When has ramping up an industry from expensive luxury to commodity ever stunted the progress? Lithium ion batteries, liquid crystal displays, oled displays, integrated components, computer memory, the list where exactly the opposite happened is enormous.
This seems like a 'everything happens for a reason' rationalization. Solar panels even more than everything else have just been about cost effectiveness over their life span.
I do believe in a rational universe but I think that's not your connotation here.
> When has ramping up an industry from expensive luxury to commodity ever stunted the progress?
Progress can be easily stunted by poor initial standards that get cemented into place. Solar panels are still a young technology and are still being proven out in a lot of ways. eg: bi-facial panels may be a game-changer in terms of how we think about mounting panels.
As another response at the same level as yours suggested, poor initial quality panels created a bad name for themselves where they live. In their region, getting panels is not seen as a wise move despite the technology moving on significantly from the initial mass-experience.
There are plenty of examples of superior technology being beaten out by popularity of an inferior technology. Even our current electric grids (which are at capacity and having trouble globally dealing with solar capacity) are an example of this. It seems as though you are willing to ignore those things given your selective hindsight and wish of even more pervasive solar photovoltaic technology.
You can't change the past, but you can learn from it to try and make better decisions for the future.
This is not the same as a luxury being commoditization and has nothing to do with it. It is a diversion by pretending you said something different initially.
Even our current electric grids (which are at capacity and having trouble globally dealing with solar capacity)
Says who? Your evidence of nothing? For starters rooftop solar means less electricity going over the grid to a house as well as less electricity used for air conditioning due to shading the roof.
Worldwide solar is a small percentage of electricity, so who is "our" when you say "our electrical grids are at capacity" and why would electricity from solar have anything to do with it?
Here is some actual information since you don't have any:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
given your selective hindsight
Prove it instead of just making an assertion.
" Pumping them out might well mean free money"
The article talks about this, Wrights law. The "pumping them out" leads to economies of scale and production efficiency in of itself.
Central Planning is never free.
We already have subsidies and catastrophic climate change.
With all those corners cut to mass produce cheap materials like batteries and solar panels and computers and so forth, China is able to undercut production that utilizes ethical and sustainable production. I don't think you can look at China's production "costs" as legitimate data, and the problem doesn't seem to be one that anyone outside of China will ever fix. The extent of the influence the rest of the world has over the problem lies entirely in our ability to not do business with China.
When you look at all the savings you get when buying electronics and solar panels and infrastructure related products coming out of China, you're getting a human suffering discount. I don't think it's a good thing to include those numbers when considering long term things like fossil fuel dependencies and so forth - let's not bake in the human suffering discounts and at least try to price in human rights and humane labor practices.
It turns out a lot of things are way more expensive when factory workers and shippers and everyone in a supply chain get paid fair wages and work fair hours.
This isn't to say anything in favor of fossil fuels, I just think the immediate plight of China's factory workers might be an important factor relevant to the actual costs in play.
Further, if workers’ well-being are your main consideration (admirable), we should be moving away from coal as quickly as possible.
I'm pro renewables and I'm happy to see the back of coal . . .
however ...
Australia is the second biggest biggest exporter of coal, uses no child labour, is heavily mechanised with a small number of workers compared to tonnage moved, has excellent worker conditions in terms of safety, paid overtime, holidays, etc.
You point appears to be based in some Appalachian romance notion of tunneling out coal with pickaxes and coal carts pulled by children.
FWIW & for comparison, Circuit city at its peak employed 40k people, that's more people than the US Coal industry employs today [2]
[1] https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/employment/coa...
[2] https://medium.com/@ramireznatalie/the-collapse-of-circuit-c...
My impression is that China simply has the Solar industry established. It's a bit like semi-conductors in Taiwan, the knowledge, practice, and facilities are present. It takes a significant investment to build factories. To that extent, it also raises the question what percentage of solar panel costs is labor, vs capital investments, vs raw material.
I do not discount the statement/concern. At the same time, I don't think the other end of the spectrum is true where we could say "we could do it too if we also used child labor." I do think it's the case where Chinese manufacturing capacity of solar panels is simply superior compared to any other country. It's a massive capital investment and commitment to enable that much production capacity. At 80% the global production of all solar panels, China has an army of solar production factories.
From what I could find (none of which was satisfying conclusive), it looks like there is a very considerable raw material cost for solar panels, and the manufacturing process is also complicated. [1][2]
[1] https://www.nrel.gov/solar/market-research-analysis/solar-ma... [2] https://solarlivingsavvy.com/why-are-solar-panels-so-expensi...
[edit] brevity
There is a fair discussion regarding regulated vs free market to be had, but people at least need to understand market failures first (externalities being one of them).
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8 percent of GDP
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling
I guess the point here is that as soon as some amount of subsidies is acceptable, it’s no longer a showdown between unbridled capitalism and a command economy. The question really just becomes one of degree.
CAFE standards made cheap light trucks illegal; to a point, they also make cheap small cars illegal (ignoring the absurd collision standards- 2005 cars and 2020 cars are not meaningfully different; but in 2005 the average car on the road was still under 3000 pounds).
As always, power without accountability. No bureaucrat or lawmaker is getting fined or voted out for these stupid standards that have done untold economic damage, and this crap will continue until they are.
If we have these powerful motors working less, then the inefficiencies of the entire life cycle will reveal themselves.
Perhaps there is a specific section of vehicle infrastructure near you that requires more turnovers to navigate.
I bet most town halls are amenable to data given their civil engineering capacity.
Not Drexlerian nanomachine fantasies, but nanometre scale control of the surface geometry of materials. Controlling surface geometries at these small scales is what has powered the advance of solar PV since 1990.
This would not have been possible without the continually increasing computer simulation power that has been available since the 1990s.
Yes. And the reason that innovation happened is because of the combination of people seeing the importance and potential profits, policy drivers, and funding and interest (it became cool, not just niche) in the field of solar.
When people see that there is money and fame to be made, they get motivated, reallocate resources, which attracts researchers, which make discoveries, which generates an accelerating pace of discovery as more new available knowledge forms the base of exponentially more new connections/discoveries.
It is a feed-forward system, and all it takes is a close-to-ready field of study and the pump being primed. This could definitely have happened earlier.