Comment by photochemsyn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by photochemsyn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This would have happened a bit earlier if the most efficient and long-lasting solar panels, monocrystalline silicon, had been developed by US manufacturers instead of by Chinese ones. All the tariffs applied by state and federal regulators on the import of these panels have been about slowing the rate of solar PV production in the USA on behalf of the fossil fuel and investor-owned utility sectors.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/04/14/the-weekend-read-chin...

Claims that these tariffs have some human rights motivations are nonsensical, would the US block imports of Saudi oil over human rights abuses there? Of course not - but silicon solar panels, oh my!

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/exclusive-us-blocks-more...

It's no surprise that the pushback by politicians owned by investors in fossil fuels and utilities has been so intense - energy is one of the most lucrative investments, and it's rather difficult to control and meter the flow of sunlight to homes, in comparison to natural gas or crude oil.

Notably, the USA has no R & D programs or subsidy programs like the CHIPS act (for semiconductors for computation, not for power production) aimed at rapidly expanding monocrystalline silicon production.

You're forgetting labor costs in the US are much higher and environmental regulations are much more strict. So US made panels will unlikely to ever be price competitive with the Chinese made ones.

Come on, you can make silicon monocrystalline products without pollution with appropriate controls, it's no different from the computer chip production process. See CHIPS act?

China doesn't have a big natural gas / crude oil sector trying to block development of alternatives to their products, that's the difference.

I was under the impression that most of the cost difference between Chinese and American panels was due to dumping efforts by the Chinese government.

Dumping is when a producer sells their product at a lower price abroad than they do domestically [1]. For example, if Chinese solar panels sell for the Renminbi equivalent of 35 cents per watt domestically, but are sold for 30 cents per watt in the United States, that would be dumping.

As far as I can tell, Chinese solar manufacturers do not engage in this sort of straightforward and easy to define dumping. They sell their products at comparable low prices both domestically and abroad. The United States claims that advantages given to Chinese solar manufacturers (like low cost land and industrial partnerships with local governments) are unfair and counters them with measures termed "anti dumping" tariffs. Given how many perks American states and municipalities roll out to attract manufacturing jobs, including solar jobs [2], I don't see how the Chinese incentives for solar manufacturing go too far. I rather think it's something like the situation with Canadian softwood exports to the US [3]: the US government's position is dubious, but it's too powerful in practice to be held to account.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dumping.asp

[2] https://bgindependentmedia.org/first-solar-site-promising-50...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_s...

Your comment makes no sense.

The tariffs boosted domestic production of solar panels.

The tariffs also increased the cost of solar panels, so they slowed adoption of solar.

You can have Made in America, or you can have cheap, but you cannot have both.

You have knowledge of an American producer of monocrystalline silicon solar panels? Please provide more information, this is new to me.

Why should the US try to lead solar panel technology ? China has many talented engineers and plenty of venture capital. I'd prefer them to invest it in solar panel manufacturing and power electronics rather than social media, ai or Telco technology.

Relying on a non-friendly country for something so crucial as energy is generally not a great position to be in, particularly if that country has rival world power ambitions. Europe and Russia have provided a great recent example of why you don't want to be reliant on potential enemies for your energy needs, and while the situation between the US and China is not the same and solar is different than fossil fuels, it's still a factor worth thinking about. The US would be a lot more secure being able to rely on a domestic solar industry as solar becomes more and more important.

I think your vision is too US centric, US hegemony lead to disruptions to foreign nations like afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc. My pov from latinamerica is that my country could be next, and neither your culture nor your "business class" seems the future(we reflect your cultural hegemony with our version of shitty role models), si why not challenge US hegemony?

If you think your own country is in bad enough shape that it could be next on a list that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as they were just prior to US involvement you need to have a good long think about fixing your own problems fast. Each of those countries might have been "stable" by some definition of the word, but they all had pretty crappy organizations monopolizing power. US interference certainly didn't fix their underlying problems but it did dislodge the badguys on top. (unfortunately, often just leaving the spot open for some other badguys because aforementioned underlying problems)

Realistically, the next country on the US hitlist is probably Iran, not your latam home country. But first the American public needs to get back it's war appetite, and the shooting in Ukraine needs to simmer down (probably within a year, along new borders that are pretty close to what the current battle lines are), and China needs to not distract us by starting with Taiwan.

The tariffs and policy in questions are being set by the US - of course the discussion is US-centric, the question being discussed is ‘how should the US be approaching this?’

I think their main point was that it doesn't make sense for the US to challenge US hegemony.

The second biggest geopolitical opponent to the US, Russia, is in major decline. Their primary opponent, China, is slowing down and has enormous domestic problems to deal with that are projected to worsen for a long period of time. The US was supposed to be behind in AI research, but technologically, they're ahead. I believe that once AI is used to exert geopolitical pressure, economically or through counter action, it will be a runaway advantage. If this were Star Wars I think we'd be at the point where we were only starting to see the rise of the Empire.

Latin American oil processing is at an all time high.

Latin America: https://www.statista.com/statistics/961585/latin-america-cru...

US: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

Every government has to think about energy independence, of which oil production is part of that story. Our oil economics are also intertwined with US policy, which renewables are helping undo in the US. That's to say, US society is trying to put a cap on how energy independence involves in conflict either directly or indirectly.

Latin Americas story is different: https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/papers/work...

> Abstract: In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, oil-producing countries have civil wars at a significantly higher rate than countries without oil. Is there also a link between oil and armed rebellion in Latin America?

> I argue the answer is “yes,” but with an important qualification. In the rest of the world, oil heightens the danger of both “governmental” conflicts (over control of the existing state) and secessionist conflicts (to form new states); but in Latin America, oil is only linked to governmental conflicts. This is not because Latin American petroleum has unusual properties, but because the region is uniquely “secession-proof”: there have been no separatist conflicts in Latin America for over a century. I explore two possible explanations for this anomaly: the region’s long history of sovereign statehood, which may have caused national borders to become more widely-accepted; and obstacles to the mobilization of indigenous groups along ethnic lines.

Tldr; instead of getting involved in foreign wars to save your oil supply, it's cheaper to centralize the oppression back home.

Hegemony is inevitable, prosperous, and peaceful. Anyone who would challenge US hegemony would either intend to establish themselves their own hegemony or would be patsies creating a situation where another force could do so. Do would we be better off under a global islamic caliphate deriving from afghanistan, iraq, libya, etc… or a Chinese hegemoney, or a German hegemony? I’d put American hegemony up against any civilization that the world has ever seen in terms of equity, prosperity, and peace.

I’d put American hegemony up against any civilization that the world has ever seen in terms of guns, mass shootings, and being okay with children being killed in their classrooms.

For the Americans. In the meanwhile, the rest of the world is so sick of your hegemony, it would rather see anyone else, or better yet, state of a never ending direct fight between the contenders while the rest of the world is left alone.

Something like Star Trek no involvement rule.

Usually the contenders dont fight in their own countries but in the rest of the world using proxy wars.

I'm sorry you don't enjoy our Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Apple, and Hollywood.

I'm really really sorry that our Navy is used to protect trade. Terrible of the U.S.

I'm sorry that the U.S. likes to have allies with democracies and a thriving, consuming, middle-class.

I'm always baffled by this sort of defensive and childish response that happens whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of American foreign policy and expresses a desire for a world where their needs are given a higher priority. It hints at a deep-rooted inferiority complex in the American identity.

Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely.

Anxiously lashing out at people because they express a desire for improvements in their society, and improvements in American society isn't productive.

whenever someone makes legitimate criticisms of American foreign policy and expresses a desire for a world where their needs are given a higher priority.

You think the grandparent comment is what you describe here?

Ironically, GGP's comment was a well thought out comment supporting American 'hegemony'.

I think you have your "lash out" backwards in this case.

I'm surprised you think this is a lash out?

"Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely."

Yeah! Criticize America so it can be better but taking a stance that world would magically be better off without America, or even that the world doesn't want America while obsessively consuming American products seems rather childish in my opinion.

You really think a three line "sorry, not sorry" reply isn't lashing out?

No offense to you but I think you're really miss reading here and/or looking to interpret something that was meant to illustrate a point rather than be outright deliberately condescending which appears to be how you wish to interpret it.

It's hilarious because you also probably constantly complain about Hollywood and how the middle class is dying.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya were all failed states when the US intervened / invaded (which is also not a good argument for invading those nations; the US betrayed its own self-interest in the second Iraq war).

If your nation is run by a dictatorship, it's a failed state.

If your nation is a theocracy, it's a failed state.

You'll notice the distinct lack of the US invading well-functioning, democratic nations (we share a remarkably unguarded, massive border with Canada).

You generally can't challenge US hegemony, it's far too large, and still expanding. China is the only entity since the 1950s Soviet Union that could even attempt it. For example while the EU's strongest economies have been largely going sideways for ~15 years economically (since the great recession), the US has added nearly $10 trillion to its economy (a further ~65-70% expansion in 15 years). Who is going to keep up with that, at that size (other than China)?

German speaking here. This position brought a lot of harm and made the German economy very fragile. The German business model in the last decades was based on cheap security (NATO), cheap gas (Russia) and a huge market to sell cars (China). And here we are in 2023, paying 100s of billions of tax money for (maybe) having a working army in a couple of years, a near collapsing economy bc of zeroed gas imports and a tightening market in China.

Still relying on boundless global trade in 2023 is just.. a funny position.

Not to get off topic but that's why BMW has changed their grill and car design so much even though Western journalists hate it. They are targeting the Asian market.

Chinese panels are cheap because they use slave labor to produce them.

Not fully true. There are incredibly competent manufacturing engineers living there. By a factor of at least 5 over the US

I am not contending Chinese are any shape or form incapable, given the factory floor of the world for a generation they do have best of the best.

The issue is State subsidies and Environmental and Labor regulation that is flimsy. Any American company operating on US soil will be uncompetitive from Day 1 trying to follow, Federal, State and EPA regulation.

As much as Solar Panels are touted in Environmental community, they are a product of intense chemical process that produces poisonous waste.

How many people actually work in a solar panel factory? I'd expect that to be almost completely automated.

Why would you expect that?

Because solar panels are quite simple and robots are cheap?

Except that neither of those things are true.

Manufacturing cars is highly automated and cars are a lot more complex than cleverly arranged sand with some wires glued to it.

> “cleverly arranged sand with some wires glued to it.”

Let me guess — you’ve sat at a desk for your entire career?

Nice argument, now I'm totally convinced.

And significantly less burdensome manufacturing pollution rules. The West exported manufacturing pollution to developing countries and named it 'free trade'.

Honest question: so why aren't iPhones cheap?

EDIT: thanks for all the answers, IIUC it boils down to "nobody cares if a luxury item from a western company is built on slavery, the only thing that matters is that poor people who built it cannot afford it"

Because Apple sets the price according to what people are willing to pay. The price isn't directly related to the manufacturing cost or the development cost.

Is that true? In India I thought I read how people have fake iPhones because of what a luxury symbol it is. That purchasing one for the vast majority of people is out of the question.

There must be some limit to how low it can be sold for.

Because you’re not just paying for a physical device. You’re also paying for the software that runs on it which is best in class. And before people start saying it’s not, how many people are running 7 year old androids compared to iPhones? In USD, A brand new iPhone, kept for 7 years works out at 32 cents a day - phenomenally cheap for something integral to modern day life. And that’s not even taking into account you can most likely sell it for $50/$100 at the end of that seven years, making it even cheaper.

> how many people are running 7 year old androids

Ironically, me.

I changed the battery last year, it costed me 13$ (~12 euros), it is as good as new.

Now it might be that my Android phone is Chinese as well, so it actually costed me less than 10¢ a day. Even if I had to replace my Android smartphone, I could have changed it 3 times in the past 7 years and still spend less than buying an iPhone that lasted me 7 years.

I could still easily sell it for 30-40 euros, making it even cheaper.

So you've edited your comment to bring up slave labour for some reason, so obviously your Android phone and your $13 battery are all ethically sourced right?

I have experienced a culture shock after moving to the US and looking at prices for some items. The best summary I have is "in USA, the thing is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it", unlike the previous mindset I had, roughly "take the cost of producing something and add X% markup" where X is not too high.

Where did you come from?

What you’ve described is specific to humanity, not the US — “the thing is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it” is a near universal truth.

Poland. I think folks there are more price-sensitive and it helps keep the prices at a more reasonable level. Coming from Poland, my price-setting approach would not take into account how much something is worth to the customer, just how much it cost me to produce + low double-digit percent markup.

Because people are willing to pay the price point. In places I've been, rule of thumb for pricing is usually 3x BoM. I've heard (sorry no reference, just word of mouth) Apple targets at least 5x.

Side-note: if anyone believes the idea that companies pass savings to the consumer... Well I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn they might be interested in

Because they have a half-eaten apple as a logo.

Just stop. China as a manufacturing solution for anyone but the people of the region must cease.

It is utterly inefficient to produce stuff far, far from where it will be used.

Spreading things out like this is balls.

Lets start building again. If we're to get off this dust-ball, we have to learn to do things ourselves, again.

That's not necessarily true. Shipping (via ocean) of finished expensive small products is cheap and quite low carbon on a per device basis as long as you don't mind the delay. One of the reasons china is the place to manufacture is that the electronics manufacturing _inputs_ are now concentrated there, as is the know-how.

It also depends on the weight, volume and nature of the product (whether perishable)

Would you rather spread all the pollution sources over the world as opposed to keeping them in one place (wherever that may be)?

Isn't it just economics? How can a US company compete with the cost of labor?

"Just economics", sure, its cheap to exploit China.

That's why I'm saying: just, stop!

It has to become consumer-preferred to have something cool be built locally.

This won't happen until someone builds something cool this way.

And how is the economics changing if you internalize social and environmental cost?

Can you elaborate, I don't know what you mean

Well I'm calling bullshit on neoliberal free-trade ideology based on voodoo economics which just looks at simple measurable factors like "cost of labor" completely ignoring social cost (local unemployment, mass migration, social tensions, etc.) and ecological cost (pollution, climate crisis, etc.) which were commonly socialized (tax money) in case of a concrete crisis. Not a personal attack, sorry if it sounded like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com