Sunset in America

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Sunset in America

Post by Axil »

Small, innovative American solar technology companies lack the ability to play the great American political game; to hire political lobbyists who offer large political payoffs to influential members of congress to ease their way through the political maze comprised of the donations, fees contributions and payola that are the tools used by Washington D.C. gatekeepers of power.

It is painfully obvious that this inability deprives these nacent companies of the political clout they need to gain funding from the government in order to help America regain their position as the world's solar energy leader.

As long as this situation continues to exist, China will continue to eagerly purchase, and use, this superior technology at dirt cheap prices to dominate the worldwide solar market.

Chuck Provini, " a good American and a patriot." and a former decorated Marine must leave the United States behind for China who is willing to give him a chance.

His company, Natcore Technology, based in Red Bank, N.J., holds the license to technology that makes solar panels cheaper, more efficient and less toxic to the environment. He said he tried to commercialize the technology domestically, but while bureaucracy and red tape stalled talks with state and federal officials, conversations with Chinese officials sped ahead.

Provini, whose company licenses technology developed at Houston's Rice University, said that for about a year, he went back and forth with representatives at the Ohio Department of Development. He said he also worked with a major Washington, D.C., law firm and was told that a $750,000 application fee was necessary just to apply for a specific federal program.


Image

Officials responsible for developing China's clean and alternative energy program in the Hunan province learned about Natcore through a mutual contact at the University of Wales and placed a call, he said.

Then they flew Provini to China and helped him find a production partner that will provide capital and manufacturing capabilities. In the next three to six months, he said, they could move into the manufacturing phase, which could create 250-400 jobs.

"They've cut through the red tape to be responsive," he said. "It's almost embarrassing that whatever you ask for, they deliver it."

Obama's decision to enact a series of renewable energy tax credits in 2009 will incurage the development of Chinese solar technology.

Also 30 states have renewable energy standards requiring utilities to purchase an increased percentage of power from renewable sources, another stimulus for Chinese industry.

While solar is booming in Asia and Europe , and supported by government with a Feed-In-Tariff (FIT), America is seeing bankruptcies and struggling solar companies on their home field. The blame game is on in America accusing the Chinese for their own failure to invest, innovate and deliver. While China definitely has an advantage on the labor-cost side, it's still the American companies that have the best technologies. This is the good news. The bad news is that some of these American technologies are getting bought by these same Chinese.

The Chinese are dumping solar cells on the world's markets to gain a world wide monopoly.

This strategy has recently driven the American companies Evergreen Solar and Solyndra into bankruptcy. Solar energy manufacturing is now almost dead in America.

Armed with tens of billions in loans from the Chinese government, Chinese solar companies have scaled at a rate unthinkable only a few years ago. At the end of this year, there will likely be 50,000 megawatts (MW) of manufacturing capacity in place around the world, with much of that new capacity being developed in China and other Asian countries. (In the year 2000, there were only 100 MW of production capacity worldwide.)

These billions are "free money" : cheap debt provided by the Chinese Development Bank (CDB). Here's how the CDB works its magic.

The CDB was originally set up as a "policy bank," to operate as an arm of the Chinese central government, doling out public funding to support central government development programs. Now it is a "joint stock company with limited liability" that often reports to China's national cabinet on certain policy issues. This allows the Chinese government to get involved in CDB activities and direct loans toward projects officials want to support.

Much of this money is unrepatriated American capital accumulated by mufti-nationals doing business in China who invest in CDB long term bonds

These funders cannot take that money back out until the term is up, so the bank can make longer-term loans to Chinese companies. CDB also gives borrowers very low interest rates, and, if the borrower cannot pay back the loan, it may be back-stopped by the Chinese government.

This makes it easier, cheaper, and a lot less risky for Chinese solar companies to obtain financing.

In 2010 alone, the bank handed out $30 billion in low-cost loans to the top five manufacturers in the country.This has enabled China's solar producers to grow to GW scale in a very short period of time, turning the country into a leading exporter of solar and pushing down world solar prices dramatically.

From a project development perspective, those steep price drops are a very good thing. But manufacturers trying to make product outside of China and other Asian countries are getting hit hard.

Bryan Ashley, the Chief Marketing Officer for Suniva, an American company that produces high-efficiency solar cells in Georgia, doesn't mince words.

"Free money is impossible to compete with," said Ashley. "Even when global demand went down they were able to keep producing, producing, producing," said Ashley. "And now they're dumping. If something isn't done, there will be no American product left on the market."

But with all the cheap debt that the Chinese government is throwing at domestic companies, Suniva is finding it increasingly tough to stay in the U.S.

"If something isn't done, no one will be making solar PV in the U.S.," said Ashley.

The situation is a difficult one. China's domestic efforts are helping drop the price of solar at an astonishing pace -- something that everyone in the solar industry wants. But it's also making it extraordinarily difficult for American solar manufacturers to compete.

The United States invented the modern solar cell over a half century ago. As China continues to boost domestic solar companies, the American solar industry will be asking some hard questions about how -- and if -- solar manufacturing can ever make it in a big way in the U.S.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/08 ... d-20110909


Last week, Solyndra abruptly announced that it was ceasing operations and laying off 1,100 employees, a move the company attributed to intense foreign competition and a "global oversupply of solar panels." The company filed for bankruptcy Tuesday.

Republicans have seized on Solyndra's downfall as a sign that President Obama's stimulus and "green jobs" campaign were failures. They have also noted that key Obama backer George Kaiser was a major investor in Solyndra, the first company to receive a Department of Energy loan guarantee to boost alternative energy companies. The program received additional funding under 2009's federal economic stimulus effort.

"The FBI raid further underscores that Solyndra was a bad bet from the beginning and put taxpayers at unnecessary risk," Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) chairman of its Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, said in a joint statement. "President Obama's signature green jobs program went from a darling of the administration to bankruptcy to now the subject of an FBI raid in a matter of days."

Solyndra spokesman Dave Miller said the federal raid came as a surprise but that the company was "fully cooperating" with investigators.

He said he did not know what the federal agents were looking for but speculated it could be related to the $535-million loan guarantee, of which the company drew $527 million.

A skeleton team of about 100 employees is still working at the factory during a "wind-down" process, Miller said.

The raid came about 16 months after Obama visited Solyndra and praised the federal government's investments in clean energy and other sectors.

"We've got to go back to making things," the president said at the May 26, 2010, appearance at Solyndra. "Not only would this spur hiring by businesses, it would create jobs in sectors with incredible potential to propel our economy for years, for decades to come. There is no better example than energy."

Solyndra was one of about 40 alternative energy projects funded over the last two years through an Energy Department loan program that helped companies involved with major wind, solar, nuclear and ethanol projects. The Energy Department had said it expected the combined projects to create about 60,000 jobs.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee had been investigating the Solyndra loans since February and had scheduled a hearing next Wednesday to get additional details about the loan guarantee, even before federal agents arrived at Solyndra on Thursday.

The committee had previously issued subpoenas to obtain documents about the Solyndra loans from the administration's Office of Management and Budget.

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

The problem is that government became involved in offering free money (which is not theirs) to other people in the first place. Now people have become so addicted to the free money "drug" that they cannot even contemplate doing anything without Uncle sugar helping them.

Of course, getting bureaucrats involved inevitably turns any effort into a disaster.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Oh, and while i'm responding to this...


Green subsidies: A breeding ground for corruption


Image
Solar panel company Solyndra, which went bankrupt after getting a half-billion subsidy from the U.S. government, is largely owned by Obama fundraiser George Kaiser, who has visited the White House 16 times.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... corruption
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Also there is this from Instapundit.


WHERE THE JOBS ARE: Canada’s Oil Sands Are A Jobs Gusher. “Canada has recovered all the jobs it lost in the 2009 recession, and Alberta’s oil sands are no small part of that. The province is on track to become the world’s second-largest oil producer, after Saudi Arabia, within 10 years. Meanwhile Mr. Obama clings to his subsidies for solar panels and his religious faith in green jobs. . . . The Bakken region of North Dakota, where private land ownership gives drillers relief from federal obstructionism, shares a similar, if smaller, story. Oil production there is booming, and North Dakota unemployment is 3.3%.” Generally, sectors the feds can’t touch tend to do better.


Plus this: “A serious jobs proposal would address these issues. Mr. Obama doesn’t have one.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 69412.html
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

It's investments for the future vs. investments for right now. It's easy to say right now we need jobs, but it's not easy during this same time to say we should plan for our future. One must balance investments appropriately and that's what isn't being done here.

Both major political parties are notorious for this kind of blinded policy selection. One party wants to plan for the future of social security, the other plans for right now. Flip it and one party wants to invest in fuel jobs (drilling) right now and the other wants to invest in the future of fuels.

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ScottL wrote:It's investments for the future vs. investments for right now. It's easy to say right now we need jobs, but it's not easy during this same time to say we should plan for our future. One must balance investments appropriately and that's what isn't being done here.

Both major political parties are notorious for this kind of blinded policy selection. One party wants to plan for the future of social security, the other plans for right now. Flip it and one party wants to invest in fuel jobs (drilling) right now and the other wants to invest in the future of fuels.
I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but my recollection is that solar panels as they are currently manufactured do not come even remotely close to being a viable energy alternative to hydro-carbon fuels. Neither does wind energy. They are just feel good ideas for head in the clouds type people.

Let's take a quick look at it. Currently electricity here sells for about $0.10/ Kwh. Let me take a quick peek on the internet to see what solar panels cost nowadays. Okay, I found this website. For the purpose of this calculation I will select the Schott Poly 240, 240W Solar Panel at a cost of $430.24. I will ignore shipping and installation costs and will round up or round down to give the panel every possible advantage.

For a solar panel to break even, it must be able to produce enough electricity to equal it's cost, which in this case is $430.24 . That means the panel must generate 4302.4 Kilo-watt-hours just to recover it's price. Since it is a 240 watt panel, i'm going to round it up and call it a 250 watt panel, and I am going to assume it generates that much electricity for 12 hours each and every day. I am also going to ignore conversion losses to 60 hz line frequency and voltage.

Since 250 watts is 0.25 kwh, it has to operate for 4 hours just to produce 1 kwh of energy. Assuming a 12 hour day, that equates to 3 kwh per day of production, assuming perfect conditions.

The thing would have to work perfectly for 1434.13 days (3.92 years) in a row before it can PAY FOR ITSELF under PERFECT conditions, and assuming No losses, no Installation costs, No maintenance costs, no reduction in output, and assuming production in excess of it's actual capacity.


It would be unrealistic for REAL panels to produce Half of that much electricity in that period of time. Even neglecting the related costs such as installation and maintenance, it would likely take this solar panel 8 years or longer to break even, and that overlooks the problem of needing electricity at night time, which brings up the question of Storage and conversion efficiencies, both electrical and economic.

Now I have been reading that they are constantly making breakthroughs on Solar panel technology, but as of yet, the technology only occupies a niche market for products that need electricity and can acquire it with no other means. (Such as desert or remote installations.) Till the economic hurdle of cost for production is drastically reduced, Solar simply isn't a viable alternative to existing hydrocarbon technology. With the Advent of the University of Michigan's Wave disk engine, a new generation of generation :) methods will push economic viability for solar even further into the future.

Just my take. If i've made any mistakes, let me know.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

ScottL wrote:It's investments for the future vs. investments for right now. It's easy to say right now we need jobs, but it's not easy during this same time to say we should plan for our future. One must balance investments appropriately and that's what isn't being done here.

Both major political parties are notorious for this kind of blinded policy selection. One party wants to plan for the future of social security, the other plans for right now. Flip it and one party wants to invest in fuel jobs (drilling) right now and the other wants to invest in the future of fuels.
The business policies of the American government over many years and many administrations have consistently failed in a bipartisan way to advance the interests of the American people.

Since the end of the cold war, America has bled jobs at an increasing rate to all four corners of the world.

The business policy of the American government is to support the large multinational corporations because that is where the big political contributions come from. These large companies have no national allegiance and their only goal is to feather the nests of the top executives.

New small business is where the jobs come from. But since no political payback derives from this group, no government support is provided.

Private American venture capital cannot compete with a national industrial policy strategy that many countries now use to support their industry. This strategy often includes currency manipulation and industrial sabotage to make their exports more attractive and competitive.

Germany and China have targeted green energy production and associated product development to establish a monopoly in these green industries.

The policies of the American Government which includes tax incentives to US green consumers are intercepted and perverted to benefit growth of both German and Chinese green industry rather than produce green jobs right here in America.

But this incompetence in business is nothing new.

The invasion and war in Iraq is the most flagrant example of incompetence in international business management. This war cost three trillion dollars and has not benefited the US oil industry in any way.

Because of government regulations, American companies are locked out of the Iraqi oil business because we cannot pay the bribes that the Iraqis require to do business in Iraq. But the Chinese gladly pay the bribes and take full advantage of the three trillion dollar investment that the US government made to advance US oil interests to open Iraq to foreign oil investment.

For every government dollar invested to advance its business interests, it must generate a ten fold return on investment, at least.

A country and its form of government that is so incompetent in its business dealings betrays its citizenship in fundamental way and cannot long stand.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

I was under the impression that methods for solar panel manufacturing had decreased in cost while increasing efficiency. It's assumed this research (investing in the future) could lead us to potential energy alternatives. Note I said energy alternatives and not fuel alternatives.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Diogenes wrote:
ScottL wrote:It's investments for the future vs. investments for right now. It's easy to say right now we need jobs, but it's not easy during this same time to say we should plan for our future. One must balance investments appropriately and that's what isn't being done here.

Both major political parties are notorious for this kind of blinded policy selection. One party wants to plan for the future of social security, the other plans for right now. Flip it and one party wants to invest in fuel jobs (drilling) right now and the other wants to invest in the future of fuels.
I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but my recollection is that solar panels as they are currently manufactured do not come even remotely close to being a viable energy alternative to hydro-carbon fuels. Neither does wind energy. They are just feel good ideas for head in the clouds type people.

Let's take a quick look at it. Currently electricity here sells for about $0.10/ Kwh. Let me take a quick peek on the internet to see what solar panels cost nowadays. Okay, I found this website. For the purpose of this calculation I will select the Schott Poly 240, 240W Solar Panel at a cost of $430.24. I will ignore shipping and installation costs and will round up or round down to give the panel every possible advantage.

For a solar panel to break even, it must be able to produce enough electricity to equal it's cost, which in this case is $430.24 . That means the panel must generate 4302.4 Kilo-watt-hours just to recover it's price. Since it is a 240 watt panel, i'm going to round it up and call it a 250 watt panel, and I am going to assume it generates that much electricity for 12 hours each and every day. I am also going to ignore conversion losses to 60 hz line frequency and voltage.

Since 250 watts is 0.25 kwh, it has to operate for 4 hours just to produce 1 kwh of energy. Assuming a 12 hour day, that equates to 3 kwh per day of production, assuming perfect conditions.

The thing would have to work perfectly for 1434.13 days (3.92 years) in a row before it can PAY FOR ITSELF under PERFECT conditions, and assuming No losses, no Installation costs, No maintenance costs, no reduction in output, and assuming production in excess of it's actual capacity.


It would be unrealistic for REAL panels to produce Half of that much electricity in that period of time. Even neglecting the related costs such as installation and maintenance, it would likely take this solar panel 8 years or longer to break even, and that overlooks the problem of needing electricity at night time, which brings up the question of Storage and conversion efficiencies, both electrical and economic.

Now I have been reading that they are constantly making breakthroughs on Solar panel technology, but as of yet, the technology only occupies a niche market for products that need electricity and can acquire it with no other means. (Such as desert or remote installations.) Till the economic hurdle of cost for production is drastically reduced, Solar simply isn't a viable alternative to existing hydrocarbon technology. With the Advent of the University of Michigan's Wave disk engine, a new generation of generation :) methods will push economic viability for solar even further into the future.

Just my take. If i've made any mistakes, let me know.
My take, and obviously this could be sensationalized but I was reading an article on using a film over the panels which increased efficiency by 300% (too good to be true in my opinion) which would make that 240 watt panel you rounded to 250 be ~75000 watt panel or 75 kwh, assuming a 12 hour day, that's 900kwh. Which based on your $430.24 break even price at 4302.4kwh for break even is ~4.78 days (perfect conditions and all).

I'm extremely skeptical of such claims, but it is this potential research that we're really looking for in these fields. I by no means think solar should be disregarded, research is needed. As for wind...ehhh... I just don't buy into it, but that's another story I guess.

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ScottL wrote: My take, and obviously this could be sensationalized but I was reading an article on using a film over the panels which increased efficiency by 300% (too good to be true in my opinion) which would make that 240 watt panel you rounded to 250 be ~75000 watt panel or 75 kwh, assuming a 12 hour day, that's 900kwh. Which based on your $430.24 break even price at 4302.4kwh for break even is ~4.78 days (perfect conditions and all).

I'm extremely skeptical of such claims, but it is this potential research that we're really looking for in these fields. I by no means think solar should be disregarded, research is needed. As for wind...ehhh... I just don't buy into it, but that's another story I guess.
Yeah, I think that story is like the super energy storage capacitor made by eestore. A lot of hype without much reality. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of solar energy. If it were viable, I would be off the grid as fast as I could get the stuff. I just think the stuff is "vaporware" at the moment. I keep reading of advances, and I hope they eventually make something that works, but till a game changer comes about, we have to make decisions based on what we know works till we can verify that something else works better.

Conservatives are not against progress. They are against disruptive changes that people CALL progress, without actually being an improvement in any thing.

Anyways, I think much of the stuff touted as "green energy" is nothing more than a con job disguised as civic mindedness. If I had more time, I'd mention another example of people claiming to push a efficiency/"green" idea, which in fact produced results completely opposite the stated goal.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Skipjack
Posts: 6898
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Green subsidies: A breeding ground for corruption
Ahh and oil subsidies are not?!!!
ROFL!

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/ ... 5376.shtml

WASHINGTON -- The number of people in the U.S. living in poverty in 2010 rose for the fourth year in a row, representing the largest number of Americans in poverty in the 52 years since such estimates have been published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Median household income in the U.S. also declined.

The latest census data highlights the struggling U.S. economy, which has seen unemployment hover at around 9 percent for two years, and which will be a key campaign issue heading into the 2012 election season.

According to a report issued Tuesday, 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009. Data in the Census Bureau covers the first full calendar year following the December 2007-June 2009 recession.

The nation's official poverty rate increased for the third year in a row - 15.1 percent in 2010, up from 14.3 percent in 2009. In the last three years, the poverty rate has risen faster than any other three-year period since the early 1980s.

Real median household income in the United States also fell in 2010, to $49,445 (a 2.3 percent drop from 2009).

The number of people without health insurance coverage rose to 16.3 percent, or 49.9 million, from 16.1 percent a year ago. The jump was mostly due to decreases in employer-provided insurance.

Bruce Meyer, a public policy professor at the University of Chicago, told the Associated Press that the numbers may get even worse, pointing to rising demand for food stamps and a "staggeringly high" level of long-term unemployment - those out of work for more than 26 weeks.

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Post by Jccarlton »

Axil wrote:
ScottL wrote:It's investments for the future vs. investments for right now. It's easy to say right now we need jobs, but it's not easy during this same time to say we should plan for our future. One must balance investments appropriately and that's what isn't being done here.

Both major political parties are notorious for this kind of blinded policy selection. One party wants to plan for the future of social security, the other plans for right now. Flip it and one party wants to invest in fuel jobs (drilling) right now and the other wants to invest in the future of fuels.
The business policies of the American government over many years and many administrations have consistently failed in a bipartisan way to advance the interests of the American people.

Since the end of the cold war, America has bled jobs at an increasing rate to all four corners of the world.

The business policy of the American government is to support the large multinational corporations because that is where the big political contributions come from. These large companies have no national allegiance and their only goal is to feather the nests of the top executives.

New small business is where the jobs come from. But since no political payback derives from this group, no government support is provided.

Private American venture capital cannot compete with a national industrial policy strategy that many countries now use to support their industry. This strategy often includes currency manipulation and industrial sabotage to make their exports more attractive and competitive.

Germany and China have targeted green energy production and associated product development to establish a monopoly in these green industries.

The policies of the American Government which includes tax incentives to US green consumers are intercepted and perverted to benefit growth of both German and Chinese green industry rather than produce green jobs right here in America.

But this incompetence in business is nothing new.

The invasion and war in Iraq is the most flagrant example of incompetence in international business management. This war cost three trillion dollars and has not benefited the US oil industry in any way.

Because of government regulations, American companies are locked out of the Iraqi oil business because we cannot pay the bribes that the Iraqis require to do business in Iraq. But the Chinese gladly pay the bribes and take full advantage of the three trillion dollar investment that the US government made to advance US oil interests to open Iraq to foreign oil investment.

For every government dollar invested to advance its business interests, it must generate a ten fold return on investment, at least.

A country and its form of government that is so incompetent in its business dealings betrays its citizenship in fundamental way and cannot long stand.
The biggest reason America bleeds jobs. The cost of doing business, especially taxes and regulatatory costs. This is what every small business I have ever dealt with has told me. They don't need a gov't that robs Peter to pay "green"(crooked) Paul. They need a gov't that doesn't rob themblind and obstruct everything they do.

Skipjack
Posts: 6898
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Strangely enough the cost of doing business is lower in the US than in most European countries. Yet you guys still send more jobs to China than we do.

Post Reply