Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

[santafe2]

In the last 2 weeks of the Bush administration, US Customs changed the classification of solar panels made by a Chinese manufacturer, Trina and added a 2.5% tariff to their imported solar panels...and no one noticed that Trina solar panels are functionally identical to all other poly and mono silicon panels until a few weeks ago. So as it stands today, companies that import solar panels into the US, owe a 2.5% tariff plus a 2.5% penalty for not paying the tariff.

The reaction at Customs is that the industry should have noticed in January when the definition of a solar panel changed. There's more to come as the industry works to get the tariff reversed or at least the penalties removed.

The tariff is a double edged sword as it will work to drive more manufacturers into the US so it's not considered a bad thing by the 50% of panel manufacturers that have plants in N.A.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/bu.../01tariff.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...58011820091001

[jk]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

it is a present for conventional energy producers, but not JUST that. it's also part of the process of erecting protectionist walls, along with the tariff on chinese tires, the under-consideration anti-dumping restrictions on chinese steel, and the continued decline in the dollar.

[aaron]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

I am all for tariffs. We have tried this free trade thingy for the past 30 years with devastating results to the "average" American (remember, the guy who could work one job and support his wife and family and own a home/car). If I were a globalist, perhaps I would have a different opinion. U.S. policy has certainly helped China, India, and the rest of the lot. Regardless, 2.5% is nothing. Joe Chen can still work.

[sn1p3r]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

The problem is that they won't use tariffs IN PLACE of other taxes...just keep creating taxes. At lest this one faces outward.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

I am a globalist, and I am 200% in favour of free trade, the freer-the- better.

I am also a socialist and a registered New Democrat in Canada. And I am 200% pro-free trade.

What is the compelling interest for government to try to raise the cost of living by collecting tariffs on foreign goods???????? That hurts people, and I want govn't to HELP people.

Now if your solar power business needs government tariffs to survive, perhaps you had better join all of us who have been in favour of atomic power, heavy oil development, clean coal, and hydro-electric power. Put your talents to work in something PRODUCTIVE like building power plants that really PRODUCE mega-amounts of cheap power.

Duke Energy Company in the South-east U.S. gets its energy from atomic power and clean coal. "EL CHEAPO" energy! And Duke Energy Co. has so much energy that they don't know what to do with it. But the lesson is that such as strategy as Duke has employed in the South-east U.S. could be employed in California, not only to LOWER power rates, but to PRODUCE surplus energy at night to de-salinate sea-water and re-fill California's aquifers.

Government needs to get out of subsidizing LOSERS like solar energy and start helping where it can help people: for example, by providing Medicare for everyone in America regardless of age or pre-existing conditions.

Finally, Herbert Hoover, the moron who caused the Great Depression of the 1930s, supported the erection of tariff barriers to protect jobs in the U.S. Those tariff barriers deepened the Great Depression. We used to call that kind of stupid thinking, that kind of stupid appoach: "Hoover Economics".

[flintlock]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

I am all for tariffs. We have tried this free trade thingy for the past 30 years with devastating results to the "average" American (remember, the guy who could work one job and support his wife and family and own a home/car). If I were a globalist, perhaps I would have a different opinion. U.S. policy has certainly helped China, India, and the rest of the lot. Regardless, 2.5% is nothing. Joe Chen can still work.

That's kind of the way I see it too. But its complicated so I think I'll just have a beer, turn on my Japanese projector and vege out.

[GRG55]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

In the last 2 weeks of the Bush administration, US Customs changed the classification of solar panels made by a Chinese manufacturer, Trina and added a 2.5% tariff to their imported solar panels...and no one noticed that Trina solar panels are functionally identical to all other poly and mono silicon panels until a few weeks ago. So as it stands today, companies that import solar panels into the US, owe a 2.5% tariff plus a 2.5% penalty for not paying the tariff.

The reaction at Customs is that the industry should have noticed in January when the definition of a solar panel changed. There's more to come as the industry works to get the tariff reversed or at least the penalties removed.

The tariff is a double edged sword as it will work to drive more manufacturers into the US so it's not considered a bad thing by the 50% of panel manufacturers that have plants in N.A.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/bu.../01tariff.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...58011820091001

it is a present for conventional energy producers, but not JUST that. it's also part of the process of erecting protectionist walls, along with the tariff on chinese tires, the under-consideration anti-dumping restrictions on chinese steel, and the continued decline in the dollar.

Do solar panels really compete with conventional energy producers? Do the purchasers of solar panels often make a comparison with building a coal, fuel oil, natural gas or other conventional energy generation project? Or are they really making a choice between relying on a utility for their power versus generating their own [in whole or in part]?

Aren't most purchasers of solar systems motivated by factors that conventional energy sourced electricity cannot provide? Beyond the topic of climate change, I am suggesting factors such as self sufficiency and off-grid independence, the economics of remote locations, perhaps a novelty factor [that sort of thing goes over big in my circle of engineering friends ] and so forth?

As for the tariff, I suspect its effects will be felt far more within the solar panel industry, domestic vs import, and unlikely to make a shred of difference to oil, gas, coal, and uranium producers...although it may have some impact on the utilities that use their products.

[c1ue]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

I'm not clear why a 2.5% (or effectively 5%) tariff makes any difference whatsoever.

It isn't like a 40% or 60% tax.

Furthermore this is on the raw panels; by the time it goes through the supply chain - the difference is probably less obvious.

[santafe2]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

Do solar panels really compete with conventional energy producers? Do the purchasers of solar panels often make a comparison with building a coal, fuel oil, natural gas or other conventional energy generation project? Or are they really making a choice between relying on a utility for their power versus generating their own [in whole or in part]?

GRG, I may have overstepped the hyperbole quotient and with my mega-like title. Oil companies, of course, could crush solar companies by buying them and just shutting them down if that was what they wanted...but Americans love a good conspiracy you know...:rolleyes:

I'm not clear why a 2.5% (or effectively 5%) tariff makes any difference whatsoever.

It isn't like a 40% or 60% tax.

Furthermore this is on the raw panels; by the time it goes through the supply chain - the difference is probably less obvious.

c1ue, I think the industry is shocked because the initial payment will be 60% because no one paid attention to this change and if payments are made at year end it's a 5x12 payment.

That said, I think a small incentive to produce panels in the US is likely good thing and the industry may be over reacting. The largest panel supplier, Suntech, already has plans to build a production facility in the US in the next year or two.

[GRG55]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

GRG, I may have overstepped the hyperbole quotient and with my mega-like title. Oil companies, of course, could crush solar companies by buying them and just shutting them down if that was what they wanted...but Americans love a good conspiracy you know...:rolleyes:...

No doubt.

Unfortunately I cannot subscribe to the idea that Oil Companies will crush the solar industry by buying them out and shutting them down. First, because I don't think any oil company truly sees solar electricity generation as competition for their business, and second, because I have a biased view from personal experience. I used to work for a Big Oil company that had a large solar panel manufacturing operation.

In the very early 1980s I was involved in the installation of a purely solar powered telemetered supervisory control system [for the wells and pipelines], on a large natural gas developement project of mine in a remote and topographically difficult northern region, that used our company's solar technology. Even the radio repeater station we installed on a mountaintop was powered entirely by solar. If I recall correctly, at that time the international oil and gas production operation was the dominant customer for the solar panel manufacturing division, and the main reason the company invested in the technology.

That solar company is still in business today, and I believe still owned by a Big Oil company...although I have no idea how it is faring given the proliferation of competitors worldwide.

c1ue, I think the industry is shocked because the initial payment will be 60% because no one paid attention to this change and if payments are made at year end it's a 5x12 payment.

That said, I think a small incentive to produce panels in the US is likely good thing and the industry may be over reacting. The largest panel supplier, Suntech, already has plans to build a production facility in the US in the next year or two.

The customs issue is not unique to the solar industry. There is a huge customs classification system at work in the background, and it's the customs brokers that are responsible for keeping their clients, solar industry or otherwise, informed about classification changes and duties and tariffs. Because of the volume of trade across the borders there has been a big push for many, many years to get more countries on to the harmonized classification system. This allows each country to impose whatever duties and tariffs it may wish, but tries to ensure that for trade flows across borders the classification of individual items is not in dispute.

Tariff or not, the USA is destined to become the low cost producer of many goods that previously were made overseas and imported. Just have a look at the newly competitive US steel industry compared to China's cost of manufacturing steel now...

[santafe2]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

Unfortunately I cannot subscribe to the idea that Oil Companies will crush the solar industry by buying them out and shutting them down. First, because I don't think any oil company truly sees solar electricity generation as competition for their business, and second, because I have a biased view from personal experience. I used to work for a Big Oil company that had a large solar panel manufacturing operation.

There would not be a solar industry as we know it today without the oil business. After the US government backed early research and managed to get the cost of panels down to $100 a watt, the oil companies moved into the business and began research that drove costs down to $10 a watt. Shell, BP, Chevron, ARCO and others were key components in getting this business off the ground.

They maintain a presence here but don't really take it seriously yet. And as I've said before, our competition is not oil, it's natural gas, coal and nuclear. Outside of remote islands, almost no places in the world use oil for electricity.

When/if solar becomes an important source of energy, the oil companies will most likely provide it.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

Even if solar panels were free of capital costs, you have other costs and issues:

1.) The Sun does not produce much power (2 calories per cm^2 per minute), so you have to cover vast areas of land to produce really much of anything profitable to use in cities--- and that assumes the cities are near-by the solar-electric plant;

2.) The power decreases by latitude from the solar-Equator ( the circle on Earth where the Sun is 90-degrees overhead at noon ) because the Sun's rays have to traverse a larger portion of the Earth's atmosphere;

3.) Humidity and cloud cover absorb energy from the Sun and decrease the solar output;

4.) Solar output is decreased by lower elevation, and unfortunately, most cities are low, many at sea-level.

5.) Solar output is neglible in winter when the Sun is low in the sky at high latitudes;

6.) Solar output is decreased by dust and scratches on the solar panels;

7.) Solar panels must turn as the Sun moves across the sky during the day;

8.) Solar output is in direct current, and this current must be converted to alternating current at 60 cycles per second to be compatible with household needs; this conversion takes energy;

9.) Solar-electric power has to be metered into the house properly in order to be useful and compatible with the electric power grid used as a back-up supply of energy;

10.) Rainfall and dew make a joke out of solar electric power because solar energy--- if there is any energy collected--- is used to evaporate water from the solar panels;

11.) Night-time creates a problem in collecting solar energy, especially in winter.

And then, ofcourse, comes the high capital costs of solar projects, as mentioned above. This is why solar-electric projects are based more upon hopes and wishful thinking ( pot-head thinking ) than upon any real Earth-science and real world economics.

One thing I did learn in geography at UC Berkeley and at the Univ. of Minnesota was EARTH-science, not dream-science. But this explains why I am unemployed now.

[santafe2]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

Even if solar panels were free of capital costs, you have other costs and issues:

1.) The Sun does not produce much power (2 calories per cm^2 per minute), so you have to cover vast areas of land to produce really much of anything profitable to use in cities--- and that assumes the cities are near-by the solar-electric plant;

2.) The power decreases by latitude from the solar-Equator ( the circle on Earth where the Sun is 90-degrees overhead at noon ) because the Sun's rays have to traverse a larger portion of the Earth's atmosphere;

3.) Humidity and cloud cover absorb energy from the Sun and decrease the solar output;

4.) Solar output is decreased by lower elevation, and unfortunately, most cities are low, many at sea-level.

5.) Solar output is neglible in winter when the Sun is low in the sky at high latitudes;

6.) Solar output is decreased by dust and scratches on the solar panels;

7.) Solar panels must turn as the Sun moves across the sky during the day;

8.) Solar output is in direct current, and this current must be converted to alternating current at 60 cycles per second to be compatible with household needs; this conversion takes energy;

9.) Solar-electric power has to be metered into the house properly in order to be useful and compatible with the electric power grid used as a back-up supply of energy;

10.) Rainfall and dew make a joke out of solar electric power because solar energy--- if there is any energy collected--- is used to evaporate water from the solar panels;

11.) Night-time creates a problem in collecting solar energy, especially in winter.

And then, ofcourse, comes the high capital costs of solar projects, as mentioned above. This is why solar-electric projects are based more upon hopes and wishful thinking ( pot-head thinking ) than upon any real Earth-science and real world economics.

One thing I did learn in geography at UC Berkeley and at the Univ. of Minnesota was EARTH-science, not dream-science. But this explains why I am unemployed now.

Sorry about that employment thing Starving. Have you considered lobbying? I think the nuclear industry could use you...

I'm not sure Canada is the best place to install solar panels since we get about 50% more energy production in the Southwest. We produce about 300 kWh per square meter.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

Check my 7th grade arithmetic on the back of a piece of scratch paper, because I could have made an error:

One sq metre = 10^4 sq cm, so the maximum possible solar output in outer space on a sq. metre of solar panel is (2 calories/sq. cm/minute) x ( 1 x 10^4 sq. cm.) = 20,000 cal./ sq. metre / min. = 1.2 x 10^6 cal. / sq. metre/ hour.

Since one kilowatt = 1.16 x 10^-6 cal, such a sq. metre of solar panels would produce about 1 kwh.

Real world at the surface of the Earth, best case, the max. possible solar output would be about half that amount. (Best case: clear sky, very dry, Sonoran Desert location, June 21st on the calendar, 12 Noon standard local time, no smoke, no dust, no pollution, rather high elevation above sea-level, no trees, no buildings around, no bird poop and no scratches or dulling on the solar panels, and panels perpendicular to the Sun.) So, real world, the best possible case would be 1/2 kwh per sq. metre.

Check my arithmetic, however because I am terrible at math. The max. possible output is 12cents or 13 cents per hour in direct current (DC form) at California's current outrageous cost of electricity (about 24cents per kwh ).

After noon in standard time, your solar panels would be steadily dropping in output.

You could add-in more solar panels and maybe jazz them up with mirrors, but it all costs. The carpenters are going to just love you..... KACHINGA !

[santafe2]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

You could add-in more solar panels and maybe jazz them up with mirrors, but it all costs. The carpenters are going to just love you..... KACHINGA !

My fault Starving. I was writing and working at the same time this afternoon and not proofing what I wrote.... I should have said, 300 kWh per meter per year. A kw is a thing produced. KWh is a thing produced over time...I never added the time factor.

Here's an example. A good 72 cell, 215 watt solar panel measures 1.25 sq. meters. Installed at even a low angle and reasonably south facing direction it will produce 1.75 kWh per year for every installed DC watt here in the Southwest. That's 301 kWh per sq. meter, per year. In Canada, lower that by about 1/3 because, as you noted, the sun is too low to produce much energy in the winter.