5 ms·

May be start the manufacturing facility here and start panel manufacturing here itself !!

nonethewiser 3y ago
Panels are a commodity at this point. I hate to say it but mineral extraction, processing and panel manufacturing will be way more expensive than importing from China. Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale. I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the first step. Frankly im not even sure the labor cost is even solvable. Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  most of the onshoring is not dictated by cost but the realization that something that looks like COVID lockdowns of Chinese factories and ports makes just-in-time untenable. Most likely, you will see a lot of made in Mexico/Caribbean/Canada
  - r00fus 3y ago
    Aka “friend-shoring”. Honestly I struggle to see why we can’t start bootstrapping some tech build here in the US.
    - FpUser 3y ago
      You might want to check how much of the stuff made in Mexico uses components and materials from China
- bboygravity 3y ago
  Is that really cheaper though taking into account that the cheap ones (and perhaps the expensive ones too) have a lifetime of about 50 years and cannot be recycled at all? That doesn't sound sustainable at all to me.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Recycling is not a magic word for "cheap". Landfilling a bunch of panels every 50 years is fine: they're "just" sintered sand.
    - krupan 3y ago
      Yes because land is free, according to solar power proponents
      - defrost 3y ago
        Cheap in equatorial areas suitable for massive solar farms with expected daytime tempretures of 40-50 C, yes. Free, not exactly, but certainly affordable. https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forrest-buys-up-three-cattle-stations-for-5gw-renewable-energy-hub/ https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forr... For scale reference those solar farms | cattle stations are to provide power to mining operations that ship almost a billion tonnes of iron ore per annum (and remove a factor of overburden) consuming major amounts of fossil fuel in the process. Work is also underway to upgrade trains that roll that billion tonnes to the coast down a 600m height differential to recoup energy. See: Infinity train. You appear to be carrying some beef about "solar power proponents" being unrealistic hippy socialists rather than multi billion dollar industrialists.
      - dgacmu 3y ago
        The amount of material in solar panels is tiny compared to our other landfill-destined refuse streams, and it needs to be compared to the analogous waste streams from other forms of energy generation. Nuclear creates long term storage needs. Coal creates tailings. Fracking pollutes groundwater. The US installed about 32 GW of solar in 2023. (1) A modern 395W bifacial solar module (2) weighs 25.7kg; about 65g per watt. That's about two million metric tons of solar panels to handle every year. In contrast, the US produces about 73 million metric tons of plastic waste per year. We landfill a total of about 131 million metric tons per year (3) -- and that's ignoring that things like coal tailings aren't accounted for in landfilling amounts. We produce and burn about 534 million metric tons of coal per year. The numbers are large but the relative cost of solar panels 50 years hence is likely extremely tolerable compared to the alternatives. (1) https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-exceed-30-gw-first-time-history https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-... (2) https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel-silver-up-to-470w-with-bifacial-gain-his-s395gi/ https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel... (3) https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  > Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages This mindset lies at the center of neoliberalism and should be examined with nuance and perspective, since the quality of each individual's experience can vary wildly in a market which accepts such inequalities as necessary for the health of the overall system.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It's hard to know what you're saying. Everything should be examined carefully (although you can't examine something "with nuance" - nuance is not an examination tool). What are you actually saying? If $1 buys a good meal somewhere, but it costs $15 for the same meal somewhere else, paying someone less in the former location is not a moral failing.
    - visarga 3y ago
      A meal might be 15x cheaper, but a phone, laptop, car or anything imported will surely not be cheaper.
      - nonethewiser 3y ago
        > A meal might be 15x cheaper, but a phone, laptop, car or anything imported will surely not be cheaper. Im not sure I understand what you’re saying because it absolutely is orders of magnitude to import phones and laptops. Cars have more tariffs to protect the domestic market so Im unsure about that one.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > anything imported will surely not be cheaper Possibly not, but that can't be solved purely by employers. If a country for whatever reason does not have the economy to support this, this can't be solved quickly. Companies won't pay $15/hr to overseas workers; they'd probably just not spend the money there at all. That's the choice you're giving them. Also - it probably will be cheaper, for three reasons: - the local market won't bear the real price, and while this means less profit, it's still some profit, or presence, or whatever reason the vendor is selling for - a similar but slightly different product might be offered. E.g. I bought a car in South Africa and it was a slightly simpler spec compared to the UK equivalent, despite looking identical - local labour, fuel tax, sales tax, and other costs all increase prices. Driving the goods to a shop and buying them from it is a pretty different cost in different countries.
- fuzztester 3y ago
  >Frankly im not even sure the labor cost is even solvable. Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages An entitled and creepy af attitude, if there ever was one. "Foreign" "wages" are not going to stay low forever. Already gone up and going up in some countries. Think (and act) smarter, dude. Only the fittest of the fittest shall survive. - Bob Marley (Could you be loved) https://youtu.be/CRkfqH1r714?si=8FsPUVBnizwkixvB https://youtu.be/CRkfqH1r714?si=8FsPUVBnizwkixvB
  - vGPU 3y ago
    How is that “creepy”? Regardless, we’re already seeing the effects as manufacturing moves away from China and towards India. Now, what happens to those increased wages when the demand for workers is gone? That’s right. They collapse.
    - fuzztester 3y ago
      >How is that “creepy”? I don't know. I just felt it was like that, so said it. Can't really explain it. Gut feel. >Now, what happens to those increased wages when the demand for workers is gone? >That’s right. They collapse. Yeah. It happens. All the time. Deal with it. Cycles, dude, cycles. Business cycles. Ups and downs. Power cycles (between various power groups). Ditto. You know, like our old pals, Xerxes, Darius, Cambyses, Alexander, Attila, Caesar, Ashoka, Chandragupta Maurya, Genghis Khan, Akbar, Timur, Napoleon, Hitler, Cortes, and many more (in no particular order). Horse-drawn carts. Cars. ICE cars. EVs. Age of sail. Steam ships. Abacus. PCs. Mobiles. You get the drift. It's called progress. Not so sure. But it is what it is.
- midtake 3y ago
  Relying on China as a trade partner, who has been hostile to the US in every way except kinetic, is a hidden cost of those "cheap" panels. Is China's an economy whose growth you want to willingly contribute to? That is sort of like not reading the geopolitical room.
  - chii 3y ago
    while the geopolitical take is true, the economic sacrifice you'd have by not taking china's surplus is actually not benefitial. The solar panels can enable other industries locally. For example, cheap and plentiful electricity can be used to produce local stuff that costs energy. And solar panel production is not really "strategically" important - in a kinetic war, china can withold solar panels and it would not make a difference in the war. Therefore, there's no reason not to import cheap panels.
- mcbishop 3y ago
  A counterpoint: Qcells has been expanding their Georgia (U.S.) solar factories. 8.4GW capacity by the end of the year (which is the equivalent of like... 15 typical centralized power plants). Labor costs are lower in the south. But, overall, I agree with you.

Panels are a commodity at this point. I hate to say it but mineral extraction, processing and panel manufacturing will be way more expensive than importing from China. Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale. I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the first step. Frankly im not even sure the labor cost is even solvable. Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages

bobthepanda 3y ago
most of the onshoring is not dictated by cost but the realization that something that looks like COVID lockdowns of Chinese factories and ports makes just-in-time untenable. Most likely, you will see a lot of made in Mexico/Caribbean/Canada
- r00fus 3y ago
  Aka “friend-shoring”. Honestly I struggle to see why we can’t start bootstrapping some tech build here in the US.
  - FpUser 3y ago
    You might want to check how much of the stuff made in Mexico uses components and materials from China
bboygravity 3y ago
Is that really cheaper though taking into account that the cheap ones (and perhaps the expensive ones too) have a lifetime of about 50 years and cannot be recycled at all? That doesn't sound sustainable at all to me.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Recycling is not a magic word for "cheap". Landfilling a bunch of panels every 50 years is fine: they're "just" sintered sand.
  - krupan 3y ago
    Yes because land is free, according to solar power proponents
    - defrost 3y ago
      Cheap in equatorial areas suitable for massive solar farms with expected daytime tempretures of 40-50 C, yes. Free, not exactly, but certainly affordable. https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forrest-buys-up-three-cattle-stations-for-5gw-renewable-energy-hub/ https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forr... For scale reference those solar farms | cattle stations are to provide power to mining operations that ship almost a billion tonnes of iron ore per annum (and remove a factor of overburden) consuming major amounts of fossil fuel in the process. Work is also underway to upgrade trains that roll that billion tonnes to the coast down a 600m height differential to recoup energy. See: Infinity train. You appear to be carrying some beef about "solar power proponents" being unrealistic hippy socialists rather than multi billion dollar industrialists.
    - dgacmu 3y ago
      The amount of material in solar panels is tiny compared to our other landfill-destined refuse streams, and it needs to be compared to the analogous waste streams from other forms of energy generation. Nuclear creates long term storage needs. Coal creates tailings. Fracking pollutes groundwater. The US installed about 32 GW of solar in 2023. (1) A modern 395W bifacial solar module (2) weighs 25.7kg; about 65g per watt. That's about two million metric tons of solar panels to handle every year. In contrast, the US produces about 73 million metric tons of plastic waste per year. We landfill a total of about 131 million metric tons per year (3) -- and that's ignoring that things like coal tailings aren't accounted for in landfilling amounts. We produce and burn about 534 million metric tons of coal per year. The numbers are large but the relative cost of solar panels 50 years hence is likely extremely tolerable compared to the alternatives. (1) https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-exceed-30-gw-first-time-history https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-... (2) https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel-silver-up-to-470w-with-bifacial-gain-his-s395gi/ https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel... (3) https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...
soulofmischief 3y ago
> Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages This mindset lies at the center of neoliberalism and should be examined with nuance and perspective, since the quality of each individual's experience can vary wildly in a market which accepts such inequalities as necessary for the health of the overall system.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It's hard to know what you're saying. Everything should be examined carefully (although you can't examine something "with nuance" - nuance is not an examination tool). What are you actually saying? If $1 buys a good meal somewhere, but it costs $15 for the same meal somewhere else, paying someone less in the former location is not a moral failing.
  - visarga 3y ago
    A meal might be 15x cheaper, but a phone, laptop, car or anything imported will surely not be cheaper.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      > A meal might be 15x cheaper, but a phone, laptop, car or anything imported will surely not be cheaper. Im not sure I understand what you’re saying because it absolutely is orders of magnitude to import phones and laptops. Cars have more tariffs to protect the domestic market so Im unsure about that one.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > anything imported will surely not be cheaper Possibly not, but that can't be solved purely by employers. If a country for whatever reason does not have the economy to support this, this can't be solved quickly. Companies won't pay $15/hr to overseas workers; they'd probably just not spend the money there at all. That's the choice you're giving them. Also - it probably will be cheaper, for three reasons: - the local market won't bear the real price, and while this means less profit, it's still some profit, or presence, or whatever reason the vendor is selling for - a similar but slightly different product might be offered. E.g. I bought a car in South Africa and it was a slightly simpler spec compared to the UK equivalent, despite looking identical - local labour, fuel tax, sales tax, and other costs all increase prices. Driving the goods to a shop and buying them from it is a pretty different cost in different countries.
fuzztester 3y ago
>Frankly im not even sure the labor cost is even solvable. Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages An entitled and creepy af attitude, if there ever was one. "Foreign" "wages" are not going to stay low forever. Already gone up and going up in some countries. Think (and act) smarter, dude. Only the fittest of the fittest shall survive. - Bob Marley (Could you be loved) https://youtu.be/CRkfqH1r714?si=8FsPUVBnizwkixvB https://youtu.be/CRkfqH1r714?si=8FsPUVBnizwkixvB
- vGPU 3y ago
  How is that “creepy”? Regardless, we’re already seeing the effects as manufacturing moves away from China and towards India. Now, what happens to those increased wages when the demand for workers is gone? That’s right. They collapse.
  - fuzztester 3y ago
    >How is that “creepy”? I don't know. I just felt it was like that, so said it. Can't really explain it. Gut feel. >Now, what happens to those increased wages when the demand for workers is gone? >That’s right. They collapse. Yeah. It happens. All the time. Deal with it. Cycles, dude, cycles. Business cycles. Ups and downs. Power cycles (between various power groups). Ditto. You know, like our old pals, Xerxes, Darius, Cambyses, Alexander, Attila, Caesar, Ashoka, Chandragupta Maurya, Genghis Khan, Akbar, Timur, Napoleon, Hitler, Cortes, and many more (in no particular order). Horse-drawn carts. Cars. ICE cars. EVs. Age of sail. Steam ships. Abacus. PCs. Mobiles. You get the drift. It's called progress. Not so sure. But it is what it is.
midtake 3y ago
Relying on China as a trade partner, who has been hostile to the US in every way except kinetic, is a hidden cost of those "cheap" panels. Is China's an economy whose growth you want to willingly contribute to? That is sort of like not reading the geopolitical room.
- chii 3y ago
  while the geopolitical take is true, the economic sacrifice you'd have by not taking china's surplus is actually not benefitial. The solar panels can enable other industries locally. For example, cheap and plentiful electricity can be used to produce local stuff that costs energy. And solar panel production is not really "strategically" important - in a kinetic war, china can withold solar panels and it would not make a difference in the war. Therefore, there's no reason not to import cheap panels.
mcbishop 3y ago
A counterpoint: Qcells has been expanding their Georgia (U.S.) solar factories. 8.4GW capacity by the end of the year (which is the equivalent of like... 15 typical centralized power plants). Labor costs are lower in the south. But, overall, I agree with you.