• Vendul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It’s kinda good but it completely destroyed the European manufacturing for solar

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      When panels were 30c/watt, projects at $1/watt in EU and US happened. 70c/watt was spent on labour, copper, support structures, and grid connection equipment. All of those can be locally produced, with possible exception of last item.

      At 6c/watt, that is over 90% of power projects are local economy boosting instead of 70%. It provides cheaper energy that is useful for industrialization and cost of living benefits too. US tariffs on solar are entirely about protecting oil/gas extortion power instead of a $10B solar production industry that needs fairly expensive support.

      Solar imports does not cause energy dependence. You have power for 30+ years with no reliance on continuous fuel supplies. Shoes and apparel is a $450B industry in US. You need new supplies every year, and it makes much more sense to secure supply in that industry for war on the world purposes.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It is good, period.

      Local manufacturing is politically advantageous and may employ some people at the same time, but that’s where benefits end.

      Europe didn’t reject Chinese face masks during COVID-19, and Europe shouldn’t reject Chinese solar during a climate emergency.

      Solve that first, and political struggles later.

      • nexusband@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        It’s not only a political struggle. Working conditions are tremendously better in Europe, Environmental Protection as well. Manufacturing photovoltaics takes a huge pile of chemicals that need to be handled properly to not cause any harm to the environment - China neither cares nor has any other incentives to actually do this properly, which is exactly why they are so cheap. Theres also the issue of poor quality, that if you’re manufacturing something that can have a significant impact on the environment, it should “count” and not be waste 10 years later.

        Not only that, China’s subsidies are utterly unfair.

        Destroying the environment in one part of the world to “save” a different one due to climate change is just ridiculously stupid and simple minded.

        • Allero@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          I see where you’re coming with that, and in principle, some of the points you make I would clearly share under different circumstances.

          But to me, even with the side effects, rapid rollout of green tech (even if its production is not kept to the best standard) beats slow incremental growth with good standards in place, given the urgency with which world requires it. After all, even poorly produced Chinese options very much do offset their footprint compared to the alternatives.

          There are some points for concern, such as the use of lithium ion batteries, for example, but Chinese companies also think ahead and implement alternative options - in case of batteries, they increasingly work with sodium-ion instead.

          As per “unfair” subsidies - I’d rather urge all countries to go all in and compete on those, rather than complain about those who implemented them. Subsidies for green tech are essential to secure our future, they boost the green industry and expedites its expansion, and they should only be seen as a good, not the evil.

        • st0v@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          59 minutes ago

          Solar manufacturing is not destroying China’s environment, fossil fuels are. By a massive margin.

          They need to get off that merry go round as quickly as possible. While the efforts they’ve made are incredible it needs to continue to accelerate.

          I wouldn’t say they’ve achieved these prices through subsidies in the way many people think. government support pushed their entire renewable industry ecosystem, western manufacturing went belly up, and now they are reaping the benefits.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          It seems like China is putting a lot of efforts into becoming environmentally cleaner in the last few years though. I’m hoping that they’ve finally realized that pollution is bad.

          • ZMoney@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 hour ago

            There’s something called an environmental Kuznets curve that suggests that a population will sacrifice environmental health to industrial degradation in favor of per capita income up to a point, after which they are affluent enough to care, and after this environmental health improves. China seems to be at the inflection point.

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Manufacturing photovoltaics takes a huge pile of chemicals that need to be handled properly to not cause any harm to the environment

          Source for this? Cadmium is exclusive to 1 US manufacturer.

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You’re either an astroturfer or useful idiot spreading oil lobby talking points.

      Either you believe the climate science or you don’t. If you do, you know that we don’t have time for industry protectionism.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Do not assume bad faith over anything you disagree with.

        While I disagree with the original statement, hostility never changed anyone’s mind.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      By providing big subsidies to green energy developement. Something the EU could also have done but refused to. And so they lost their entire lead.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Yep the EU will be beholden to a dictatorial regime again. Instead of placating Putin for gas it will be Xi for solar panels and batteries.

            • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              I didn’t mean they only last 2 years but battery degradation is a pretty common and known thing.

              By a quick search I didn’t find any claim of storage battery lifetimes outside of 10-15 years, so there doesn’t seem to be a breakthrough in tech I wasn’t aware of. 15 years is hardly the lifetime of a house, so you certainly don’t “buy only once”.

              Solar panels also don’t work indefinitely but their efficiency degradation is more on par with the lifetime of major parts of the building, like the roof itself.