A 30% margin is probably good enough to build a fully automated solar cell fab locally.
Trump is just trying to hurt solar, because he is paid by the dying coal industry. But he can't stop the inevitable, maybe slow it down slightly.
Trump is just trying to hurt solar, because he is paid by the dying coal industry. But he can't stop the inevitable, maybe slow it down slightly.
This problem is also magnified by the fact that Warren Buffet has been using his influence to encourage states to charge panel owners fees relating to grid usage that weren't there prior, as there is a cost associated with continuously switching which direction power from a given houses is flowing.
Reeks of "Trump is for it so it's must be bad" issue that has plagued journalism since he took office.
There's pros and cons to this method of fighting dumping but it's certainly a good thing for American solar panel manufacturers just not the installers (in the short term at least).
What's backing up this claim? Because not only is this at a glance in violation of several trade agreements the U.S. has made internationally, it also defies core theories and principles that have fueled the last several decades of trade law and agreements [1].
This absolutely REEKS of the typical bullshit the right+ in this country like to put out every time they're elected while also dripping with short sighted protectionism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_histo...
China's banking system is loaning scads of money to solar manufacturers while in the US the banking system has loaned $1T to fracking, oil and gas companies.
But the Soviet Union is gone. The neoliberal transformation of Russia is a utter failure. The fossil fuel industry is walking dead at this point do to solar, wind, electrified transportation and the imperative to deal with global warming.
It's a classic people and organizations looking out for their short term interest + risk aversion leads to eventual catastrophe.
And as I mentioned, countries whose leadership have no particular interest in legacy cold war real politik or the Wests fossil fuel hegemony[1] are going to move and move fast.
[1] Other countries leaders absolutely despise being beholden to the oil/gas/fossil fuel industry.
That is untrue, President Obama hated fracking and did much to discourage it.
Maybe he said he hated it. I am not sure about the "did much to discourage" part.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2016/...
---
The fracks occurred in at least 630 different wells off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (see interactive map), and many took place in critical habitat for imperiled loggerhead sea turtles. Oil companies were also allowed to dump about 76 billion gallons of waste fluid into Gulf waters in 2014.
---
Not only that, his administration approve fracking with no site-specific analysis of the threats to the environment and also without public involvement.
He tried and got struck down. He did what he could without Congress to help.
Trump can definitely cause the inevitable to leave the US playing catch-up in the 2030s, unless he's out of office soon.
If you want a coal-related motive, try the obvious: Pennsylvania is an important swing state. Mines are hiring again, for both miners and engineers.
The Emma Maersk carries 11000 TEUs on every voyage, so the amount of solar panels that will be installed worldwide in 2018 is about 6 shiploads.
What about the future, when photovoltaic becomes the dominant source of marketed energy? According to the IEO, current total world marketed energy consumption is 20 terawatts (20'000 gigawatts), which would amount to about 90 million TEUs, or 8000 shiploads. Call it 30000 shiploads to account for photovoltaic's low capacity factor, typically in the 20%–30% range (though we can expect that to become more efficient as development moves to more equatorial areas with less clouds).
There are currently about 9000 container ships in operation, so current world marketed energy consumption is about three trips for the world's shipping fleet, in the form of photovoltaic panels.
Total container shipping volume is already about 470 million TEUs per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship#Container_ports
We can presumably expect panels to become smaller and lighter as time goes on, further decreasing the energy needed for shipping, and eventually the proliferation of solar panels will depress the price of energy so low that not even bunker fuel can compete with syngas, at which point the bunker fuel emissions problem will be over.
(Edited to correct order-of-magnitude calculation error.)
If that is the case, why would this not work for cargo ships as well?
Ship screws, on the other hand, can be designed to run at nearly any speed at all, and nearly all the time the ship is moving at exactly the same speed. So the screws are just coupled directly to the crankshaft of a two-stroke diesel engine the size of a fucking church which remains powered on for years at a time, always running at whatever speed it damn well pleases.