13 ms·

Billions in U.S. solar projects shelved after Trump panel tariff

218 points by rgbrenner 8y ago

epistasis 8y ago
It's interesting to contrast this with further details released recently from Xcel Energy's competitive bidding in Colorado, which had some unbelievably low prices for wind, solar, and solar combined with storage: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/06/07/worlds-largest-lithium-ion-battery-1-gwh-solarpower-xcel-energy-colorado-wind-power/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/06/07/worlds-largest-lithiu... They're planning a GWh of grid storage attached to 700MW of solar, at a cost of 3.0-3.2 cents/kWh, which completely beats the cost of coal. And that's without taking in to account coal's massive costs that it doesn't pay, in terms of our health (COPD, mercury consumption in fish, etc...). We have some absolutely awful leadership in this area that is trying to kneecap the future of our country. Colorado's process makes me hopeful that by 2022, this will mostly be in our past. But losing several years of a technology shift is nothing good for the US.
- oblio 8y ago
  > They're planning a GWh of grid storage attached to 700MW of solar, at a cost of 3.0-3.2 cents/kWh, which completely beats the cost of solar. I'm assuming you meant "it beats the cost of coal"?
  - epistasis 8y ago
    Yes, thank you, corrected!
- StavrosK 8y ago
  > which completely beats the cost of solar. And that's without taking in to account coal's massive costs that it doesn't pay Sorry, I'm confused. Did you mean the other in one of those two sentences, or am I misreading? If you did, which one? EDIT: Ah, I see the sibling comment, thanks.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  I'm all for solar. I use it myself. But I cannot wrap my head around these prices. They seem far too low. If this reality or is this companies trying to win bids, trying to get their feet into doors? Solar takes space. It takes far more land than coal-fired plants. But land prices are going up and everyone expects interest rates to go up too. So how can they afford to acquire and maintain the needed land at these prices?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Abekkus 8y ago
    Colorado has land to spare. That quote might even be based on zero-cost land.
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      Then these prices are somewhat artificial. Even if you get the land for free, there are significant operating costs. Maintaining solar panels out in a field is very different than on the roof of a factory. In a place like Colorado (not a Nevada desert) you first have to cut down all the trees/bushes, which isn't a great image for green energy. Then someone has to keep the vegetation from growing back. Theft of panels does happen. So you need security guards. The costs aren't extreme, but at the quoted prices they are significant.
      - greedo 8y ago
        You can put it on grazing land and let the animals keep the vegetation under control.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - sverige 8y ago
        Land is far from zero cost in Colorado. Assuming these solar farms would go on the eastern plains rather than in the even less productive (but more expensive) land in the mountains, it is true that much of that land can support only sparse grazing or sometimes wheat, since it is semi-arid (but not desert as in the Great Basin).
- jseliger 8y ago
  We have some absolutely awful leadership in this area that is trying to kneecap the future of our country Indeed: this policy, like many others, just makes me think, "own goal."
  - TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
    The majority of people I know, would disagree. It just happens that "own goal" coincides with what I think is a good idea. Not to say that all the decisions are good enough to vote for, but these tariffs are a solid move imo.
    - J5892 8y ago
      Why do you think they're a solid move? I'm genuinely interested in hearing your reasoning.
      - TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
        There's a bunch of different good results (along with the bad). The first, from the Chinese side, is the demonstration that the US can and will impact the immediate Chinese economy. That coldwar tactic is on the table (while open warfare in the south sea is not). Take the tariffs off, move on to a tariff on toys tomorrow. From the US side, the government has a tacit approval to bring up other relationship imbalances that have gone on for too long. The fact that my machines are attacked by Chinese IPs more often than any other locality (via casual IP lookups) makes me think that this is actually part of a greater response to various Chinese incursions into various arenas in the world (not the least of which is the US infrastructure). Another good is in regard to the impact on the US manufacturing base. Dealing with the fact that costing in existing processes and materials (based on abroad cheap labor and materials) is not reliable, is an important step. This will force higher capital investment into experimental materials and processes for alternatives (maybe with other 3rd party countries). There will also be a boon to choice US companies that the federal government favor, through existing and new contracts where these tariffs will otherwise be abated. It's not going to kill every existing company, but it hurts a lot. This is a future-investment move. It's possible it's a misstep and we will never have anything better than steel and cheap plastics, but I doubt it. There is the geo-political arena to consider. The US has been in a cold war with China since after WW2, same as we have with Russia. The moves with regard to North Korea are suspicious. North Korea has been the heel of China for some time. NK has had no way to bargain, with anyone, much less their greatest benefactor. Setting a stake against China then making overtures to NK allows NK (KimJong) to consider becoming a valuable Geopolitical figure and US partner in a critical area, surpassing south korea (for once). It just happened to coincide (I have a feeling Trump is ironically talented at speaking to KJ) and happened to influence the ultimate decision to place the tariffs at this time.
- aphextron 8y ago
  Can the US even manufacture panels? I was under the impression our infrastructure had almost completely gone away over the last 10 years with the rise of cheap Chinese panels. And would we even be able to produce them at a competitive price with the tariffs, anyways? Would we even want to? The margins are tiny, it's a commodity product. Highly doubtful. I'm seriously baffled here as to who is supposed to benefit from this. The only possibility is some kind of misguided attempt at forestalling the draw down of fossil fuels, which is inevitable.
  - post_break 8y ago
    First solar in Toledo manufactures solar panels. Almost 100% of their output was sold to Germany because they were subsidizing them.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    Counter to narrative, there is/was some US based panel production capacity, we do still make things here! We don't make as many things as in, say, Germany, but there is manufacturing. The whole reason that these tariffs came in to effect was that some failed manufacturers brought the issue. My understanding is that the manufacturers failed not because it's impossible to do in the US, but simply because of poor management decisions or betting on the wrong technology. The real question is whether the tariffs will be around long enough to incentivize any new manufacturing capacity in the US. They will almost certainly be slapped down by the WTO in a short amount of time, as previous tariffs like this have been. So by the time anybody could make more manufacturing capacity, it seems likely that the tariffs will no longer be around to support the facility. So new facilities must be planned on the basis of profitability without the tariffs. Even in this environment, there is new production being planned. However, the jobs associated with this are dwarfed by the number of jobs related to installation of panels. So while this will certainly be a net negative to the US economy in the short term, without much opportunity to provide positive impact. Basically, just a meaningless PR move by a politician. I don't think it will cause hugely detrimental effects either, it's just stupid.
    - gascan 8y ago
- micajah 8y ago
  You are right. And to think I worked at a place that made silicon wafers in the 80s in Pennsylvania
wafflesraccoon 8y ago
Side point, I was under the impression that Chrome was going to stop videos from auto playing but videos on Reuters still play by default. Any ideas why? Thanks.
- cpmouter 8y ago
  Chrome comes with a whitelist; it's possible that Reuters is in it.
- apocalyptic0n3 8y ago
  They introduced that in one update and then removed it in the next, shelving it until October I believe.
- csmattryder 8y ago
  Muted autoplay is always allowed. Working around these changes for one of our products right now. https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/09/autoplay-policy-changes https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/09/autoplay-p...
- driverdan 8y ago
  Chrome has never truly blocked autoplay. In some cases it will be blocked, in others it'll just be muted. If you want true autoplay blocking use Firefox.
Pywarrior 8y ago
This is excellent, we need innovation in the US solar panel supply chain. Energy independence is tantamount with security.
- throwaway2016a 8y ago
  > we need innovation in the US solar panel supply chain. Completely agree but reducing competition could backfire and create less innovation (due to less incentive to compete / innovate) than more. > Energy independence is tantamount with security. This only helps if you are talking non-renewable energy. A country can stop their oil shipments, they have leverage there. They can't typically take away solar panels. Now one could say that they can take away the supply of new panels and slow US adoption of renewables. But isn't that exactly what the President is doing here? It's like saying I might be shot at some point so I might as well shoot myself in the foot now.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  "excellent" isn't the adjective I'd use to describe a loss of $2.5B in investment. The effect is less energy diversity, not more.
- crunchlibrarian 8y ago
  The United States is now a massive oil exporter, most of the news stories you read about pipelines or other new facilities involve getting this oil out of the country and selling it. "Energy independence" is one of those buzzphrases from another era that doesn't really make sense anymore, insofar as it ever made sense. The idea that oil or electrical capacity is special and shouldn't be traded or should be traded differently than anything else because "security" is utter nonsense and has been used to justify lots of bad things. If you actually wanted "energy independence" you'd stop allowing oil companies to export or otherwise nationalize the energy industry, which is probably not going to happen.
metalliqaz 8y ago
Just a day after this article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/researchers-predict-economic-downturn-if-fossil-fuel-investment-goes-unchecked/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/researchers-predict-... It's almost as if they want an economic catastrophe, as long as it happens when the other guys are in office.
- djabatt 8y ago
  There seems to be no real sound logic to the current admin's economic decisions. I am not considering short term political moves as logical or helpful
  - blunte 8y ago
    The guy is a fucking moron, and everyone close to him knows that (and eventually publicly states it after he burns them). I thought this train wreck would be fun to watch, but now I fear that the people who really need to eat crow will probably be dead when the worst of the impact of this experiment in lunacy is over.
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Then put your money where your mouth is and short the market, because your opinion about the direction of the economy is not supported by either facts or public opinion. Perfect opportunity for you to get rich.
    - metalliqaz 8y ago
      I am not shorting the market, that doesn't make sense for my situation, but I am betting against it. Rather than buy shares of stock-based funds, which I consider to be overvalued, I stopped adding cash to my IRA and started sending the money to the mortgage company instead. That way I get a guaranteed 3.75% return. 3.75% may be small compared to the long-term returns of the market, but it's awfully attractive compared to a net negative return on securities that lose value over the next few years.
creaghpatr 8y ago
>Those investments were driven by U.S. tax incentives and the falling costs of imported panels, mostly from China, which together made solar power competitive with natural gas and coal. Why not manufacture the panels in the US? It would create jobs and save the environmental impact of shipping billions of dollars of panels across the pacific- freight ships are brutal when it comes to emissions.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  Because those costs are externalities that aren't properly factored into the cost of panels anywhere. The same is true for pretty much any product with an environmental impact in either it's creation or transport to market. The few places it does get factored in and regulated are places like fishing where the entire industry nearly crashed because of overfishing. Hopefully the same doesn't have to be true before other environmental externalities like shipping pollution get regulated properly.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  US labor is much more expensive
- icebraining 8y ago
  Does the US have the raw materials? Shipping them in prior to manufacture might be even worse in terms of environmental impact (assuming some material is wasted during manufacture).
jorblumesea 8y ago
There's no fighting the future, regardless of whether this administration likes to bury its head in the sand.
jeremyt 8y ago
There are two ways to look at this story. You can take it at face value and you can wring your hands over what this story apparently is trying to convey. Or you can understand the way companies and politics and the media manipulates perception to get outcomes they want. On the second point, let's read between the lines. So 2.5 billion is "canceled or frozen". Okay, what percentage is canceled and what percentage is frozen? How many of these projects were actually going to happen anyway? I have been a part of numerous attempts to manipulate public opinion by claiming that projects were canceled that never were going to happen anyway or making a big show of "freezing" things, when everybody knows the project is going to go through eventually. In many cases "freezing" is indistinguishable from "we can't do anything right now and we are just waiting to get everything rolling". I mean, I used to be involved with a company that made up a whole PR campaign about switching to another company for a key contract just as a negotiating tactic, when internally we knew that we weren't going anywhere. This campaign came complete with actual (truthy) quotes from real engineers at the company saying we were considering switching vendors. Of course it wasn't a lie, because we did have a five minute conversation internally about how we were thinking about switching companies, but the intention was never serious. I am aware of a venture just several weeks ago that fed the media completely manufactured narratives, and these narratives were dutifully swallowed uncritically and subsequently disseminated as fact. In this case, the company needed justification for doing something, so it called up a "friend" and had the friend issue a press release that a certain thing was getting "canceled". We all know internally that it's bullshit and eventually this thing will happen. So maybe everything here is really true, and may be $2.5 billion of contracts aren't going to happen. Or maybe this is the solar industry playing politics and attempting to create a narrative and pressure the administration to lift the tariffs. So, I would ask people to re-examine their confirmation bias and/or stop being so credulous.
- maym86 8y ago
  Please offer some facts or evidence to clarify it then? All you are offering is an opinion.
  - zzzzzzzza 8y ago
    An opinion is "a view or judgement about something not necessarily based on facts or knowledge". What he offered is mostly not an opinion in that it's mostly him relating his personal experiences on this topic; which probably, if we are to give him the benefit the doubt, are factual events that actually happened.
pmiller2 8y ago
Meanwhile, California is requiring solar panels on all new housing starting in 2020. These two things are going to make housing even more expensive. I guess Trump doesn’t mind screwing California a little bit more.
- AdamM12 8y ago
  Maybe. But my primary objection to this is that it will shift the cost burden of the legacy transmission infrastructure onto the poor.
- epistasis 8y ago
  No, solar on single family homes makes them less expensive. It's a cash flow positive move, and if it wasn't, the body that enacted that would not have been allowed to enact the regulation.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    You may end up in the black in 10 years, or something, but solar will undoubtedly make the purchase price higher. This is not what we need in California at all. Moreover, the rule applies to many apartment buildings and condos as well.
    - heurist 8y ago
      $10-20k is very little a 30 year mortgage. If you're buying an expensive house than that then you can definitely afford the baseline cost of solar panels. If you live in an area with high housing prices and can't afford to buy then you're renting, and the costs of solar installed on multifamily is shared across all tenants. The cost of solar panel production and installation will drop as processes become more efficient, and solar panel production costs are (were?) being halved every year or two so the $10-20k price tag will continue dropping despite tariffs. Private solar energy will also reduce costs of maintaining a grid, reduce odds of widespread power failure, and reduce costs of environmental externalities of other forms of energy production. California is also pushing hard for electric vehicles. Solar powered electric vehicles reduce reliance on oil production and imports. I don't live in CA but it seems to me they're playing the long game by reducing government ownership/operation of energy systems while reducing the costs of energy for all Californians to a low equilibrium state that reflects the cost of solar panels, which will drop over time. I wish Texas were more interested in these kinds of programs rather than bathroom legislation.
Zenst 8y ago
Somewhat curious as the media was not as dramatic when the EU did solarimport tariffs: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-501_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-501_en.htm But then, the EU also imposed import tariffs on steel. The USA has solar panel production companies, so would be interesting why they are not being utilised more, as that is what import tariffs are for - to protect local industry from cheap imports.
- topspin 8y ago
  The US imposed tariffs on Chinese and Taiwanese solar panels as well in 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environme... Prior to 1914 and for most of the history of the US the bulk of Federal government revenue was tariffs.
- detaro 8y ago
  Here in Germany, I remember quite a articles about the EU tariffs, arguments following similar lines as here: "dumping prices kill local manufacturers, tariffs compensated and/or forced companies to adjust pricing on one side" vs "local companies still in bad shape or dead, less business for installers, less build-out of solar happened". Especially the last renewal was fairly controversial.
willvarfar 8y ago
Its interesting that the USA is strategically trying to go back to being the manufacturing country and China is strategically trying to become the innovation country. Its like China and the USA want to swap places.
- frockington 8y ago
  China is probably realizing that their free cut of others IP is about to run out. If they cant steal out IP, and we can't exploit their labor, both countries will have to get better. I'm thinking this will boost both countries at the same time by growing the respective lagging economy (innovation or manufacturing)
- kinsomo 8y ago
  > Its interesting that the USA is strategically trying to go back to being the manufacturing country and China is strategically trying to become the innovation country. Its like China and the USA want to swap places. Or the US is trying to reduce its dependence on China just like China is trying to reduce its dependence on the US. IMHO, it's not good for a country to be all manufacturing or all "innovation" and "services." It was a mistake for the US to let its manufacturing sector wither to the degree it did. It's better to strike a balance, especially when your trading partners have drastic political and ideological differences and thus cannot be considered reliable.
lewis500 8y ago
The number of jobs involved in this scam is trivial either way. The point of solar power manufacturing is not to make up jobs for people to do; it is to convert our energy to a source that doesn't kill people. If our planet is really at a slight risk of danger, and if solar panels somewhat ameliorate that, then it is stupid to prize a few thousand jobs. Last month the economy created a net 233k jobs---in one month. The economy is $19 trillion and we are waging a PR war over $1B vs $2.5B. Federal reserve and fiscal policy are 1e9 times as important to job creation as this tariff. Would it be bad for the economy if someone invented a machine to make solar panels cheaply without any labor at all? No. That would be good because we could have lots of solar panels and save the planet. Important to remember these tariffs were not conceived of as a job creation scheme. They were created to produce a windfall for investors who bought the bonds of bankrupt US solar companies. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-23/jpmorgan-centerbridge-get-distressed-debt-help-from-new-tariffs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-23/jpmorgan-... I think that, for the White House, the tariffs have an added benefit of quashing an industry that more and more competes with coal. For reasons of graft, an obnoxious "heartland" brand and some weird fetishization, this administration is deeply obsessed with coal---one of the worst industries in the country to work for, which kills countless people via pollution.
- blunte 8y ago
  I think lost jobs are used as a big talking point because it resonates with the average person. One of the primary arguments given by certain political figures as to why we need tariffs is that it will protect American jobs. So by showing that it costs more jobs than it protects, that can help the average person realize that tariffs do not protect jobs, at least not in all cases.
  - test6554 8y ago
    One day jobs will be a dirty word. If something creates jobs, then we don't want it. Something that creates work out of nowhere is a bit like nagging. Nobody wants that!
    - 8y ago
howard941 8y ago
Before Trump's tariffs were even a twinkle in his advisors' eyes we (where "we" == some of we domestic OEMs developing new solar power products) were facing a more difficult market due to federal tax credit phase outs. Would have been OK but for the damned tariffs and erratic leadership scared the hell out of the money people who decided the company was better off shelving its solar interactive inverter product line - and we were in the sub 10 cent/kw pricing - in favor of using corporate $$$$ for financial engineering (acquisitions) and distributions to owners. IMO the root cause of lots of these failures is the absence of consistent, thoughtful policies, and leaders.
wpdev_63 8y ago
Wouldn't correcting the large trade deficit between China and the US result in a net job increase in the long run? It would take several years but we can build factories in rural parts of the US(you know, where people voted for Trump) or even in Mexico.
- blunte 8y ago
  It will never happen. There will always be some lower labor cost region where manufacturing jobs can be sent, and there will always be some loophole which corporations can use to get around restrictions.
  - wpdev_63 8y ago
    Yeah but there's a trade off with that. I'd imagine labor isn't as cheap as it used be(especially in China).
  - kinsomo 8y ago
    > It will never happen. There will always be some lower labor cost region where manufacturing jobs can be sent, and there will always be some loophole which corporations can use to get around restrictions. It will have to happen. IIRC, the US has trade deficits with pretty much every country it trades with. At some point, those places are going to get tired of trading real goods for IOUs and IP, especially once there are competing providers of IOUs and IP.
    - blunte 8y ago
      Those other countries have developing economies and populations. It won't be long before the other large countries stop seeing the US as significant -- they'll be trading with each other where appropriate. Isolationist policies result in the obvious: isolation.
      - kinsomo 8y ago
        > Those other countries have developing economies and populations. It won't be long before the other large countries stop seeing the US as significant -- they'll be trading with each other where appropriate. Which is why the US needs to redevelop its economy to be able to produce more things that those countries might actually want to buy besides agricultural products. The IOU-based trade-deficit policy isn't going to cut it long term.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
arbuge 8y ago
You get what you vote for... or at least what your Constitution interprets the vote as being for.
thinkcontext 8y ago
I'm surprised they didn't mention China's recent announcement to slash its subsidies for deploying solar at home. "Bloomberg New Energy Finance expects expects module prices to drop 34 percent this year and a further 10 percent to 15 percent in 2019 after China cut financial support to developers and halted approval for new projects in June." The estimate of 34% would make up for the tariff. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/china-s-new-solar-policy-may-delay-india-s-plan-to-make-panels https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/china-s-n...
crb002 8y ago
According to FRED there seems to be a glut of coal plants https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLG2211S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLG2211S .
drak0n1c 8y ago
>House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) said finalizing the tariffs was another example of Obama's resolve. >"Today's decision by the President to impose tough tariffs on Chinese solar imports is just the latest step by the Obama Administration to get tough on foreign companies who don't play by the rules," Hoyer said in a statement. "I applaud his move, which will help American manufacturers compete here at home and overseas." 2012: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261363-us-hits-china-with-solar-tariffs http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261363-us-hits-... 2014: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environme... There's a pattern here of pervasive industry lobbying going back to Solyndra, for anyone claiming this is unusual.

218 points by rgbrenner 8y ago

It's interesting to contrast this with further details released recently from Xcel Energy's competitive bidding in Colorado, which had some unbelievably low prices for wind, solar, and solar combined with storage: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/06/07/worlds-largest-lithium-ion-battery-1-gwh-solarpower-xcel-energy-colorado-wind-power/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/06/07/worlds-largest-lithiu... They're planning a GWh of grid storage attached to 700MW of solar, at a cost of 3.0-3.2 cents/kWh, which completely beats the cost of coal. And that's without taking in to account coal's massive costs that it doesn't pay, in terms of our health (COPD, mercury consumption in fish, etc...). We have some absolutely awful leadership in this area that is trying to kneecap the future of our country. Colorado's process makes me hopeful that by 2022, this will mostly be in our past. But losing several years of a technology shift is nothing good for the US.

oblio 8y ago
> They're planning a GWh of grid storage attached to 700MW of solar, at a cost of 3.0-3.2 cents/kWh, which completely beats the cost of solar. I'm assuming you meant "it beats the cost of coal"?
- epistasis 8y ago
  Yes, thank you, corrected!
StavrosK 8y ago
> which completely beats the cost of solar. And that's without taking in to account coal's massive costs that it doesn't pay Sorry, I'm confused. Did you mean the other in one of those two sentences, or am I misreading? If you did, which one? EDIT: Ah, I see the sibling comment, thanks.
sandworm101 8y ago
I'm all for solar. I use it myself. But I cannot wrap my head around these prices. They seem far too low. If this reality or is this companies trying to win bids, trying to get their feet into doors? Solar takes space. It takes far more land than coal-fired plants. But land prices are going up and everyone expects interest rates to go up too. So how can they afford to acquire and maintain the needed land at these prices?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Abekkus 8y ago
  Colorado has land to spare. That quote might even be based on zero-cost land.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Then these prices are somewhat artificial. Even if you get the land for free, there are significant operating costs. Maintaining solar panels out in a field is very different than on the roof of a factory. In a place like Colorado (not a Nevada desert) you first have to cut down all the trees/bushes, which isn't a great image for green energy. Then someone has to keep the vegetation from growing back. Theft of panels does happen. So you need security guards. The costs aren't extreme, but at the quoted prices they are significant.
    - greedo 8y ago
      You can put it on grazing land and let the animals keep the vegetation under control.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sverige 8y ago
      Land is far from zero cost in Colorado. Assuming these solar farms would go on the eastern plains rather than in the even less productive (but more expensive) land in the mountains, it is true that much of that land can support only sparse grazing or sometimes wheat, since it is semi-arid (but not desert as in the Great Basin).
jseliger 8y ago
We have some absolutely awful leadership in this area that is trying to kneecap the future of our country Indeed: this policy, like many others, just makes me think, "own goal."
- TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
  The majority of people I know, would disagree. It just happens that "own goal" coincides with what I think is a good idea. Not to say that all the decisions are good enough to vote for, but these tariffs are a solid move imo.
  - J5892 8y ago
    Why do you think they're a solid move? I'm genuinely interested in hearing your reasoning.
    - TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
      There's a bunch of different good results (along with the bad). The first, from the Chinese side, is the demonstration that the US can and will impact the immediate Chinese economy. That coldwar tactic is on the table (while open warfare in the south sea is not). Take the tariffs off, move on to a tariff on toys tomorrow. From the US side, the government has a tacit approval to bring up other relationship imbalances that have gone on for too long. The fact that my machines are attacked by Chinese IPs more often than any other locality (via casual IP lookups) makes me think that this is actually part of a greater response to various Chinese incursions into various arenas in the world (not the least of which is the US infrastructure). Another good is in regard to the impact on the US manufacturing base. Dealing with the fact that costing in existing processes and materials (based on abroad cheap labor and materials) is not reliable, is an important step. This will force higher capital investment into experimental materials and processes for alternatives (maybe with other 3rd party countries). There will also be a boon to choice US companies that the federal government favor, through existing and new contracts where these tariffs will otherwise be abated. It's not going to kill every existing company, but it hurts a lot. This is a future-investment move. It's possible it's a misstep and we will never have anything better than steel and cheap plastics, but I doubt it. There is the geo-political arena to consider. The US has been in a cold war with China since after WW2, same as we have with Russia. The moves with regard to North Korea are suspicious. North Korea has been the heel of China for some time. NK has had no way to bargain, with anyone, much less their greatest benefactor. Setting a stake against China then making overtures to NK allows NK (KimJong) to consider becoming a valuable Geopolitical figure and US partner in a critical area, surpassing south korea (for once). It just happened to coincide (I have a feeling Trump is ironically talented at speaking to KJ) and happened to influence the ultimate decision to place the tariffs at this time.
aphextron 8y ago
Can the US even manufacture panels? I was under the impression our infrastructure had almost completely gone away over the last 10 years with the rise of cheap Chinese panels. And would we even be able to produce them at a competitive price with the tariffs, anyways? Would we even want to? The margins are tiny, it's a commodity product. Highly doubtful. I'm seriously baffled here as to who is supposed to benefit from this. The only possibility is some kind of misguided attempt at forestalling the draw down of fossil fuels, which is inevitable.
- post_break 8y ago
  First solar in Toledo manufactures solar panels. Almost 100% of their output was sold to Germany because they were subsidizing them.
- epistasis 8y ago
  Counter to narrative, there is/was some US based panel production capacity, we do still make things here! We don't make as many things as in, say, Germany, but there is manufacturing. The whole reason that these tariffs came in to effect was that some failed manufacturers brought the issue. My understanding is that the manufacturers failed not because it's impossible to do in the US, but simply because of poor management decisions or betting on the wrong technology. The real question is whether the tariffs will be around long enough to incentivize any new manufacturing capacity in the US. They will almost certainly be slapped down by the WTO in a short amount of time, as previous tariffs like this have been. So by the time anybody could make more manufacturing capacity, it seems likely that the tariffs will no longer be around to support the facility. So new facilities must be planned on the basis of profitability without the tariffs. Even in this environment, there is new production being planned. However, the jobs associated with this are dwarfed by the number of jobs related to installation of panels. So while this will certainly be a net negative to the US economy in the short term, without much opportunity to provide positive impact. Basically, just a meaningless PR move by a politician. I don't think it will cause hugely detrimental effects either, it's just stupid.
  - gascan 8y ago
micajah 8y ago
You are right. And to think I worked at a place that made silicon wafers in the 80s in Pennsylvania

wafflesraccoon 8y ago

Side point, I was under the impression that Chrome was going to stop videos from auto playing but videos on Reuters still play by default. Any ideas why? Thanks.

cpmouter 8y ago
Chrome comes with a whitelist; it's possible that Reuters is in it.
apocalyptic0n3 8y ago
They introduced that in one update and then removed it in the next, shelving it until October I believe.
csmattryder 8y ago
Muted autoplay is always allowed. Working around these changes for one of our products right now. https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/09/autoplay-policy-changes https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/09/autoplay-p...
driverdan 8y ago
Chrome has never truly blocked autoplay. In some cases it will be blocked, in others it'll just be muted. If you want true autoplay blocking use Firefox.

Pywarrior 8y ago

This is excellent, we need innovation in the US solar panel supply chain. Energy independence is tantamount with security.

throwaway2016a 8y ago
> we need innovation in the US solar panel supply chain. Completely agree but reducing competition could backfire and create less innovation (due to less incentive to compete / innovate) than more. > Energy independence is tantamount with security. This only helps if you are talking non-renewable energy. A country can stop their oil shipments, they have leverage there. They can't typically take away solar panels. Now one could say that they can take away the supply of new panels and slow US adoption of renewables. But isn't that exactly what the President is doing here? It's like saying I might be shot at some point so I might as well shoot myself in the foot now.
metalliqaz 8y ago
"excellent" isn't the adjective I'd use to describe a loss of $2.5B in investment. The effect is less energy diversity, not more.
crunchlibrarian 8y ago
The United States is now a massive oil exporter, most of the news stories you read about pipelines or other new facilities involve getting this oil out of the country and selling it. "Energy independence" is one of those buzzphrases from another era that doesn't really make sense anymore, insofar as it ever made sense. The idea that oil or electrical capacity is special and shouldn't be traded or should be traded differently than anything else because "security" is utter nonsense and has been used to justify lots of bad things. If you actually wanted "energy independence" you'd stop allowing oil companies to export or otherwise nationalize the energy industry, which is probably not going to happen.

metalliqaz 8y ago

Just a day after this article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/researchers-predict-economic-downturn-if-fossil-fuel-investment-goes-unchecked/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/researchers-predict-... It's almost as if they want an economic catastrophe, as long as it happens when the other guys are in office.

djabatt 8y ago
There seems to be no real sound logic to the current admin's economic decisions. I am not considering short term political moves as logical or helpful
- blunte 8y ago
  The guy is a fucking moron, and everyone close to him knows that (and eventually publicly states it after he burns them). I thought this train wreck would be fun to watch, but now I fear that the people who really need to eat crow will probably be dead when the worst of the impact of this experiment in lunacy is over.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Then put your money where your mouth is and short the market, because your opinion about the direction of the economy is not supported by either facts or public opinion. Perfect opportunity for you to get rich.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    I am not shorting the market, that doesn't make sense for my situation, but I am betting against it. Rather than buy shares of stock-based funds, which I consider to be overvalued, I stopped adding cash to my IRA and started sending the money to the mortgage company instead. That way I get a guaranteed 3.75% return. 3.75% may be small compared to the long-term returns of the market, but it's awfully attractive compared to a net negative return on securities that lose value over the next few years.

creaghpatr 8y ago

>Those investments were driven by U.S. tax incentives and the falling costs of imported panels, mostly from China, which together made solar power competitive with natural gas and coal. Why not manufacture the panels in the US? It would create jobs and save the environmental impact of shipping billions of dollars of panels across the pacific- freight ships are brutal when it comes to emissions.

rtkwe 8y ago
Because those costs are externalities that aren't properly factored into the cost of panels anywhere. The same is true for pretty much any product with an environmental impact in either it's creation or transport to market. The few places it does get factored in and regulated are places like fishing where the entire industry nearly crashed because of overfishing. Hopefully the same doesn't have to be true before other environmental externalities like shipping pollution get regulated properly.
metalliqaz 8y ago
US labor is much more expensive
icebraining 8y ago
Does the US have the raw materials? Shipping them in prior to manufacture might be even worse in terms of environmental impact (assuming some material is wasted during manufacture).

jorblumesea 8y ago

There's no fighting the future, regardless of whether this administration likes to bury its head in the sand.

jeremyt 8y ago

There are two ways to look at this story. You can take it at face value and you can wring your hands over what this story apparently is trying to convey. Or you can understand the way companies and politics and the media manipulates perception to get outcomes they want. On the second point, let's read between the lines. So 2.5 billion is "canceled or frozen". Okay, what percentage is canceled and what percentage is frozen? How many of these projects were actually going to happen anyway? I have been a part of numerous attempts to manipulate public opinion by claiming that projects were canceled that never were going to happen anyway or making a big show of "freezing" things, when everybody knows the project is going to go through eventually. In many cases "freezing" is indistinguishable from "we can't do anything right now and we are just waiting to get everything rolling". I mean, I used to be involved with a company that made up a whole PR campaign about switching to another company for a key contract just as a negotiating tactic, when internally we knew that we weren't going anywhere. This campaign came complete with actual (truthy) quotes from real engineers at the company saying we were considering switching vendors. Of course it wasn't a lie, because we did have a five minute conversation internally about how we were thinking about switching companies, but the intention was never serious. I am aware of a venture just several weeks ago that fed the media completely manufactured narratives, and these narratives were dutifully swallowed uncritically and subsequently disseminated as fact. In this case, the company needed justification for doing something, so it called up a "friend" and had the friend issue a press release that a certain thing was getting "canceled". We all know internally that it's bullshit and eventually this thing will happen. So maybe everything here is really true, and may be $2.5 billion of contracts aren't going to happen. Or maybe this is the solar industry playing politics and attempting to create a narrative and pressure the administration to lift the tariffs. So, I would ask people to re-examine their confirmation bias and/or stop being so credulous.

maym86 8y ago
Please offer some facts or evidence to clarify it then? All you are offering is an opinion.
- zzzzzzzza 8y ago
  An opinion is "a view or judgement about something not necessarily based on facts or knowledge". What he offered is mostly not an opinion in that it's mostly him relating his personal experiences on this topic; which probably, if we are to give him the benefit the doubt, are factual events that actually happened.

pmiller2 8y ago

Meanwhile, California is requiring solar panels on all new housing starting in 2020. These two things are going to make housing even more expensive. I guess Trump doesn’t mind screwing California a little bit more.

AdamM12 8y ago
Maybe. But my primary objection to this is that it will shift the cost burden of the legacy transmission infrastructure onto the poor.
epistasis 8y ago
No, solar on single family homes makes them less expensive. It's a cash flow positive move, and if it wasn't, the body that enacted that would not have been allowed to enact the regulation.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  You may end up in the black in 10 years, or something, but solar will undoubtedly make the purchase price higher. This is not what we need in California at all. Moreover, the rule applies to many apartment buildings and condos as well.
  - heurist 8y ago
    $10-20k is very little a 30 year mortgage. If you're buying an expensive house than that then you can definitely afford the baseline cost of solar panels. If you live in an area with high housing prices and can't afford to buy then you're renting, and the costs of solar installed on multifamily is shared across all tenants. The cost of solar panel production and installation will drop as processes become more efficient, and solar panel production costs are (were?) being halved every year or two so the $10-20k price tag will continue dropping despite tariffs. Private solar energy will also reduce costs of maintaining a grid, reduce odds of widespread power failure, and reduce costs of environmental externalities of other forms of energy production. California is also pushing hard for electric vehicles. Solar powered electric vehicles reduce reliance on oil production and imports. I don't live in CA but it seems to me they're playing the long game by reducing government ownership/operation of energy systems while reducing the costs of energy for all Californians to a low equilibrium state that reflects the cost of solar panels, which will drop over time. I wish Texas were more interested in these kinds of programs rather than bathroom legislation.

Zenst 8y ago

Somewhat curious as the media was not as dramatic when the EU did solarimport tariffs: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-501_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-501_en.htm But then, the EU also imposed import tariffs on steel. The USA has solar panel production companies, so would be interesting why they are not being utilised more, as that is what import tariffs are for - to protect local industry from cheap imports.

topspin 8y ago
The US imposed tariffs on Chinese and Taiwanese solar panels as well in 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environme... Prior to 1914 and for most of the history of the US the bulk of Federal government revenue was tariffs.
detaro 8y ago
Here in Germany, I remember quite a articles about the EU tariffs, arguments following similar lines as here: "dumping prices kill local manufacturers, tariffs compensated and/or forced companies to adjust pricing on one side" vs "local companies still in bad shape or dead, less business for installers, less build-out of solar happened". Especially the last renewal was fairly controversial.

willvarfar 8y ago

Its interesting that the USA is strategically trying to go back to being the manufacturing country and China is strategically trying to become the innovation country. Its like China and the USA want to swap places.

frockington 8y ago
China is probably realizing that their free cut of others IP is about to run out. If they cant steal out IP, and we can't exploit their labor, both countries will have to get better. I'm thinking this will boost both countries at the same time by growing the respective lagging economy (innovation or manufacturing)
kinsomo 8y ago
> Its interesting that the USA is strategically trying to go back to being the manufacturing country and China is strategically trying to become the innovation country. Its like China and the USA want to swap places. Or the US is trying to reduce its dependence on China just like China is trying to reduce its dependence on the US. IMHO, it's not good for a country to be all manufacturing or all "innovation" and "services." It was a mistake for the US to let its manufacturing sector wither to the degree it did. It's better to strike a balance, especially when your trading partners have drastic political and ideological differences and thus cannot be considered reliable.

lewis500 8y ago

The number of jobs involved in this scam is trivial either way. The point of solar power manufacturing is not to make up jobs for people to do; it is to convert our energy to a source that doesn't kill people. If our planet is really at a slight risk of danger, and if solar panels somewhat ameliorate that, then it is stupid to prize a few thousand jobs. Last month the economy created a net 233k jobs---in one month. The economy is $19 trillion and we are waging a PR war over $1B vs $2.5B. Federal reserve and fiscal policy are 1e9 times as important to job creation as this tariff. Would it be bad for the economy if someone invented a machine to make solar panels cheaply without any labor at all? No. That would be good because we could have lots of solar panels and save the planet. Important to remember these tariffs were not conceived of as a job creation scheme. They were created to produce a windfall for investors who bought the bonds of bankrupt US solar companies. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-23/jpmorgan-centerbridge-get-distressed-debt-help-from-new-tariffs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-23/jpmorgan-... I think that, for the White House, the tariffs have an added benefit of quashing an industry that more and more competes with coal. For reasons of graft, an obnoxious "heartland" brand and some weird fetishization, this administration is deeply obsessed with coal---one of the worst industries in the country to work for, which kills countless people via pollution.

blunte 8y ago
I think lost jobs are used as a big talking point because it resonates with the average person. One of the primary arguments given by certain political figures as to why we need tariffs is that it will protect American jobs. So by showing that it costs more jobs than it protects, that can help the average person realize that tariffs do not protect jobs, at least not in all cases.
- test6554 8y ago
  One day jobs will be a dirty word. If something creates jobs, then we don't want it. Something that creates work out of nowhere is a bit like nagging. Nobody wants that!
  - 8y ago

howard941 8y ago

Before Trump's tariffs were even a twinkle in his advisors' eyes we (where "we" == some of we domestic OEMs developing new solar power products) were facing a more difficult market due to federal tax credit phase outs. Would have been OK but for the damned tariffs and erratic leadership scared the hell out of the money people who decided the company was better off shelving its solar interactive inverter product line - and we were in the sub 10 cent/kw pricing - in favor of using corporate $$$$ for financial engineering (acquisitions) and distributions to owners. IMO the root cause of lots of these failures is the absence of consistent, thoughtful policies, and leaders.

wpdev_63 8y ago

Wouldn't correcting the large trade deficit between China and the US result in a net job increase in the long run? It would take several years but we can build factories in rural parts of the US(you know, where people voted for Trump) or even in Mexico.

blunte 8y ago
It will never happen. There will always be some lower labor cost region where manufacturing jobs can be sent, and there will always be some loophole which corporations can use to get around restrictions.
- wpdev_63 8y ago
  Yeah but there's a trade off with that. I'd imagine labor isn't as cheap as it used be(especially in China).
- kinsomo 8y ago
  > It will never happen. There will always be some lower labor cost region where manufacturing jobs can be sent, and there will always be some loophole which corporations can use to get around restrictions. It will have to happen. IIRC, the US has trade deficits with pretty much every country it trades with. At some point, those places are going to get tired of trading real goods for IOUs and IP, especially once there are competing providers of IOUs and IP.
  - blunte 8y ago
    Those other countries have developing economies and populations. It won't be long before the other large countries stop seeing the US as significant -- they'll be trading with each other where appropriate. Isolationist policies result in the obvious: isolation.
    - kinsomo 8y ago
      > Those other countries have developing economies and populations. It won't be long before the other large countries stop seeing the US as significant -- they'll be trading with each other where appropriate. Which is why the US needs to redevelop its economy to be able to produce more things that those countries might actually want to buy besides agricultural products. The IOU-based trade-deficit policy isn't going to cut it long term.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

arbuge 8y ago

You get what you vote for... or at least what your Constitution interprets the vote as being for.

thinkcontext 8y ago

I'm surprised they didn't mention China's recent announcement to slash its subsidies for deploying solar at home. "Bloomberg New Energy Finance expects expects module prices to drop 34 percent this year and a further 10 percent to 15 percent in 2019 after China cut financial support to developers and halted approval for new projects in June." The estimate of 34% would make up for the tariff. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/china-s-new-solar-policy-may-delay-india-s-plan-to-make-panels https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/china-s-n...

crb002 8y ago

According to FRED there seems to be a glut of coal plants https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLG2211S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLG2211S .

drak0n1c 8y ago

>House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) said finalizing the tariffs was another example of Obama's resolve. >"Today's decision by the President to impose tough tariffs on Chinese solar imports is just the latest step by the Obama Administration to get tough on foreign companies who don't play by the rules," Hoyer said in a statement. "I applaud his move, which will help American manufacturers compete here at home and overseas." 2012: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261363-us-hits-china-with-solar-tariffs http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261363-us-hits-... 2014: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environme... There's a pattern here of pervasive industry lobbying going back to Solyndra, for anyone claiming this is unusual.