4 ms·

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 (a

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.
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    >A warlike country with a history of antagonism to China is probably less secure than countries that have chosen to behave like good neighbors. That is naive. China will become imperialistic if given a chance. Look at how they treat their neighbors. >If you feel like panel production is strategic I don't necessarily. But many strategically important things suffer the same fate. We cannot compete with China and other low-wage countries without restructuring the monetary system and probably our lifestyles. The Chinese know this and have used the situation to hoover up production capacity for many things that are critical to national security. >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. It would make far more sense to simply ban the import of cheaper panels, and let those who need the panels pay the true cost. The reason is that you could apply the same logic to every offshore-made item, and these subsidies would make random people pay for stuff that random other people are using. >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 don't think anyone is trying to kill their domestic solar industry in general. But these installations have to be justified somehow. If the domestic panels are not the cheapest/best option available, they won't be used.
    - bruce511 1y ago
      >> That is naive. China will become imperialistic if given a chance. Look at how they treat their neighbors. yeah, but I'm not in the US, so the US is not offering a compelling alternative at the moment (look at how they treat their neighbors...)
      - wakawaka28 1y ago
        China is still way worse. If you think otherwise, you have bought into the anti-US propaganda.
- fh973 1y ago
  Aren't panels commodotized? Many western countries could probably spin up production at scale if needed and economically viable. But why do so now? Also why talk only about panels. Inverters are cost wise in the same order of magnitude, but much more complex artifacts.
  - bruce511 1y ago
    Inverters have more electronic parts, but the parts themselves are very off-the-shelf, and the electronic design is pretty straightforward. Inverters are still fairly expensive for a couple reasons; Firstly economies of scale. A residential site buys 1 inverter, but 10 to 20 panels. A commercial site has an even bigger ratio. Secondly Inverters are the bit that connects to the grid. So there are regulatory requirements which need to be tested for. And likely tested in multiple different jurisdictions. Panels on the other hand are "difficult" to produce in volume. Largely because of the quality of raw silicon that is required. Its not that the panels themselves are complex, but the supplier chain to them is.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      Sure but with a 20 year life span it's not like you can easily cut people off from the them. An interruption in supply has an enormous lead time to build a solution.
      - bruce511 1y ago
        Panels are often quoted has having a 20 year (or 25 year) lifespan. But it doesn't really work like that. Panels degrade a bit (about 0.7%) every year. So after 25 years or so they're down to 80% of rated power. Or, put another way, after 25 years they're still delivering 80% of rated power. Depending on space, it may be advantageous to replace panels at some point. Or you might add more and leave those alone. But they don't just "stop working" - the performance drop off is pretty linear.
- hollerith 1y ago
  >The same story plays out with virtually EVERY product that we in the West need. That's not true. And China needs many Western products to keep their factories going.
  - rasz 1y ago
    MIC2025 changed that many to barely any.
hvb2 1y ago
You can install panels quickly but increasingly we're seeing that the grid isn't up to the task, and those projects are far from quick
- singularity2001 1y ago
  Soon the grid will be just for backup
  - rdsubhas 1y ago
    Backup works for a few outliers. But when everyone needs that backup at the same time, it's not a backup anymore. From what we know... - baseload electricity generation is not economical or practical (reactive) as a pure backup. - a few grid-level mega-storage prototype projects, but nowhere near the scale of powering modern cities for a couple of off-weather days, or events where people congregate. The hope is that – a combination of "couple of hours" of grid-level battery, and use that time to bring up a baseload. But the economics of that is abysmal (high capex/opex for what's essentially "hoping as an investor" for a few off-days so that this thing gets used after all). Those micro-nuclear-plants seem to still have a place. As of now, grid as a backup is still only wishful thinking. Except for those who are already off-grid and changed their lifestyles to accomodate a few no-power days as a compromise.
  - tim333 1y ago
    Or seasonal demand. Batteries can probably smooth the daily demand but not seasonal yet. Still the existing grid is probably ok for that.
- bruce511 1y ago
  Yes, the grid votes into play. Especially for commercial solar installations. If I drop a 200Mw facility in a sunny area the grid needs updating to accept that 200Mw at that point. Bit that's "boring" infrastructure. Cables, trenches, transformers. It can be done in "months" (perhaps a couple years) not decades. For residential solar of course it's a non issue. The inverter caps the amount sent to the grid, and that cap is most often set to 0. (The 16% return I mentioned earlier is before feeding to the grid.)

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.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  >A warlike country with a history of antagonism to China is probably less secure than countries that have chosen to behave like good neighbors. That is naive. China will become imperialistic if given a chance. Look at how they treat their neighbors. >If you feel like panel production is strategic I don't necessarily. But many strategically important things suffer the same fate. We cannot compete with China and other low-wage countries without restructuring the monetary system and probably our lifestyles. The Chinese know this and have used the situation to hoover up production capacity for many things that are critical to national security. >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. It would make far more sense to simply ban the import of cheaper panels, and let those who need the panels pay the true cost. The reason is that you could apply the same logic to every offshore-made item, and these subsidies would make random people pay for stuff that random other people are using. >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 don't think anyone is trying to kill their domestic solar industry in general. But these installations have to be justified somehow. If the domestic panels are not the cheapest/best option available, they won't be used.
  - bruce511 1y ago
    >> That is naive. China will become imperialistic if given a chance. Look at how they treat their neighbors. yeah, but I'm not in the US, so the US is not offering a compelling alternative at the moment (look at how they treat their neighbors...)
    - wakawaka28 1y ago
      China is still way worse. If you think otherwise, you have bought into the anti-US propaganda.
fh973 1y ago
Aren't panels commodotized? Many western countries could probably spin up production at scale if needed and economically viable. But why do so now? Also why talk only about panels. Inverters are cost wise in the same order of magnitude, but much more complex artifacts.
- bruce511 1y ago
  Inverters have more electronic parts, but the parts themselves are very off-the-shelf, and the electronic design is pretty straightforward. Inverters are still fairly expensive for a couple reasons; Firstly economies of scale. A residential site buys 1 inverter, but 10 to 20 panels. A commercial site has an even bigger ratio. Secondly Inverters are the bit that connects to the grid. So there are regulatory requirements which need to be tested for. And likely tested in multiple different jurisdictions. Panels on the other hand are "difficult" to produce in volume. Largely because of the quality of raw silicon that is required. Its not that the panels themselves are complex, but the supplier chain to them is.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    Sure but with a 20 year life span it's not like you can easily cut people off from the them. An interruption in supply has an enormous lead time to build a solution.
    - bruce511 1y ago
      Panels are often quoted has having a 20 year (or 25 year) lifespan. But it doesn't really work like that. Panels degrade a bit (about 0.7%) every year. So after 25 years or so they're down to 80% of rated power. Or, put another way, after 25 years they're still delivering 80% of rated power. Depending on space, it may be advantageous to replace panels at some point. Or you might add more and leave those alone. But they don't just "stop working" - the performance drop off is pretty linear.
hollerith 1y ago
>The same story plays out with virtually EVERY product that we in the West need. That's not true. And China needs many Western products to keep their factories going.
- rasz 1y ago
  MIC2025 changed that many to barely any.

hvb2 1y ago

You can install panels quickly but increasingly we're seeing that the grid isn't up to the task, and those projects are far from quick

singularity2001 1y ago
Soon the grid will be just for backup
- rdsubhas 1y ago
  Backup works for a few outliers. But when everyone needs that backup at the same time, it's not a backup anymore. From what we know... - baseload electricity generation is not economical or practical (reactive) as a pure backup. - a few grid-level mega-storage prototype projects, but nowhere near the scale of powering modern cities for a couple of off-weather days, or events where people congregate. The hope is that – a combination of "couple of hours" of grid-level battery, and use that time to bring up a baseload. But the economics of that is abysmal (high capex/opex for what's essentially "hoping as an investor" for a few off-days so that this thing gets used after all). Those micro-nuclear-plants seem to still have a place. As of now, grid as a backup is still only wishful thinking. Except for those who are already off-grid and changed their lifestyles to accomodate a few no-power days as a compromise.
- tim333 1y ago
  Or seasonal demand. Batteries can probably smooth the daily demand but not seasonal yet. Still the existing grid is probably ok for that.
bruce511 1y ago
Yes, the grid votes into play. Especially for commercial solar installations. If I drop a 200Mw facility in a sunny area the grid needs updating to accept that 200Mw at that point. Bit that's "boring" infrastructure. Cables, trenches, transformers. It can be done in "months" (perhaps a couple years) not decades. For residential solar of course it's a non issue. The inverter caps the amount sent to the grid, and that cap is most often set to 0. (The 16% return I mentioned earlier is before feeding to the grid.)