4 ms·

"Global glut turns solar panels into garden fencing option" https://archive.ph/AAIKe https://archive.ph/AAIKe

Moto7451 3y ago
For what it’s worth, with Bifacial panels (they make power from both sides) and the right layout, vertical panels like a fence actually do work.
- mey 3y ago
  https://youtu.be/5AVO1IyfA9M https://youtu.be/5AVO1IyfA9M this person did a side by side experiment on their property with both angled and vertical bifacial with some interesting results. Their advantage didn't seem to be efficiency but consistency.
ponector 3y ago
>> US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen pressed China to stop flooding the market with cheap green technology exports. What a joke! Wouldn't everyone benefit from cheap green technology?
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  US-based panel manufacturers won't benefit.
  - yumraj 3y ago
    Exactly, and when China has a monopoly, they can jack up the prices.
    - bootsmann 3y ago
      But solar panels aren't chips, the hurdle for new entrants is significantly lower. I don't think this is a strategic move by China and more a result of Xis attempt to reignite their economic growth.
- amenhotep 3y ago
  It depends if they're actually producing them at that price, right? If they are - and I do assume that's probably the case - then that's great, everyone benefits from cheap solar panels/whatever else and we can expect them to keep getting cheaper, brilliant. If they aren't, if they're losing money on each panel/whatever they sell, then it's economic warfare rather than progress and the point would be to drive other manufacturers out of business. Not brilliant! Not good for future expectations! Yellen would presumably be justifying her stance based on a claim of (2) and maybe she privately believes (1) and it's simple protectionism, but it would be surprising if she admitted that.
  - hangonhn 3y ago
    Chinese industrial policy is quite a bit more sophisticated than just dumping money and subsidizing industries. They only do that in the beginning. They first subsidize and erect barriers to outside competitors. It then becomes a chaotic place with many domestic competitors. They then lower (or eliminate) the subsidies and basically it becomes survival of the fittest among the domestic producers. This is when domestic producers innovate and become more efficient. Once they are sufficiently strong and competitive, they start taking down the barriers to foreign competitors and also start exporting. This is exactly the playbook they used for EVs. (BTW, this isn't new or Chinese. Both Japan and South Korea had done versions of this. Japan originally learned it from Germany.) All this to say by the time Yellen or anyone has started complaining, the subsidizes are gone already. The Chinese companies has been incubated into very competitive companies. The US is starting to reconsider the idea of industrial policies now. The recent op-ed by Marco Rubio suggests even the traditional free-market party is rethinking it.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Chinese industrial policy is quite a bit more sophisticated than just dumping money and subsidizing industries. They only do that in the beginning. > All this to say by the time Yellen or anyone has started complaining, the subsidizes are gone already. Just because the subsidies are gone doesn't mean they haven't had their effect. Once you've already paid to develop the technology and build the factory, the incremental cost of making more units is much lower and you can outcompete companies that never received subsidies to do that. > The US is starting to reconsider the idea of industrial policies now. The recent op-ed by Marco Rubio suggests even the traditional free-market party is rethinking it. One of the big problems the US (and Europe) have is that subsidies aren't just money. We keep passing rules the cost of which can be absorbed by large established companies, but make it harder to get new companies off the ground. Meanwhile developing countries don't impose those rules. That isn't a short-term disaster when you already have a lot of large established companies that have already recovered their startup costs, but it's a long-term disaster. New companies form in places where that isn't the case, and those companies start to take market share from your own established companies. But it's a hard problem to solve because the inefficiency doesn't have a single cause. It's not some specific individual rule, it's the existence of thousands of separate rules that require teams of compliance bureaucrats to operate under, and identifying and eliminating the ones that can't survive a cost/benefit analysis is specialized detail-oriented work not easily turned into a sound bite. Meanwhile the ones who most know how to identify the least efficient rules are the compliance bureaucrats, but they want to keep them because that's their paycheck.
aitchnyu 3y ago
Now we have inverter loading ratios of 1.5, for example 10kw inverter can take 15kw of panel output (and emits 10kw) before it shuts off. Will we see inverters that can take 5.0 times of panel output so its still peaking at 5 pm?

For what it’s worth, with Bifacial panels (they make power from both sides) and the right layout, vertical panels like a fence actually do work.

mey 3y ago
https://youtu.be/5AVO1IyfA9M https://youtu.be/5AVO1IyfA9M this person did a side by side experiment on their property with both angled and vertical bifacial with some interesting results. Their advantage didn't seem to be efficiency but consistency.

ponector 3y ago

>> US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen pressed China to stop flooding the market with cheap green technology exports. What a joke! Wouldn't everyone benefit from cheap green technology?

SoftTalker 3y ago
US-based panel manufacturers won't benefit.
- yumraj 3y ago
  Exactly, and when China has a monopoly, they can jack up the prices.
  - bootsmann 3y ago
    But solar panels aren't chips, the hurdle for new entrants is significantly lower. I don't think this is a strategic move by China and more a result of Xis attempt to reignite their economic growth.
amenhotep 3y ago
It depends if they're actually producing them at that price, right? If they are - and I do assume that's probably the case - then that's great, everyone benefits from cheap solar panels/whatever else and we can expect them to keep getting cheaper, brilliant. If they aren't, if they're losing money on each panel/whatever they sell, then it's economic warfare rather than progress and the point would be to drive other manufacturers out of business. Not brilliant! Not good for future expectations! Yellen would presumably be justifying her stance based on a claim of (2) and maybe she privately believes (1) and it's simple protectionism, but it would be surprising if she admitted that.
- hangonhn 3y ago
  Chinese industrial policy is quite a bit more sophisticated than just dumping money and subsidizing industries. They only do that in the beginning. They first subsidize and erect barriers to outside competitors. It then becomes a chaotic place with many domestic competitors. They then lower (or eliminate) the subsidies and basically it becomes survival of the fittest among the domestic producers. This is when domestic producers innovate and become more efficient. Once they are sufficiently strong and competitive, they start taking down the barriers to foreign competitors and also start exporting. This is exactly the playbook they used for EVs. (BTW, this isn't new or Chinese. Both Japan and South Korea had done versions of this. Japan originally learned it from Germany.) All this to say by the time Yellen or anyone has started complaining, the subsidizes are gone already. The Chinese companies has been incubated into very competitive companies. The US is starting to reconsider the idea of industrial policies now. The recent op-ed by Marco Rubio suggests even the traditional free-market party is rethinking it.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Chinese industrial policy is quite a bit more sophisticated than just dumping money and subsidizing industries. They only do that in the beginning. > All this to say by the time Yellen or anyone has started complaining, the subsidizes are gone already. Just because the subsidies are gone doesn't mean they haven't had their effect. Once you've already paid to develop the technology and build the factory, the incremental cost of making more units is much lower and you can outcompete companies that never received subsidies to do that. > The US is starting to reconsider the idea of industrial policies now. The recent op-ed by Marco Rubio suggests even the traditional free-market party is rethinking it. One of the big problems the US (and Europe) have is that subsidies aren't just money. We keep passing rules the cost of which can be absorbed by large established companies, but make it harder to get new companies off the ground. Meanwhile developing countries don't impose those rules. That isn't a short-term disaster when you already have a lot of large established companies that have already recovered their startup costs, but it's a long-term disaster. New companies form in places where that isn't the case, and those companies start to take market share from your own established companies. But it's a hard problem to solve because the inefficiency doesn't have a single cause. It's not some specific individual rule, it's the existence of thousands of separate rules that require teams of compliance bureaucrats to operate under, and identifying and eliminating the ones that can't survive a cost/benefit analysis is specialized detail-oriented work not easily turned into a sound bite. Meanwhile the ones who most know how to identify the least efficient rules are the compliance bureaucrats, but they want to keep them because that's their paycheck.

aitchnyu 3y ago

Now we have inverter loading ratios of 1.5, for example 10kw inverter can take 15kw of panel output (and emits 10kw) before it shuts off. Will we see inverters that can take 5.0 times of panel output so its still peaking at 5 pm?