A warlike country with a history of antagonism to China is probably less secure than countries that have chosen to behave like good neighbors.
If you feel like panel production is strategic, which is an easy argument to make, and given that the US has a substantial ability to produce panels [1], perhaps a useful strategy would be to consume those panels as much as possible, subsidizing production to make it a growth area.
Indeed it might become a surplus, allowing for export, which in turn improves foreign relations. And the simple existence of the domestic market leads to improvements, better quality and so on.
I'm no economist but the above seems like a solid strategy to me. It would be most interesting to see the outcomes where a country pursued this strategy versus one that actively worked to marginalize solar, killing domestic production instead.
I wonder if there are more countries in the same boat which could be used to see the long-term outcome of the various strategic options?
[1] Solar systems comprise of more than panels. But the other parts are just electronics so not important in the context of managing solar as a specific product.
That is naive. China will become imperialistic if given a chance. Look at how they treat their neighbors.
>If you feel like panel production is strategic
I don't necessarily. But many strategically important things suffer the same fate. We cannot compete with China and other low-wage countries without restructuring the monetary system and probably our lifestyles. The Chinese know this and have used the situation to hoover up production capacity for many things that are critical to national security.
>US has a substantial ability to produce panels [1], perhaps a useful strategy would be to consume those panels as much as possible, subsidizing production to make it a growth area.
It would make far more sense to simply ban the import of cheaper panels, and let those who need the panels pay the true cost. The reason is that you could apply the same logic to every offshore-made item, and these subsidies would make random people pay for stuff that random other people are using.
>I'm no economist but the above seems like a solid strategy to me. It would be most interesting to see the outcomes where a country pursued this strategy versus one that actively worked to marginalize solar, killing domestic production instead.
I don't think anyone is trying to kill their domestic solar industry in general. But these installations have to be justified somehow. If the domestic panels are not the cheapest/best option available, they won't be used.
yeah, but I'm not in the US, so the US is not offering a compelling alternative at the moment (look at how they treat their neighbors...)
Also why talk only about panels. Inverters are cost wise in the same order of magnitude, but much more complex artifacts.
Inverters are still fairly expensive for a couple reasons; Firstly economies of scale. A residential site buys 1 inverter, but 10 to 20 panels. A commercial site has an even bigger ratio.
Secondly Inverters are the bit that connects to the grid. So there are regulatory requirements which need to be tested for. And likely tested in multiple different jurisdictions.
Panels on the other hand are "difficult" to produce in volume. Largely because of the quality of raw silicon that is required. Its not that the panels themselves are complex, but the supplier chain to them is.
Panels degrade a bit (about 0.7%) every year. So after 25 years or so they're down to 80% of rated power. Or, put another way, after 25 years they're still delivering 80% of rated power.
Depending on space, it may be advantageous to replace panels at some point. Or you might add more and leave those alone.
But they don't just "stop working" - the performance drop off is pretty linear.
That's not true. And China needs many Western products to keep their factories going.