• humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month 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
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month 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
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month 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
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month 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 expedite its expansion, and they should only be seen as a good, not the evil.

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month 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.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            The argument is always “solar/wind still use chemicals” and never “this is the net reliance on extractive industry by energy source”.

            That said, general energy conservation is still important. You can’t cut emissions if all your new power just gets funnelled into Grok style AI.

            • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              I don’t know that processing silicon is a polluting activity. There is heat involved, and some Chinese producers are 100% solar powered for their processing. Though I’m sure bulldozers or shipps/trucks are involved in obtaining sand.

              I’m not a fan of any appeals to gatekeep energy use to “just essentials” instead permitting growth that people want, and cleaning up the energy use involved.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                I’m not a fan of any appeals to gatekeep energy use to “just essentials” instead permitting growth

                There’s a huge gulf between essential and wasteful.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month 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
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month 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.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              They were at the inflection point back in 2008. They’ve been full tilt towards the improvement side of the curve for nearly two decades.

        • st0v@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month 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.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

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

        There are legitimate strategic concerns with sourcing things long-term from potentially hostile states.

        Europe should absolutely take advantage of current Chinese production to improve their own green energy efforts, but looking into local production in addition is not just a ‘for-show’ move. As sanctions on Russia show, dependence on markets that can potentially turn hostile can be very damaging.

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

          Sure, that’s what I threw in the “politically advantageous” bucket to not expand on it too much

          Though I do not expect China to blackmail Europe with solar, but I see the concern.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month 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
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month 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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Europeans demolished their manufacturing sector when they stripped all the wiring out of the walls during the austerity years.

      You can’t blame people for buying foreign when you’ve been defunding domestic infrastructure for over a decade.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        Something the EU could also have done but refused to

        But they did - there were massive subsidy programs, that ultimately were so successful, that were phased out due to financial stress they put on the budget

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 month 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
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Do not assume bad faith over anything you disagree with.

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

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          hostility never changed anyone’s mind

          Chronic abuse absolutely shapes human perception and behavior.

          In this case, a lot of Lemmy has been so battered down by “China Bad” propaganda that they’ll straight up deny the threat of climate change to justify rejecting Chinese manufactured goods.

          • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            What you’re doing is called “making shit up”. If you have a problem with their talking point then address it, but don’t make shit up about who they are or why they’re saying what they’re saying.

            • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 month ago

              As in the way you’re accusing me of “making shit up,” just because you’re not aware of decades of lobbying and astroturfing efforts by the fossil fuel industry against nuclear?

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

                So, in your mind this is a hidden lobbyist who tries to abuse “we destroyed local production” argument to make sure Europe slows down solar rollout and remains dependent on fossil for longer?

                Not only is this too much of an effort to come from this angle, it’s also not a large platform to speak to.

                Seeing an astroturfer in every person that has another angle on the issue is just plain paranoid, and at the same time makes you behave like an asshole towards others. This sort of behavior is what ruined many other platforms, with everyone yelling out of their echo chambers - angry, violent and utterly unproductive.

                Algorithms have raised a generation of people doing what best engages them - shitting on each other. And when an alternative like Lemmy appears, where no algorithm is pushing anyone, people make the same mistakes. I urge you to break this chain, with compassion and care.

                • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  The planet is literally becoming uninhabitable, and you’re concerned about being cordial towards people arguing against radical action.

                  Eat me.

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

                    I’ll only eat you if you’re rich.

                    The person in question didn’t argue against green energy, they argued for local European solar industry. While one of the consequences in this case could be Europe being able to install less solar, this is something to introduce in your counterargument, highlighting the consequences.

                    Being hostile drives people away, and this particular commenter is probably not a decision-maker in European solar, so you’re not missing anything if you kindly introduce an alternative point of view. It is politicians in office that we should pressure, as they have something real to lose when we don’t support them. Shitting on regular people, on the other hand, will simply get your opinion ignored.

    • peppers_ghost@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      If EU wants to compete they’re welcome to utilize the same style of subsidies that enabled China to produce these so cheaply.