Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

    BEIJING — Aided by at least $43 million in assistance from the government of Massachusetts and an innovative solar energy technology, Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.
    Green

    Matthew Cavanaugh for The New York Times

    Michael El-Hillow, chief executive of Evergreen, said falling prices for panels led to the closing.

    But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China.

    The factory closing in Devens, Mass., which Evergreen announced earlier this week, has set off political recriminations and finger-pointing in Massachusetts. And it comes just as President Hu Jintao of China is scheduled for a state visit next week to Washington, where the agenda is likely to include tensions between the United States and China over trade and energy policy.

    The Obama administration has been investigating whether China has violated the free trade rules of the World Trade Organization with its extensive subsidies to the manufacturers of solar panels and other clean energy products.

    While a few types of government subsidies are permitted under international trade agreements, they are not supposed to give special advantages to exports — something that China’s critics accuse it of doing. The Chinese government has strongly denied that any of its clean energy policies have violated W.T.O. rules.

    Although solar energy still accounts for only a tiny fraction of American power production, declining prices and concerns about global warming give solar power a prominent place in United States plans for a clean energy future — even if critics say the federal government is still not doing enough to foster its adoption.

    Beyond the issues of trade and jobs, solar power experts see broader implications. They say that after many years of relying on unstable governments in the Middle East for oil, the United States now looks likely to rely on China to tap energy from the sun.

    Evergreen, in announcing its move to China, was unusually candid about its motives. Michael El-Hillow, the chief executive, said in a statement that his company had decided to close the Massachusetts factory in response to plunging prices for solar panels. World prices have fallen as much as two-thirds in the last three years — including a drop of 10 percent during last year’s fourth quarter alone.

    Chinese manufacturers, Mr. El-Hillow said in the statement, have been able to push prices down sharply because they receive considerable help from the Chinese government and state-owned banks, and because manufacturing costs are generally lower in China.

    “While the United States and other Western industrial economies are beneficiaries of rapidly declining installation costs of solar energy, we expect the United States will continue to be at a disadvantage from a manufacturing standpoint,” he said.

    Even though Evergreen opened its Devens plant, with all new equipment, only in 2008, it began talks with Chinese companies in early 2009. In September 2010, the company opened its factory in Wuhan, China, and will now rely on that operation.

    An Evergreen spokesman said Mr. El-Hillow was not available to comment for this article.

    Other solar panel manufacturers are also struggling in the United States. Solyndra, a Silicon Valley business, received a visit from President Obama in May and a $535 million federal loan guarantee, only to say in November that it was shutting one of its two American plants and would delay expansion of the other.

    First Solar, an American company, is one of the world’s largest solar power vendors. But most of its products are made overseas.

    Chinese solar panel manufacturers accounted for slightly over half the world’s production last year. Their share of the American market has grown nearly sixfold in the last two years, to 23 percent in 2010 and is still rising fast, according to GTM Research, a renewable energy market analysis firm in Cambridge, Mass.

    In addition to solar energy, China just passed the United States as the world’s largest builder and installer of wind turbines.

    The closing of the Evergreen factory has prompted finger-pointing in Massachusetts.

    Ian A. Bowles, the former energy and environment chief for Gov. Deval L. Patrick, a Democrat who pushed for the solar panel factory to be located in Massachusetts, said the federal government had not helped the American industry enough or done enough to challenge Chinese government subsidies for its industry. Evergreen has received no federal money.

    “The federal government has brought a knife to a gun fight,” Mr. Bowles said. “Its support is completely out of proportion to the support displayed by China — and even to that in Europe.”

    Stephanie Mueller, the Energy Department press secretary, said the department was committed to supporting renewable energy. “Through our Loan Program Office we have offered conditional commitments for loan guarantees to 16 clean energy projects totaling nearly $16.5 billion,” she said. “We have finalized and closed half of those loan guarantees, and the program has ramped up significantly over the last year to move projects through the process quickly and efficiently while protecting taxpayer interests.”

    Evergreen did not try to go through the long, costly process of obtaining a federal loan because of what it described last summer as signals from the department that its technology was too far along and not in need of research and development assistance. The Energy Department has a policy of not commenting on companies that do not apply.

    Evergreen was selling solar panels made in Devens for $3.39 a watt at the end of 2008 and planned to cut its costs to $2 a watt by the end of last year — a target it met. But Evergreen found that by the end of the fourth quarter, it could fetch only $1.90 a watt for its Devens-made solar panels, while Chinese manufacturers were selling them for as little as $1 a watt.

    Evergreen’s joint-venture factory in Wuhan occupies a long, warehouselike concrete building in an industrial park located in an inauspicious neighborhood. A local employee said the municipal police had used the site for mass executions into the 1980s.

    When a reporter was given a rare tour inside the building just before it began mass production in September, the operation appeared as modern as any in the world. Row after row of highly automated equipment stretched toward the two-story-high ceiling in an immaculate, brightly lighted white hall. Chinese technicians closely watched the computer screens monitoring each step in the production processes.

    In a telephone interview in August, Mr. El-Hillow said that he was desperate to avoid layoffs at the Devens factory. But he said Chinese state-owned banks and municipal governments were offering unbeatable assistance to Chinese solar panel companies.

    Factory labor is cheap in China, where monthly wages average less than $300. That compares to a statewide average of more than $5,400 a month for Massachusetts factory workers. But labor is a tiny share of the cost of running a high-tech solar panel factory, Mr. El-Hillow said. China’s real advantage lies in the ability of solar panel companies to form partnerships with local governments and then obtain loans at very low interest rates from state-owned banks.

    Evergreen, with help from its partners — the Wuhan municipal government and the Hubei provincial government — borrowed two-thirds of the cost of its Wuhan factory from two Chinese banks, at an interest rate that under certain conditions could go as low as 4.8 percent, Mr. El-Hillow said in August. Best of all, no principal payments or interest payments will be due until the end of the loan in 2015.

    By contrast, a $21 million grant from Massachusetts covered 5 percent of the cost of the Devens factory, and the company had to borrow the rest from banks, Mr. El-Hillow said.

    Banks in the United States were reluctant to provide the rest of the money even at double-digit interest rates, partly because of the financial crisis. “Therein lies the hidden advantage of being in China,” Mr. El-Hillow said.

    Devens, as the site of a former military base, is a designated enterprise zone eligible for state financial support.

    State Senator Jamie Eldridge, a Democrat whose district includes Devens, said he was initially excited for Evergreen to come to his district, but even before the announced loss of 800 jobs, he had come to oppose such large corporate assistance.

    “I think there’s been a lot of hurt feelings over these subsidies to companies, while a lot of communities around the former base have not seen development money,” he said.

    Michael McCarthy, a spokesman for Evergreen, said the company had already met 80 percent of the grant’s job creation target by employing up to 800 factory workers since 2008 and should owe little money to the state. Evergreen also retains about 100 research and administrative jobs in Massachusetts.

    The company also received about $22 million in tax credits, and it will discuss those with Massachusetts, he said.

    Evergreen has had two unique problems that made its Devens factory vulnerable to Chinese competition. It specializes in an unusual kind of wafer, making it hard to share research and development costs with other companies. And it was hurt when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008; Evergreen lost one-seventh of its outstanding shares in a complex transaction involving convertible notes. But many other Western solar power companies are also running into trouble, as competition from China coincides with uncertainty about the prices at which Western regulators will let solar farms sell electricity to national grids.

    According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, shares in solar companies fell an average of 26 percent last year. Evergreen’s stock, which traded above $100 in late 2007, closed Friday in New York at $3.03.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/bu...ewanted=2&_r=1

  • #2
    Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

    American technological innovation in energy will lead the way...

    JP Morgan bonus pool may exceed $20 Billion ....

    Are these two compatible?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

      Of course - every year, more of that bonus pool goes to JPM's bankers based in Hong Kong and less and less to the ones in NY and London. Eventually even the bankers will go where the manufacturing is, because there's nothing left to pillage here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

        Even if you could buy solar panels cheaper in China (because China might manufacture the solar panels cheaper), there is very little solar-electric power to be taken from solar panels. But no-one wants to hear simple logic.

        Oh yes, you might cover the deserts with solar panels, but where do you transmit the electricity that you generate?

        This is very much related to the problem of getting rich finding pennies on the ground. You expend more money (energy) than you get in return.

        How do you get rich melting pennies that are worth 2-cents each in copper? You would expend more energy to ship the pennies to the smelter, and the smelter would expend energy to melt the pennies. Then, the banks would get upset. No-one would be able to make change, etc.

        I am very LAZY! I try to do productive things. Productive things are profitable; productive things generate much more energy than they cost.

        It is really the Law of Zero in math. Whatever you multiply zero with ends-up at ZERO.

        If I were in government, I would be planning HUGE hydro-electric dams. I would be planning HUGE atomic-power plants. I would be planning HUGE natural gas-fired power plants. "BIGGER IS BETTER."

        I like Stalin. He did things in a big way. He did not try to muddle-through with half-solutions.

        When we are starving, wouldn't bigger be better??????????????

        Last edited by Starving Steve; January 15, 2011, 01:36 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

          Communism winning? ;)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

            I do not like communist tyranny, nor any tyranny, but when we face starvation, wouldn't working-together co-operatively be the best solution? Wouldn't atomic-power and hydro-electric dams and natural-gas be great solutions. They are cheap, and they can produce an enormous amount of energy.

            Yes, there will be wires.

            In Squamish, BC Canada, I observed bald-eagles enjoying the railroad, the busy highway, the electric-power trail, the apartment buildings, and the shopping centres. The bald-eagles were quite happy, and you wouldn't believe how many HUGE bald-eagles there were in the bald-eagle habitat in Squamish. So, environmental preservation and economic development for people can go hand-in-hand.

            I just do NOT like radical environmentalists. I want economic growth, a lower cost-of-living for PEOPLE, a democratic government, and government that helps people............ We can do it.

            This used to be what the NDP was about, at least in other provinces in Canada. This used to be what the Democrats were about in the U.S. This used to be what the New Deal liberalism was all about in the U.S......... But somehow, we got off-track, and we lost our way. The radical environmentalists took-over and diluted what liberalism was all about.

            This crap about stopping growth and killing-planning came from the book, The Destruction of California. The author was Raymond F. Dasmann. The message about shafting people was inside that book. Read it!
            Last edited by Starving Steve; January 15, 2011, 11:47 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

              Will u cooperate with your enemy?

              China moving troops -
              http://www.presstv.ir/detail/160227.html

              China and North Korea are reportedly discussing details of a plan allowing Chinese army forces to be deployed in the communist country for the first time in about two decades.

              Citing an anonymous official at the presidential Blue House, the South Korean Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported on Saturday that the troops “would protect Chinese port facilities” in the Rason special economic zone near the Sea of Japan (East Sea).

              "North Korea and China have discussed the issue of stationing a small number of Chinese troops to protect China-invested port facilities," the unnamed official told the newspaper.
              Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
              I do not like communist tyranny, nor any tyranny, but when awe face starvation, wouldn't working-together co-operatively be the best solution? Wouldn't atomic-power and hydro-electric dams and natural-gas be great solutions. They are cheap, and they can produce an enormous amount of energy

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

                How nice of the State of Massachusetts to help this company get ready to make the move to China. In it's current form, Globalism makes it a foregone conclusion that jobs and industry will leave the US until the time wage equilibrium is achieved. Say somewhere between our "super high" minimum wage of $7.50 and about a buck a day. Any attempt by the US to subsidize and promote industry at home without major changes in our trade agreements is just pissing in the wind.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

                  Here's a Boston Globe (owned by the NYT co.) columnist - a big media backer of Governor Patrick who signed the deal with Evergreen and the deal itself:

                  http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/gree...ons_are_clear/
                  The governor’s $58 million commitment of grants, tax credits, and other carrots doesn’t really amount to a loss on that scale for simple reasons. The benefits weren’t all doled out and some others are retrievable.

                  The actual tab? Greg Bialecki, the state’s secretary of housing and economic development, says that’s impossible to pencil out yet, but he believes it will be less than half the sticker price. I don’t know either, but it’s still going to be a big number.

                  So the state’s Evergreen package was a big mistake, right? Bialecki would not agree.

                  “I don’t want to suggest we’re so stubborn about this that we’re unmindful of the fact we could learn to do things better,’’ he says. “Obviously, we’re going to take stock of what happened. But, fundamentally, does it cause us to revisit the decision? I think not.’’

                  I really wish they would. Looking back on the Evergreen episode, a few important lessons appear clear.

                  Lesson 1: Think harder about offering benefits to any individual business, especially when so many dollars are on the line.

                  State government has compiled a poor record of selecting companies to favor with grants and tax benefits over the years, presuming the entire point is to create jobs. The Globe’s Todd Wallack has extensively chronicled those efforts for companies large and small. The results are routinely unimpressive or worse.

                  There are occasional exceptions. It’s possible to create or save jobs with some company-specific benefits. Sometimes incentives from other states are worth matching. But our state’s lousy record picking business winners and losers speaks for itself.

                  Lesson 2: Building new industries in a state is dangerous work. The governor is a big fan of green energy and wanted to help build an industrial base around that technology in Massachusetts. The Evergreen Solar agreement was a signature event in that effort.

                  Perhaps the headline appeal of the deal became a bad influence on the governor. Bialecki thinks a big-bang event like the Evergreen Solar package sent a signal everywhere that Massachusetts was the place to grow green energy companies. He senses real but intangible value. I don’t sense it any more than I believe tax credits for movie productions boosts tourism, which is to say not much at all.

                  Lesson 3: State economic development plans should improve the local business environment and let the market decide which companies are best suited to take advantage.

                  Patrick has done a better job with the life sciences industry in this respect. While I choked on the governor’s original $1 billion pledge to support life sciences, a large portion of the money is dedicated to academic resources that will help produce more trained workers and spawn ideas for new companies. That’s money worth spending.

                  The governor made a big bet with Evergreen Solar and lost. That’s bad enough. It would be worse to miss the lessons in an expensive mistake.

                  Steven Syre is a Globe columnist.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

                    first let housing prices crash. I could take a big pay cut, if so much of my money didn't go for a house and all of its trappings.
                    And I'm not talking about McMansions. Starter homes here cost 200K. That means earning 60-70K? to reasonably afford it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

                      The best GREEN ENERGY is atomic-power, also hydro-electric power, and also natural-gas for all uses: motor-vehicle fuel, home-heating, and electric-power generation.

                      Now kiddies, it is time for recess. Let's go out onto the playground.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

                        Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                        Even if you could buy solar panels cheaper in China (because China might manufacture the solar panels cheaper), there is very little solar-electric power to be taken from solar panels. But no-one wants to hear simple logic.

                        Oh yes, you might cover the deserts with solar panels, but where do you transmit the electricity that you generate?

                        yo mr steve...
                        with all due respect/admiration/hilarity - cuz i do appreciate your POV...

                        i'd just like to point out that SOLAR ELECTRIC SYSTEMS WORK JUST FINE, are cost/investment-effective, with or without .gov subsidies.

                        and the smaller-scale, the better: they work best when they on on _your_ roof

                        once one STOPS USING ELECTRICITY TO PRODUCE HEAT, one can get all the Photo-Voltaic-produced electric power one needs with a much smaller/cheaper system than most have been conditioned to believe.

                        like i said, i prove it, daily, with 2x130watt panels and a battery, which runs my 12volt refrig FOR FREE, forever (well... as long as we have 'normal' weather and the batteries last, cuz it does normally get dark....)

                        but i have a few comments on this story, particularly as it concerns typical taxachussettes-crony-capitalism and how the corporate/political insiders (particularly in the blue states) are giving the solar industry a bad rap.

                        the other thing methinks thats happnin?

                        china is doing to the PV industry just exactly what they are trying to do with the rare-earths industry: drive producer prices into the dirt and then yank the rug out from under the supply!

                        but gotta get my long-johns/the show on the road upto big cottonwood canyon b4 i get yelled at....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

                          Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                          The best GREEN ENERGY is atomic-power, also hydro-electric power, and also natural-gas for all uses: motor-vehicle fuel, home-heating, and electric-power generation.
                          and once again, Mr Steve: as much as i was against it in the 70's (but the environment had nuthin to do with my objection, it was the _concentration_ of wealth and 'power' into fewer producers pockets)
                          methinks our _only_ answer to the energy question going forward = a moon-mission-critical-effort/emergency-building program to put at least 500 nuclear power stations online ASAP - at least one big one for every major metro area in The US - i now believe its a matter of critical national security - and if for no other reason: HOW IN HELL WILL WE POWER ELECTRIC CARS?

                          Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                          Now kiddies, it is time for recess. Let's go out onto the playground.
                          oh yeah: its off to http://www.brightonresort.com/Weather
                          (cuz if i clik my mouse one more time i'm gonna get bruises... ;)
                          Last edited by lektrode; January 16, 2011, 12:31 PM. Reason: fix broke html

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

                            Originally posted by lektrode
                            i'd just like to point out that SOLAR ELECTRIC SYSTEMS WORK JUST FINE, are cost/investment-effective, with or without .gov subsidies.
                            They work fine in a mechanical sense, but in an economic sense it is much less clear.

                            I posted this (see bottom) as part of a 'Climate Change' Spiegel post a while ago, it communicates the differences in cost between various electricity generation technologies.

                            Put another way: while solar may seem cheap - all the costs are in the back end. Unlike other generation technologies, the electric power you receive from a solar panel steadily declines over time.

                            In this respect solar is similar to nuclear power plants: the nuclear power plants produce the lowest per KWh electricity cost but the variable is the nuclear waste. Over time this becomes more and more a cost factor, as are decommissioning costs.

                            This is worrisome because in both cases - nuclear and/or solar PV - there is tremendous incentive to play accounting tricks with the long term costs. Otherwise known as "take the money and run"

                            Lastly I'd point out that if electricity prices triple - which would guarantee to occur if even 10% of any particular utility's electricity generation structure was switched over to present/near-present PV solar electricity generation - at that point even diesel at double today's price via a home generator is cheaper than using grid electricity.

                            Not a beneficial situation for anyone.

                            Cost of Cleaner Energy.jpg

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

                              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                              They work fine in a mechanical sense, but in an economic sense it is much less clear.

                              I posted this (see bottom) as part of a 'Climate Change' Spiegel post a while ago, it communicates the differences in cost between various electricity generation technologies.

                              Put another way: while solar may seem cheap - all the costs are in the back end. Unlike other generation technologies, the electric power you receive from a solar panel steadily declines over time.

                              In this respect solar is similar to nuclear power plants: the nuclear power plants produce the lowest per KWh electricity cost but the variable is the nuclear waste. Over time this becomes more and more a cost factor, as are decommissioning costs.

                              This is worrisome because in both cases - nuclear and/or solar PV - there is tremendous incentive to play accounting tricks with the long term costs. Otherwise known as "take the money and run"

                              Lastly I'd point out that if electricity prices triple - which would guarantee to occur if even 10% of any particular utility's electricity generation structure was switched over to present/near-present PV solar electricity generation - at that point even diesel at double today's price via a home generator is cheaper than using grid electricity.

                              Not a beneficial situation for anyone.

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]3729[/ATTACH]
                              You can bury the nuclear-waste on my property, but please pay me some rent. That would provide some income for me and give me a job......... I could be an accounting-clerk, so my public-school education might be put to good use.

                              I would even eat some of the nuclear-waste, especially the long, long, LONG half-life waste. I would provide a demonstration on television here in Victoria, BC........... This sounds like a fun project and a fun demonstration to do on TV!

                              I have to find-out which radio-nuclide is non-toxic chemically to the kidneys, but as far as radiation is concerned: let's do the demonstration. But I want the Capitol Regional District to stop treating me as a troll and a trouble-maker.

                              This could be fun!

                              And the rent-flow......... Wow! $$$$$$$$
                              Last edited by Starving Steve; January 16, 2011, 05:17 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X