a chimera with no basis in reality. Even if all government policies among all countries were the same, businesses with superior capabilities are going to “win”. Anyway, back in the 1970s-80s there was a similar situation in the U.S. – the U.S. was the hot market, and our activities therefore “subsided” the growth of many companies from other parts of the world similar to Europe and Germany. Sour markets are hurting every country in the game, and the protectionist backlash does little but further contribute to the myth that U.S. companies “can’t compete” due to regulations, subsidy, or “expensive” labor.

    An alternate reality is that solar companies have rapidly met and exceeded world demand for solar p/v. The U.S. would be better served by encouraging more solar development for its 1 TW grid – and for god sake offer an incentive to purchase from companies which manufacture in the U.S. Note that I am not specifying that it be a U.S. company, but rather one that has seen fit to put Americans, and not robots or other countries, to work. Maybe we have to call that “domestic content”. It worked for the Chinese wind industry, it can work for us. While we are at it, we should be asking China to do more to develop its own domestic solar market, out of the 1 TW grid IT cannot build fast enough.

    On the subject of R&D, Chinese companies have been allocating more funding to R&D for each year it can be observed. First Solar and Q-Cells have also outspent Chinese companies (2-3 to 1) every year and appear to spend a larger share of revenue on R&D. This is without mentioning the millions spent each year in the U.S. to aid in the development of the technology, and financing of world-class universities and research labs. If you have data to suggest otherwise, I would love to see it.

    What is in fact most troublesome to me is that many innovative companies with fascinating technologies are the losers in this story – not those firms which are perfecting the reducing the costs of a technology invented 6 decades ago. Given the versatility of solar technologies, it would seem to be a shame that those companies will be stomped out now.

    • Bob_Wallace

      “An alternate reality is that solar companies have rapidly met and exceeded world demand for solar p/v. ”

      Let me pitch in another possible reality. The solar panel industry has matured to the point where a few efficient manufacturers have emerged and they are now cranking up their output which is putting the less efficient companies out of business.

      This is something that is commonly seen in the growth of a technology. Look at all the computer and software companies which fell to the wayside as the most successful emerged. Remember all those search tools that weren’t Google?

    • Akbweb2

       Regarding dumping, the Commerce Dept and ITC have indeed found that CASM’s claims–both on predatory mfg and export subsidies, and dumping– are based on evidential fact…Hence the imposition of countervailing duties and tariffs, as yet preliminary…

      And yes, many innovative companies are being squeezed out of existence, a loss to the industry, investment and employment as a whole and the drive to lower costs and scale-up solar faster and farther…

      Re R&D, I believe the quote regards German solar companies, not US…though you do mention one instance in Germany, QCells…

      What you describe as an “alternate reality” is another aspect of the entire “reality,” and cause for optimism…

      Yes, the US would be well-served by building out a modern, smart grid and continue supporting alternative, renewable energy…

      And Congressmen, Schumer from NY for one, have proposed legislation including “Buy American” solar…

      And that, along with taking China to task on predatory subsidies that are prohibited according to WTO rules, is what needs to be done to compete against “protectionist” and predatory rules and policies that exist in China…

      All man-made inventions and systems are governed by rules and int’l trade, esp. in a globalized economy, should certainly not be an exception.

  • Bob_Wallace

    And why am I supposed to be concerned about this?

    Yes, some people in Germany (and the US) are making less money.  At the same time some people in China are making more.

    But the real message here is that solar panel prices are dropping like lead bloomers when the fleet hits port.  The price of producing electricity directly from sunlight is plummeting.  Cheap solar-electricity will force fossil fuels off the grid and help keep sequestered carbon sequestered.

    I’m more concerned about climate change than about ‘local’ economics.  I really don’t care who gets rich out of getting us off of fossil fuels.  I just want someone to do it.
      

    • Akbweb2

      One three-word reason why you should care: good green jobs, and that means good incomes that support a large, solid middle class…

      Another reason: the need to address imbalances in global trade and find a new balance that supports free, fair, open and equitable trade…

      • Bob_Wallace

        More manufacturing in China means good green jobs there.  Good incomes which will support a large, solid middle class.

        Global trade imbalances will even out as Chinese labor costs rise (as they already are doing) and as shipping costs rise (which is already happening).

        Fair trade is being addressed with tariffs being placed on Chinese panels being sold for unrealistically low prices.

        • Akbweb2

           By the time any of that happens, solar PV manufacturing in the US, Germany, the US will be “hollowed out” before being allowed to take root…

          I’d say Americans are approaching the living standard of the average urban Chinese than the converse.

          Allowing predatory nationalist subsidies to dominate a global industry isn’t in Americans, Germans, or really anyone’s best interests…

          Yes, thanks to SolarWorld and CASM and their US petition, these are finally being addressed…

          A strong manufacturing base is a pillar of a healthy modern economy and needs to be protected from predatory policies and practices…

          • Bob_Wallace

            Americans enjoy a much better lifestyle than the Chinese, in general.  Do Americans have some divine right to that better lifestyle?  Or is it more reasonable that things get evened out a bit?

            Now, if we’re talking only about solar panels, there’s only a small low skilled labor input to solar panels. In fact, total labor costs are only a very small percentage of the entire cost.  The labor difference between China and the US is being eaten away by shipping costs.

            We should protect our manufacturers against predatory practices but simply manufacturing for less is not predatory.  It’s how we took the textile industry away from England.

          • Akbweb2

             If labor costs are such a small percentage of total, how has China’s mfrs managed to dominate supply and trade in such a short time?

        • Akbweb2

           And since it’s German, EU and US demand-side subsidies that have created the market and fostered its growth to this stage, wouldn’t it be nice if these govt’s did everything they could to assure that that as much of the benefits flow through the economy and society…

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      generally, my response is similar. however, one big thing popped out to me as rather important. if it’s true that these companies are dumping and obsessively subsidized, the big technological problem it can create is that it can kill off companies creating more ‘truly’ competitive products, can kill off the innovation and improvements that come with real competition, and, thus, can kill off the slightly longer term growth of solar. if competition is being killed and most companies are shutting down not due to the true advancements of other companies but purely due to market-killing subsidies, that harms the rise of solar on longer time scales, which is not good for anyone but the fossil fuel (and perhaps some other renewable energy) companies.

      • Bob_Wallace

        If the market was getting so restricted that we were in danger of creating a solar manufacturing monopoly then I’d agree.  But what is happening, seems to me, is that the most efficient companies are forcing out the least.  A rather normal event in emerging technologies.

        We should end up with a reasonably large number of panel manufacturers, even if they are all Chinese.  And those companies will be in competition with each other.  (China is no longer socialistic, it’s state-involved capitalistic.)

        The remaining companies will compete with each other, and with other energy generation technologies.  They will innovate in order to increase market share/profits.  

        Getting your cost down pennies per watt means that you get to grab a larger part of the market.  

        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          You might be right.

          ..but it would be a shame if companies with more resources and incentive for innovation and technological development were pushed out prematurely due to predatory subsidies.

          As you’ve probably noticed, I don’t stick my opinion in on this story much, because i’m not really clear what the true situation is. (Think it’s similar over there on GTM — they’ve often just presented the sides without taking a side.) It’s hard to know for sure what the situation is, and where it will lead (compared to where we would go otherwise).

          Think SEIA has taken a pretty wise approach to it all — hope they are working hard behind the scenes to try to be a moderator — but seems their approach has more or less pissed off the SolarWorld side.

  • ljg

    Top quality read

  • Aokoprax

    Sounds just like the Jap’s dumping TV’s in the U.S.A. in the 60’s? Where’s Uncle Sam when you need him?

Back to Top ↑