I'm seriously baffled here as to who is supposed to benefit from this. The only possibility is some kind of misguided attempt at forestalling the draw down of fossil fuels, which is inevitable.
I'm seriously baffled here as to who is supposed to benefit from this. The only possibility is some kind of misguided attempt at forestalling the draw down of fossil fuels, which is inevitable.
The whole reason that these tariffs came in to effect was that some failed manufacturers brought the issue. My understanding is that the manufacturers failed not because it's impossible to do in the US, but simply because of poor management decisions or betting on the wrong technology.
The real question is whether the tariffs will be around long enough to incentivize any new manufacturing capacity in the US. They will almost certainly be slapped down by the WTO in a short amount of time, as previous tariffs like this have been. So by the time anybody could make more manufacturing capacity, it seems likely that the tariffs will no longer be around to support the facility. So new facilities must be planned on the basis of profitability without the tariffs.
Even in this environment, there is new production being planned. However, the jobs associated with this are dwarfed by the number of jobs related to installation of panels. So while this will certainly be a net negative to the US economy in the short term, without much opportunity to provide positive impact.
Basically, just a meaningless PR move by a politician. I don't think it will cause hugely detrimental effects either, it's just stupid.
True, except those operations are owned by foreign companies, right? Particularly... Germany and China.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy-environme...
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261363-us-hits-...
Obama doing something bad does not justify current bad actions. It does not make complaining about the current tariffs hypocritical. I would agree 100% with Jigar Shah's opinion about the prior tariffs:
>“Taxing solar trade undermines both the spirit and efficacy of pledges made by the U.S. and China to work together in the battle against global warming,” Jigar Shah, president of the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy, said in a statement.
But those prior tariffs were not identical in their form. The Obama tariffs were on a single country, China, for specific actions. The current tariffs are almost worldwide, for no clear reason at all. They benefit few jobs, and the investors that benefit are not from the US. Obama's actions were less than ideal, but at least they made a tiny bit of sense.
The US manufacturers couldn't compete on cost because critical materials were either solely available or so low cost, from China, that it drove competition out of the material markets in the US. This is one of those, ask any manufacturer, rather than a guess. Then factor in labor costs and you ended up with yet-another-chinese-dominant market where improvements were done in China snowballing the situation to today.
Panels themselves are only about a third in the cost; therefore it rarely makes sense to go with the cheapest panels. Higher quality, longer life span, higher cost panels tend to win out because higher efficiency means more energy per panel and those other costs are often per panel.
This is more extreme in the residential market where the panel costs are an even smaller fraction of the cost.
Keep in mind it's not just being used for transportation and heating it's being used for more or less everything. Your computer, your raincoat, your tires, your trashcan, all the products you buy at amazon, in hospital equipment, your furniture etc.
It's hard to find anything that is as flexible as fossil fuel, unfortunately.
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/lets-honest-gas-oil-not...
Completely agreed. We will be flying around in kerosene powered airliners, and burning natural gas for electricity for a long, long time to come. But that doesn't mean it won't draw down to a fraction of what it is today. Personal vehicle gasoline consumption, for example, will be almost nonexistent in 20 years.
(And that's assuming it wasn't simply shifted from gasoline ICEs to natural gas power plants.)
Believe it. Heavy equipment is a prime candidate for electrification. Mining companies are already using electric dump trucks in production, and they are incredibly more efficient because of regen braking with the mass differential of unloading at the bottom of a hill [0]. Literally anything that isn't dependent on the energy density of hydrocarbons will be electrified in the next few decades. That leaves basically aircraft and spacecraft as consumers outside the petrochemical and energy industry.
[0] http://revolution-green.com/worlds-first-electric-dump-truck...
Fuels' primary advantage are their density of storage. But as the cheapness of renewables comes to dominate energy production--i.e. the cost of intermittent renewable will soon be cheaper than even just the fossil fuel cost of energy--we'll see price swings based on the variability of renewable production, and the mismatch between the time of supply and demand.
With electric cars, every home will have ~2-4 days worth of storage in their garage. Charging the cars will present one area of time-flexible demand, to suck up the variable production.
For the seasonal variability of renewable energy, it might make sense to store energy from the more productive season for use in the less productive season. However, synthetic fuels are quite inefficient, round trip, if you're making them from scratch, lets say 50% at best.
If the seasonal price swings are greater than 2x, then I think we'll see some synthetic fuels made as long term storage, as long as synthetic fuels can be made cheaply enough. See for example this other front page post for current best-case estimates:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17257291
However, in the long term (50 years?), there's no room for fossil fuels. They will just be too expensive compared to renewable energy to make economic sense. Synthetic fuels, perhaps, but not fossil fuels.
It's not just a matter of the market and political will, there are some fundamental limits on how much energy we can get from solar and wind.
They are linear solutions to exponential problems so to speak.
I have yet to see any calculation based in realistic metrics (not just wishful thinking) that outphases oil. I hope for it as much as everyone else but I am not prepared to do it at any price.
> It's not just a matter of the market and political will,
That's absolutely untrue, nuclear is waaaaaaay too expensive and old-fashioned to compete in the modern world.
Take a few seconds to look at any of the attempts at construction in the Western world. Nuclear is super expensive, and not nearly scalable enough. In the US, Vogtle and VC Summer have been nuclear disasters, but economic disasters. They had a super-supportive regulatory environment and neighbors around the construction sites, but it's just not feasible to build at a reasonable cost.
Nuclear is such a terrible idea that there's no way to get private funding for it; it has to have huge amounts of government level backing for it to become even vaguely economic feasible. Look at the UK's attempts to sell their nuclear generation capacity, all of a sudden when they were writing financial documents they had to not lie, and they couldn't get anybody to buy them. And now the UK has the economic disaster of the new Hinkley construction.
There's a batch of small-moduler reactor (SMR) startups that may improve the cost and scalability of nuclear, but I'm extremely skeptical. Such SMRs have long been rejected as too costly, it's not at all clear what would make them competitive now. It may happen, but it's further out than the massive scale-back of fossil fuels.
> there are some fundamental limits on how much energy we can get from solar and wind.
These "fundamental" limits are not in the realm of possibility of limiting our current use.
>They are linear solutions to exponential problems so to speak.
I'm not sure what part could be exponential. Our energy use is nothing like exponential, and in developed countries it is increasingly decoupled from GDP and other exponential things. Most of our "energy" use is actually wasted energy due to the inherent inefficiency of thermal electricity generation, or, god forbid, the pathetic efficiency of combustion engines in vehicles.
We don't yet have applications for energy that could come close to any "fundamental limit" from solar. If we do, then perhaps fusion or something will be useful, but fusion is even more of a pipedream than trying to construct
Solar and wind would also be expensive if they hadn't been subsidized.
Nuclear has killed fewer people than coal, fossil fuel, wind and solar. Plus once built it last for a very very long time.
Perhaps you should take a few seconds to look at the actual data. There is nothing old-fashioned about nuclear especially not the new types of reactors and there is certainly no other form of energy besides fusion which can provide the amount of energy nuclear can.
So no nuclear is the idea you should support if you actually care about the environment. Solar is toxic to the environment and requires quite a lot to keep functioning wind is the same.
To get wind and solar to work consistently and reliably through some sort of grid system is going to be a project many many times bigger than nuclear and it's not going to be the increasing demand from the developing countries where more and more people get into the middle class.
So you are from my perspective completely wrong about your idea of solar and wind as being the future of energy for the world. They are not and will not be. They simply aren't reliable and scaleable enough sources fuell cells or not.
It's all a fantasy. The only reason that nuclear gets built is so that a country can support their nuclear submarines/aircraft carriers.
Nuclear energy is not a realistic solution to anything, because building it is not realistic.
>Solar and wind would also be expensive if they hadn't been subsidized.
The entirety of nuclear has been subsidized as the technology has been created, just as solar and wind have.
What matters now is what can be built. Nuclear can not be built without spending 3x-5x what we'd spend for equivalent wind or solar. And that's ignoring the cases where billions of dollars have been spent and then completely abandoned.
Your doubt of solar and wind are at least 10 years out of date. As are your nuclear ideas, because they were the same things being said in 2008 during the "nuclear renaissance." It all proved to be completely false. Westinghouse was given a shot, and it continues to end up blowing up Westinghouse's parent company, Toshiba.
If you can not address the specifics of Westinghouse, Toshiba, VC Summer, Vogtle, or Hinckley, then you are just spreading outdated propaganda.
All the more reason to stop _literally setting it on fire_ when avoidable.
It's not as simple as many would like to believe.
And you could get those hydrocarbon from renewable sources. They just happen to be practically free when we’re extracting and burning such massive amounts of fossile oil/gas