4 ms·

Not the rest of the world, but China. 80% of all panels come from there, and they want to keep it that way. It'll lead to sone interesting and unpleasant polit

Not the rest of the world, but China. 80% of all panels come from there, and they want to keep it that way. It'll lead to sone interesting and unpleasant political fights in the future, I suspect.

bytesandbits 1y ago
US is the only country besides China with significant solar panel manufacturing (although much much much lower). It's not that.
softwaredoug 1y ago
They also lead the world in emissions and what the US does / doesn’t do won’t be a major driver. Our carbon peaked in 2007 It’s more an issue of US ability to compete in an emerging market IMO. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/?srsltid=AfmBOoruESUlM2QdO2gMuQm3elLKMJT5VQ1ks90GevamwPdiHh9vUAV9 https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
- ciconia 1y ago
  The US is today the biggest exporter of refined petrol products. It also consumes products manufactured elsewhere, including China. China is in some ways the world's factory.
- adrr 1y ago
  If we exported even more manufacturing abroad we can keep dropping CO2. We could stop smelting steel, making fertilizer, and making cement in the US to drop us 15% to 20% lower. Though we’ll still lead the world in CO2 per capita though of major countries.
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - esseph 1y ago
      I think(?) you missed the sarcasm. I may be wrong.
      - wakawaka28 1y ago
        I think you're wrong but it could be a case of Poe's Law. I have met people who argued with me in this way though, in real life, as if per capita emissions is more important than everything else including our existence itself. They just didn't think it over.
        adrr 1y ago
        Its easy to convince the world that Americans are special because we won WWII singlehandedly and invented gas cars that we can output 3x more CO2 than anyone else. they should be grateful and change the way they live not us. They should focus on reducing their emissions so I can keep driving my ford F150 on my 20 mile commute to work.
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        The fact is, the rest of the world greatly outnumbers us in the West. We could all die off tomorrow and it wouldn't solve the global warming problem (if you believe it is a problem), nor would it convince anyone else to live greener and give up their own progress. We have our own systems and way of life, are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy in the West as a whole, and cannot wager our existence as a distinct culture on the good will of adversarial countries around the world that greatly outnumber us and outproduce us. We can make gradual progress toward being green, perhaps, but most of the work must necessarily be done by the rest of the world. We don't owe them our lives.
        adrr 1y ago
        The third largest country by population in the world doesn't matter. So that means every country smaller than us could die off tomorrow and it doesn't matter so they can use as much as us. Also not a problem, its not like we don't have water problems and all our cattle have died off because of it or that 3rd most populous state is having coastal flooding issues thats get worse every year. Just install more pumping stations in Miami to solve the issue and we can switch from beef to eating soy products instead.
bruce511 1y ago
It doesn't really matter where the panels come from. Yes the manufacturer captures some of their value, but that's in the range of 20% of their overall value (and dropping). In my country there is no govt subsidy for solar. But math doesn't lie. A typical residential system returns 16% on capital invested. Not surprisingly residential solar here is now measured in Gw. The good news for the US is that it really doesn't matter if they fall behind. Solar can be installed so quickly that any lost impetus can be made in in a year or two. There's basically very little lead time required between decision and implementation.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  It does matter where critical infrastructure components come from. Whether you can call solar panels critical or not, China has a virtual monopoly on them due to lower production costs. The same story plays out with virtually EVERY product that we in the West need.
  - bruce511 1y ago
    True. Given their lifespan it behooves folks to "get them while they can". A warlike country with a history of antagonism to China is probably less secure than countries that have chosen to behave like good neighbors. If you feel like panel production is strategic, which is an easy argument to make, and given that the US has a substantial ability to produce panels [1], perhaps a useful strategy would be to consume those panels as much as possible, subsidizing production to make it a growth area. Indeed it might become a surplus, allowing for export, which in turn improves foreign relations. And the simple existence of the domestic market leads to improvements, better quality and so on. I'm no economist but the above seems like a solid strategy to me. It would be most interesting to see the outcomes where a country pursued this strategy versus one that actively worked to marginalize solar, killing domestic production instead. I wonder if there are more countries in the same boat which could be used to see the long-term outcome of the various strategic options? [1] Solar systems comprise of more than panels. But the other parts are just electronics so not important in the context of managing solar as a specific product.
gritzko 1y ago
I was checking Google Maps recently. In such places as Islamabad or Cyprus, residential solar is big. I also hear, the price of panels is low % of the entire installation. What excites me is that solar works one level up. Coal is energy, solar is a source of energy. If you sell solar panel manufacturing equipment, you work in the second derivative. That literally levels up the game.
- parineum 1y ago
  Coal is storage.
  - SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
    In the conventional sense, one-directional storage

Not the rest of the world, but China. 80% of all panels come from there, and they want to keep it that way. It'll lead to sone interesting and unpleasant political fights in the future, I suspect.

bytesandbits 1y ago

US is the only country besides China with significant solar panel manufacturing (although much much much lower). It's not that.

softwaredoug 1y ago

They also lead the world in emissions and what the US does / doesn’t do won’t be a major driver. Our carbon peaked in 2007 It’s more an issue of US ability to compete in an emerging market IMO. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/?srsltid=AfmBOoruESUlM2QdO2gMuQm3elLKMJT5VQ1ks90GevamwPdiHh9vUAV9 https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...

ciconia 1y ago
The US is today the biggest exporter of refined petrol products. It also consumes products manufactured elsewhere, including China. China is in some ways the world's factory.
adrr 1y ago
If we exported even more manufacturing abroad we can keep dropping CO2. We could stop smelting steel, making fertilizer, and making cement in the US to drop us 15% to 20% lower. Though we’ll still lead the world in CO2 per capita though of major countries.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - esseph 1y ago
    I think(?) you missed the sarcasm. I may be wrong.
    - wakawaka28 1y ago
      I think you're wrong but it could be a case of Poe's Law. I have met people who argued with me in this way though, in real life, as if per capita emissions is more important than everything else including our existence itself. They just didn't think it over.
      - adrr 1y ago
        Its easy to convince the world that Americans are special because we won WWII singlehandedly and invented gas cars that we can output 3x more CO2 than anyone else. they should be grateful and change the way they live not us. They should focus on reducing their emissions so I can keep driving my ford F150 on my 20 mile commute to work.
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        The fact is, the rest of the world greatly outnumbers us in the West. We could all die off tomorrow and it wouldn't solve the global warming problem (if you believe it is a problem), nor would it convince anyone else to live greener and give up their own progress. We have our own systems and way of life, are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy in the West as a whole, and cannot wager our existence as a distinct culture on the good will of adversarial countries around the world that greatly outnumber us and outproduce us. We can make gradual progress toward being green, perhaps, but most of the work must necessarily be done by the rest of the world. We don't owe them our lives.
        adrr 1y ago
        The third largest country by population in the world doesn't matter. So that means every country smaller than us could die off tomorrow and it doesn't matter so they can use as much as us. Also not a problem, its not like we don't have water problems and all our cattle have died off because of it or that 3rd most populous state is having coastal flooding issues thats get worse every year. Just install more pumping stations in Miami to solve the issue and we can switch from beef to eating soy products instead.

bruce511 1y ago

It doesn't really matter where the panels come from. Yes the manufacturer captures some of their value, but that's in the range of 20% of their overall value (and dropping). In my country there is no govt subsidy for solar. But math doesn't lie. A typical residential system returns 16% on capital invested. Not surprisingly residential solar here is now measured in Gw. The good news for the US is that it really doesn't matter if they fall behind. Solar can be installed so quickly that any lost impetus can be made in in a year or two. There's basically very little lead time required between decision and implementation.

wakawaka28 1y ago
It does matter where critical infrastructure components come from. Whether you can call solar panels critical or not, China has a virtual monopoly on them due to lower production costs. The same story plays out with virtually EVERY product that we in the West need.
- bruce511 1y ago
  True. Given their lifespan it behooves folks to "get them while they can". A warlike country with a history of antagonism to China is probably less secure than countries that have chosen to behave like good neighbors. If you feel like panel production is strategic, which is an easy argument to make, and given that the US has a substantial ability to produce panels [1], perhaps a useful strategy would be to consume those panels as much as possible, subsidizing production to make it a growth area. Indeed it might become a surplus, allowing for export, which in turn improves foreign relations. And the simple existence of the domestic market leads to improvements, better quality and so on. I'm no economist but the above seems like a solid strategy to me. It would be most interesting to see the outcomes where a country pursued this strategy versus one that actively worked to marginalize solar, killing domestic production instead. I wonder if there are more countries in the same boat which could be used to see the long-term outcome of the various strategic options? [1] Solar systems comprise of more than panels. But the other parts are just electronics so not important in the context of managing solar as a specific product.

gritzko 1y ago

I was checking Google Maps recently. In such places as Islamabad or Cyprus, residential solar is big. I also hear, the price of panels is low % of the entire installation. What excites me is that solar works one level up. Coal is energy, solar is a source of energy. If you sell solar panel manufacturing equipment, you work in the second derivative. That literally levels up the game.

parineum 1y ago
Coal is storage.
- SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
  In the conventional sense, one-directional storage