Where are all those high-tech green jobs? would you believe China?

[74-911]

Hopefully, this won't end up in PARF....

"That is why, although consumer demand for solar power has incrementally increased here, it has not been enough for anyone to have Applied Materials — the world’s biggest solar equipment manufacturer — build them a new factory in America yet. So, right now, our federal and state subsidies for installing solar systems are largely paying for the cost of importing solar panels made in China, by Chinese workers, using hi-tech manufacturing equipment invented in America.

Have a nice day."

The complete article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/opinion/16friedman.html

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by 74-911

Hopefully, this won't end up in PARF....

It's unfortunate that this has become something of a mantra in here...

"That is why, although consumer demand for solar power has incrementally increased here, it has not been enough for anyone to have Applied Materials — the world’s biggest solar equipment manufacturer — build them a new factory in America yet. So, right now, our federal and state subsidies for installing solar systems are largely paying for the cost of importing solar panels made in China, by Chinese workers, using hi-tech manufacturing equipment invented in America.

I considered putting some money into solar stocks, and all of them that I found that were rapidly increasing, even in this economy, were Chinese companies. This can go two ways...one is that we are sending money and technology over there and losing it ourselves, and the other is that we as Americans can still invest in their growth, and regain some of that lost capital on a personal level

[dd74]

You know this will end up in PARF. It has PARF written all over it. In fact, I'm PARFing just because of it.

W/o getting too political about what's been encouraged by the president, but unobtainable economically, the problem with solar is it's still too expensive for the average citizen.

I'm not sure how that can be resolved. Govt. subsidies, possibly, for consumers with the hope of lowering household energy costs, becoming more "green," and stimulating manufacturing.

[fingpilot]

No reason for this to be PARF'd. It comes from the NY Times.

What did we really, truly expect? Who's your Daddy?

The banks, auto manufacturers, and some senators are 'owned' by our recent benefactor, The People's Republic of China. They expect to be repaid, with interest. They don't need money, they want access. They want oil to fuel their own people's cars. They want jobs for their own people. They want markets for their products, free of tariffs and trade restrictions.

They realize they had to 'pay' to get that. They did, it was a very simple equation to them. All they needed was a sympathetic US President to enable this purchase.

We gave them the opportunity.

I have lived and worked in Mainland China. I am really glad I will not be alive to see them formally take control of this country and it's assets, all legally purchased.



Fellow Americans!

They are LAUGHING THEIR A$$E$ OFF in Peking because we have fallen for this.


Does anyone know how to say "Who's your Daddy?' in Mandarin?

[dd74]

Yep. We -- Americans -- have destroyed ourselves.

We have sell-out politicians who won't take a stand against corporate America whose only concern is the bottom line.

We feel entitled and refuse to work.

We allow special interest groups to dictate how we live and provide for ourselves.

We're screwed because we haven't said "Enough!" And the average American is too stupid (or stupefied) and lazy to comprehend that it's all going downhill...quickly.

[RWebb]

FSLR is doing pretty well right now - based in AZ, but they are building a plant in China

we have a Chinese Co. setting up a distribution plant right now, right here

manf. will likely stay in China as they have much cheaper labor & PVs are commodity chips, like memory - advanced CPUs are made in Beavertron...

our tiny city went aggro for green bucks and has gotten several million for them in the last year - that is a lot of jobs

you have to og out and get this stuff, it does not fall into your lap

[The Gaijin]

Solar does not work at these levels of efficiency. Even at 100% you would need to cover most of the continental United States.

It sounds good, and we wish it were true, but we would need to give up on washing machines, dryers, A/C units, refrigerators, computers and TVs to make it anywhere near viable.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by dd74

You know this will end up in PARF. It has PARF written all over it. In fact, I'm PARFing just because of it.

W/o getting too political about what's been encouraged by the president, but unobtainable economically, the problem with solar is it's still too expensive for the average citizen.

I'm not sure how that can be resolved. Govt. subsidies, possibly, for consumers with the hope of lowering household energy costs, becoming more "green," and stimulating manufacturing.

If I'd installed solar at age 30, and lived until age 105, it might pay for itself. Assuming no costs after install.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

Solar does not work at these levels of efficiency. Even at 100% you would need to cover most of the continental United States.

It sounds good, and we wish it were true, but we would need to give up on washing machines, dryers, A/C units, refrigerators, computers and TVs to make it anywhere near viable.

That is completely wrong. island911 made the same claim a couple weeks ago, so I will cut and paste my reply from Thinking solar PV system - Anyone else?

Island, if panels were 100% efficient - your assumption, not mine - consider 100 watts solar energy per sq foot in full sun at the sunniest latitudes. 1 square mile gets 2.7 x 10^9 watts at high noon. 4 hours per day, 365 days per year, is 4 x 10^12 watt hours per year. Total electricity consumption of USA is appx 3.7 x 10^12 watt hours per year.

[jyl]

The US inherently has a very hard time competing in manufacturing that can be done with low-skill worker, does not require a culture of high quality (so-so product is okay or quality can be achieved via automation), and is highly price-competitive. I don't think it is a political issue - just the brutal economics of labor in China, Vietnam, Mexico, etc willing and able to work for wages that a US worker cannot work for. I don't mean the US worker doesn't want to - he simply can't, because he'd be homeless. I don't care how hard you work at $2/hour (which would be 3-4X average manufacturing hourly wage in China), its not a living in the US.

But things like wind turbines are complex, require highly-skilled workers, and must be high quality. They are also very expensive. We could make those, but for the most part we don't.

Conventional Solar PV cells are sort of low-tech semiconductors, built in a simpler version of a semiconductor fab/process. The labor content is pretty low. We have a lot of un- or under-used fabs in the US. We could make these, but we don't.

Why are we so far behind China and Europe in alternative energy industries? Because our government and many of our people have not supported these industries. Our incentive programs and mandates are late, small, and fragile (they come and go). And too many people in the US think alternative energy is not worth until the cost/watt reaches parity with cheap coal power. Well, it will reach that point, as the technology improves. And when it does, and we decide to get into the alternative energy business, it will be too late. More forward-thinking countries will have locked up the industry.

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by jyl

Island, if panels were 100% efficient - your assumption, not mine - consider 100 watts solar energy per sq foot in full sun at the sunniest latitudes. 1 square mile gets 2.7 x 10^9 watts at high noon. 4 hours per day, 365 days per year, is 4 x 10^12 watt hours per year. Total electricity consumption of USA is appx 3.7 x 10^12 watt hours per year.[/I]

So how many square miles of solar cells would be needed? And what is the highest efficiency estimate for the kinds of cells being built today?

[jyl]

If the whole system - solar PV cell, panels constructed from the cells, DC/AC conversion, transmission, etc - were truly 100% efficient and literally supplied us with every bit of solar energy that is received by the sunniest part of the world, then "in theory" 1 square mile. Obviously that is not realistic.

Right now, I think production silicon-based solar PV cells are roughly 25% efficient, and thin film is roughly 1/2 of that. That's for single cells. Variation in the cells that are assembled into a panel reduce that, by a third or so. Dust, shade, age, etc reduce efficiency too. I think the theoretical limit for current materials/designs is 40%, there's some talk of an experimental new design that (is claimed to) increase that limit to 80%. For sure efficiency will increase as the technology is developed, but we don't know how much. Conversion of DC to AC is, I've read, roughly 80% efficient. I don't know the loss per mile of transmission line, it depends on voltage as well as conductor size/material, but I've read total loss is around 10% nationwide. I've also read 50%, though. Of course, existing electrical power plants also use transmission lines, but power from very large solar PV plants would presumably have to travel further than power from local coal/gas/hydro plants. Also, solar panels only generate max electricity for a short part of each sunny-weather day. So to supply power demands at other times (at night etc) you need other power sources or energy storage.

The reasonable future scenario is that solar will someday supply a portion of US electricity needs (10%? 20%?), other alternative energy sources another portion, and natural gas, nuclear, hydro and yes coal all supply the rest. There isn't one magic energy source, we will need all the different sources. Every major country in the world will be using most or all those sources. There will be a lot of money being spent on it. It is distressing that we are already so far behind in competing for some of that money.

[74-911]

Originally Posted by jyl

But things like wind turbines are complex, require highly-skilled workers, and must be high quality. They are also very expensive. We could make those, but for the most part we don't.

They are erecting windfarms in TX as fast as they can put them up and the generators are nearly all imported from Europe. The port of Corpus Christi is awash in wind turbines

Why are we so far behind China and Europe in alternative energy industries? Because our government and many of our people have not supported these industries. Our incentive programs and mandates are late, small, and fragile (they come and go). And too many people in the US think alternative energy is not worth until the cost/watt reaches parity with cheap coal power. Well, it will reach that point, as the technology improves. And when it does, and we decide to get into the alternative energy business, it will be too late. More forward-thinking countries will have locked up the industry.

that is exactly the point of the article... and have a nice day

[turbo6bar]

Originally Posted by jyl

Right now, I think production silicon-based solar PV cells are roughly 25% efficient, and thin film is roughly 1/2 of that.

Thought the number was closer to 15% efficiency.

It is distressing that we are already so far behind in competing for some of that money.

There was an article on Naked Capitalism claiming sizable subsidies by the Chinese government to producers of "green" equipment. European solar companies have protested the monopolization efforts. Some have argued we should not be against the Chinese intervention. After all, their government is subsidizing lower pricing, and we can take advantage of the huge price drops. I saw claims of sub $1/watt pricing by 2011. That would put payback times at well under 2 decades with zero subsidies by our government.

[jyl]

15% might be for the assembled panel? Take 25% and reduce by a third?

[jyl]

If China dominates the solar PV industry by driving down cost and price, that's good for us as consumers and bad for us as producers. If we dominate in the same way, that's good for us in both ways.

[alf]

This makes perfect sense.

China is perhaps the only country in the world today that has the political and economic ability to roll out green technology in a large meaningful way, they do not want to be dependent on foreign oil for all the obvious reasons.

Globally speaking we need to reach a certian level of scale to make green technology econimcally effecient. China could provide the foundation for that and at the end of the day we could all breathe easier for it.

[RWebb]

nice thing about Chinese PV panels is that we won't have to fight them for the last drops of oil in x number of decades...

[Aurel]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

So how many square miles of solar cells would be needed? And what is the highest efficiency estimate for the kinds of cells being built today?

10 square miles with 10% efficient solar cells would suffice. The issue is not efficiency, but cost of those panels. High energy process involved to purify silicon puts the cost at ~ $5/W. We need to reduce it by a factor of 10 to be competitive with coal produced electricity. The current efficiency record for multijunction solar cells is ~42%, but those are way too expensive for large scale deployment.

[idontknow]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

If I'd installed solar at age 30, and lived until age 105, it might pay for itself. Assuming no costs after install.

You'd have to replace them every 20-30 years as they do burn out.