6 ms·

Unstoppable force meets 104% tariff...

api 2y ago
First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Part of this extreme reckless tariff push is definitely protectionism for the fossil fuel industry.
- tim333 2y ago
  I hope they are enjoying the drop in the oil price from $71 when trump did his Apr 2nd announcement to $57 now.
- bitethecutebait 2y ago
  two more parts: - a call to action - dump and pump stock market scheme how many HN users, say top 5000 commenters and people with craziest CVs and or income will profit of that? it would be stupid not to, right?
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  Do you think that was Biden's motivation when he put a 50% tariff on solar panels? https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ustr-biden-tariff-increase-wafers-polysilicon-tungsten/735300/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ustr-biden-tariff-increase-...
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    > The move builds on tariff hikes finalized by the Biden administration in September that target strategic product categories from China You can argue about whether tariffs are good or bad, but in any case there's a vast difference between "target[ing] strategic product categories" and bluntly hitting entire ccTLDs.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      The Biden tariffs were balanced by substantial incentives to build solar manufacturing capacity. edit to respond to dead comment: The Chinese wasted way more money on Solyndra's than the US did. Most of their solar power startups were failures too. Yet now they dominate because they subsidized more than one and didn't give up after one failed.
      - know-how 2y ago
        [dead]
  - mywittyname 2y ago
    Targeted tariffs to protect or foster certain industries are acceptable. Blanket ones are not. And they should be set just high enough that the industry remains competitive while not allowing for price gouging. We know companies will seek to maximize their prices. So if a foreign competitor is selling for 8% cheaper, then tariffs should be no more than 9%. We know from experience that manufactures will sell at the same price as foreign competition and will pocket the difference. They should also be gradually reduced over time. The goal is to have domestic industries become globally competitive. And that necessarily means that companies need to strive to improve efficiency so they can match or beat the prices of global competitors. If that can't happen, then maybe those companies need to go away. The reason tariffs are bad in the long term is A) it incentivize global competition to become even more efficient; B) it encourages domestic industries to be non-competitive. So the industry being favored by tariffs will never grow into a global power. So tariffs on solar panels are fine, so long as they come with other incentives to spur domestic consumption (to drive efficiency gains) and a plan to lower those tariffs over time. Blanket tariffs are pretty much never good, the only good reason to institute blanket tariffs on a country is as a prelude to direct conflict. As it will provide a market incentive for consumers to replace goods from that country with a more expensive alternative. After all, a blanket tariff on all the goods coming from a country is a type of economic sanction. So a country who puts tariffs on the goods of every other country in the world is effectively feeling the impact of the first phase of conflict, when allies come together and enact trade barriers with a country. And why to countries band together to push economic sanctions on an adversary? To hurt their economy. So TL;DR: Biden solar tariffs - well thought out and likely productive. Trump tariffs - pushing yourself in the face.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  > Part of this extreme reckless tariff push is definitely protectionism for the fossil fuel industry. Indeed, it's becoming very obvious that the US is slowly turning into a resource curse nation. Sad. Of course US tariffs are only going to make those Chinese panels cheaper for the EU and the rest of the world, which will then be less reliant on US-sourced fossil fuels. In the long run, putting up a wall in front of the your beachfront property is not going to protect your house when the tide comes in.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    >Indeed, it's becoming very obvious that the US is slowly turning into a resource curse nation. Sad. Not that, but a "first adopter curse" AKA path dependence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence
- zardo 2y ago
  It's too stupidly done to be protectionism.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    Yeah, there aren't enough bits of entropy in imports/(exports-imports) or whatever it was to encode fossil fuel protectionism.
whazor 2y ago
Solar panels are also produced in USA. The producers might increase their prices but so might oil/gas/other energy companies.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- VerminOctopus1 2y ago
  They’re simply not as good as the Chinese ones.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Still if the US does keep 100% tariffs then probably people will switch.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Not if Chinese PV is half the price per watt. One must also consider if the raw materials to produce the PV in the USA are supplied domestically, without tariffs, which doesn't appear to be the case in general.
- relaxing 2y ago
  Last I looked 100% of the US manufacturers were assembling panels with silicon from China. Maybe some domestic monocrystalline wafer production has come online recently? Curious if anyone has updated info.
  - Gud 2y ago
    Must have been a long time since you looked then. https://www.firstsolar.com/ https://www.firstsolar.com/
    - relaxing 2y ago
      Poor wording on my part. I was only looking at residential panels, hence the note about Si wafers.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
~50GW was imported with the expectation of tariffs [1]. That is a bit under 1 year of US deployment reserve. Solar is about to get hit with tariffs, but stockpiles give buyers opportunities - https://electrek.co/2025/04/08/solar-hit-tariffs-but-stockpiles-give-buyers-opportunities/ https://electrek.co/2025/04/08/solar-hit-tariffs-but-stockpi... - April 8th, 2025 Domestic supply chain looks like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42790553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42790553 (courtesy u/jax) > According to [1], the USA in January 2025 has almost 50GW/yr module manufacturing capacity. But to make modules you need polysilicon (25GW/yr manufacturing capacity in the US), ingots (0GW/yr), wafers (0GW/yr), and cells (0GW/yr). Hence the USA is seemingly entirely dependent on imports, probably from China which has 95%+ of the global wafer manufacturing capacity. > Even when accounting for announced capacity expansion, the USA is currently on target to remain a very small player in the global market with announced capacity of 33GW/yr polysilicon, 13GW/yr ingots, 24GW/yr wafers, 49GW/yr cells and 83GW/yr modules (13GW/yr sovereign supply chain limitation). > In 2024, China completed sovereign manufacturing of ~540GW of modules[2] including all precursor polysilicon, ingots, wafers and cells. China also produced and exported polysilicon, ingots, wagers and cells that were surplus to domestic demand. Many factories in China's production chain are operating at half their maximum production capacity due to global demand being less than half of global manufacturing capacity.[3] (citations in their comment)
blitzar 2y ago
95% of the world doesn't live in America, all the more for the rest of us. America can enjoy its beautiful coal.
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  I just got a flashback to Trump enunciating “Clean coal, beautiful clean coal!”
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Almost exactly as you were making this comment he signed a bunch of stuff to "Reinvigorates America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry": https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-reinvigorates-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-industry/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-pr...
    - jiggawatts 2y ago
      And then he’s going to extort trading partners like the EU by essentially forcing them to buy polluting coal from the US or face ongoing sanctions.
      - rsynnott 2y ago
        This is what he's talking about, but... it doesn't make any sense, at all. What would "forcing the EU to buy coal" entail? The EU isn't a command economy and has no potential use for coal _itself_. The EU contains companies which require coal (albeit demand has been dropping for some time) but they're just going to buy whatever's cheapest, and particularly given it's _coal_, and has a very low value per tonne, that's generally more or less going to mean whatever's closest. Unless American coal was _radically_ cheaper than any other coal, it would be hard to cover the extra transport cost.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      Oh, wow. I assumed you were joking about the title, but... Is he having a toddler ghost-write these for him now?

api 2y ago

First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Part of this extreme reckless tariff push is definitely protectionism for the fossil fuel industry.

tim333 2y ago
I hope they are enjoying the drop in the oil price from $71 when trump did his Apr 2nd announcement to $57 now.
bitethecutebait 2y ago
two more parts: - a call to action - dump and pump stock market scheme how many HN users, say top 5000 commenters and people with craziest CVs and or income will profit of that? it would be stupid not to, right?
WillPostForFood 2y ago
Do you think that was Biden's motivation when he put a 50% tariff on solar panels? https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ustr-biden-tariff-increase-wafers-polysilicon-tungsten/735300/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ustr-biden-tariff-increase-...
- kstrauser 2y ago
  > The move builds on tariff hikes finalized by the Biden administration in September that target strategic product categories from China You can argue about whether tariffs are good or bad, but in any case there's a vast difference between "target[ing] strategic product categories" and bluntly hitting entire ccTLDs.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    The Biden tariffs were balanced by substantial incentives to build solar manufacturing capacity. edit to respond to dead comment: The Chinese wasted way more money on Solyndra's than the US did. Most of their solar power startups were failures too. Yet now they dominate because they subsidized more than one and didn't give up after one failed.
    - know-how 2y ago
      [dead]
- mywittyname 2y ago
  Targeted tariffs to protect or foster certain industries are acceptable. Blanket ones are not. And they should be set just high enough that the industry remains competitive while not allowing for price gouging. We know companies will seek to maximize their prices. So if a foreign competitor is selling for 8% cheaper, then tariffs should be no more than 9%. We know from experience that manufactures will sell at the same price as foreign competition and will pocket the difference. They should also be gradually reduced over time. The goal is to have domestic industries become globally competitive. And that necessarily means that companies need to strive to improve efficiency so they can match or beat the prices of global competitors. If that can't happen, then maybe those companies need to go away. The reason tariffs are bad in the long term is A) it incentivize global competition to become even more efficient; B) it encourages domestic industries to be non-competitive. So the industry being favored by tariffs will never grow into a global power. So tariffs on solar panels are fine, so long as they come with other incentives to spur domestic consumption (to drive efficiency gains) and a plan to lower those tariffs over time. Blanket tariffs are pretty much never good, the only good reason to institute blanket tariffs on a country is as a prelude to direct conflict. As it will provide a market incentive for consumers to replace goods from that country with a more expensive alternative. After all, a blanket tariff on all the goods coming from a country is a type of economic sanction. So a country who puts tariffs on the goods of every other country in the world is effectively feeling the impact of the first phase of conflict, when allies come together and enact trade barriers with a country. And why to countries band together to push economic sanctions on an adversary? To hurt their economy. So TL;DR: Biden solar tariffs - well thought out and likely productive. Trump tariffs - pushing yourself in the face.
mullingitover 2y ago
> Part of this extreme reckless tariff push is definitely protectionism for the fossil fuel industry. Indeed, it's becoming very obvious that the US is slowly turning into a resource curse nation. Sad. Of course US tariffs are only going to make those Chinese panels cheaper for the EU and the rest of the world, which will then be less reliant on US-sourced fossil fuels. In the long run, putting up a wall in front of the your beachfront property is not going to protect your house when the tide comes in.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  >Indeed, it's becoming very obvious that the US is slowly turning into a resource curse nation. Sad. Not that, but a "first adopter curse" AKA path dependence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence
zardo 2y ago
It's too stupidly done to be protectionism.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  Yeah, there aren't enough bits of entropy in imports/(exports-imports) or whatever it was to encode fossil fuel protectionism.

whazor 2y ago

Solar panels are also produced in USA. The producers might increase their prices but so might oil/gas/other energy companies.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
VerminOctopus1 2y ago
They’re simply not as good as the Chinese ones.
- tim333 2y ago
  Still if the US does keep 100% tariffs then probably people will switch.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Not if Chinese PV is half the price per watt. One must also consider if the raw materials to produce the PV in the USA are supplied domestically, without tariffs, which doesn't appear to be the case in general.
relaxing 2y ago
Last I looked 100% of the US manufacturers were assembling panels with silicon from China. Maybe some domestic monocrystalline wafer production has come online recently? Curious if anyone has updated info.
- Gud 2y ago
  Must have been a long time since you looked then. https://www.firstsolar.com/ https://www.firstsolar.com/
  - relaxing 2y ago
    Poor wording on my part. I was only looking at residential panels, hence the note about Si wafers.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

~50GW was imported with the expectation of tariffs [1]. That is a bit under 1 year of US deployment reserve. Solar is about to get hit with tariffs, but stockpiles give buyers opportunities - https://electrek.co/2025/04/08/solar-hit-tariffs-but-stockpiles-give-buyers-opportunities/ https://electrek.co/2025/04/08/solar-hit-tariffs-but-stockpi... - April 8th, 2025 Domestic supply chain looks like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42790553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42790553 (courtesy u/jax) > According to [1], the USA in January 2025 has almost 50GW/yr module manufacturing capacity. But to make modules you need polysilicon (25GW/yr manufacturing capacity in the US), ingots (0GW/yr), wafers (0GW/yr), and cells (0GW/yr). Hence the USA is seemingly entirely dependent on imports, probably from China which has 95%+ of the global wafer manufacturing capacity. > Even when accounting for announced capacity expansion, the USA is currently on target to remain a very small player in the global market with announced capacity of 33GW/yr polysilicon, 13GW/yr ingots, 24GW/yr wafers, 49GW/yr cells and 83GW/yr modules (13GW/yr sovereign supply chain limitation). > In 2024, China completed sovereign manufacturing of ~540GW of modules[2] including all precursor polysilicon, ingots, wafers and cells. China also produced and exported polysilicon, ingots, wagers and cells that were surplus to domestic demand. Many factories in China's production chain are operating at half their maximum production capacity due to global demand being less than half of global manufacturing capacity.[3] (citations in their comment)

blitzar 2y ago

95% of the world doesn't live in America, all the more for the rest of us. America can enjoy its beautiful coal.

jiggawatts 2y ago
I just got a flashback to Trump enunciating “Clean coal, beautiful clean coal!”
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Almost exactly as you were making this comment he signed a bunch of stuff to "Reinvigorates America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry": https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-reinvigorates-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-industry/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-pr...
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    And then he’s going to extort trading partners like the EU by essentially forcing them to buy polluting coal from the US or face ongoing sanctions.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      This is what he's talking about, but... it doesn't make any sense, at all. What would "forcing the EU to buy coal" entail? The EU isn't a command economy and has no potential use for coal _itself_. The EU contains companies which require coal (albeit demand has been dropping for some time) but they're just going to buy whatever's cheapest, and particularly given it's _coal_, and has a very low value per tonne, that's generally more or less going to mean whatever's closest. Unless American coal was _radically_ cheaper than any other coal, it would be hard to cover the extra transport cost.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    Oh, wow. I assumed you were joking about the title, but... Is he having a toddler ghost-write these for him now?