Where can the left and right agree--Energy

[homersapien 11,362]

23 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The US alone will make little difference to global climate issues. Why gamble with our overall future ability just to appease the irrational? 

Please see my latest post.

[homersapien 11,362]

20 hours ago, AUDub said:

This is what passes for seriousness here. 

Scary, huh.

Not a very favorable representation of our university.

[homersapien 11,362]

21 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

 I’m sure how you come up with the conclusion that we aren’t taking the lead. The results of the reductions speak for themselves. 
 

Some smaller countries have made more reductions, but you can’t compare them to the US because of population, industry, etc. But, that by no means makes them a leader. In fact they probably have used technology and advancements made in the US to help. 

So you really think China is doing better than the US with the clean energy transition? 

You're getting closer to understanding my points.

China's emissions are increasing because - like every other country with a relatively lower standard of living (per capita) they are trying to improve that standard of living.

That's why it is so important that the U.S. show leadership to maintain a relatively high standard of living with relatively low - eventually zero - emissions.

Or to put it another way, if these countries all suddenly increased their standard of living by exactly duplicating current U.S. performance in per capita emissions,  the human species is doomed. 

No matter how well we seem to be doing in absolute numbers, we cannot hold ourselves up as the standard for everyone else to follow with our current per capita emissions rate.

That might be easier for us in the short term, but it will be disastrous for our progeny.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,362]

14 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

We spend like 25 billion each year on climate studies....all this money pays for careers...and without looking, climate issues pulls a good 25% in favor for democrat votes. ..its an "Ill scratch your back if you scratch mine"...type money pyramid  thing...nobody wants to give up the money...nobody wants to give up yhe votes for power.....theres a real truth behind it, but who do you trust?...I dont feel its the Republicans....I would say they would cover up for the the businessess that create the so called "problem" but dems seem to be the big business doners these years...this is a political mess...

First, 25 billion to research an existential problem is a drop in the bucket compared to say, the defense bucket. 

(Think of the approaching asteroid hypothetical.)

Second, I agree about the effect of money in politics.  If you want to blame anyone for that, don't focus on Democrats - they are just playing by the rules set by the John Roberts court, which prevents political reform to do something about it.

And I agree, it's a "political mess."

[icanthearyou 4,462]

21 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

It's not about just sitting around doing nothing, it is about finding real solutions to lower emissions while reliably meeting energy needs. EV's, wind, solar are not going to be able to effectively do so.

True.  Yet, completely disingenuous and false.  Great lie.

None of these are the solution.  All of these are small parts of the greater solution.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Maybe I have. 

I have not parsed the carbon trading proposal in detail.  Perhaps I'll get to it when I have more time.  I have not parsed carbon trading market in detail.  Perhaps I'll get to it when I have more time.

My understanding it's designed to provide incentives for individual companies to increase energy efficiency, which I understand but am still skeptical as I don't know the potential faults it has in actual practice.

I just generally like the idea of market-driven policy's (capitalism) instead of "command and control" policies as a matter of principle. 

(But I will say , beware of industry-generated propaganda to oppose otherwise good ideas. This looks suspicious in that regard.)

 

 

You are thinking about some of the LEED programs that provide tax breaks, incentives to be more efficient. 

I posted a video about carbon credits, essentially it is where a company or entity can buy "carbon offsets" such as paying XXX amount for a section of forest not to get cut down. So this allows them to emit more emissions. Problem is, many cases the land that was used for the credit is already protected and would not be cut down, etc. Another thing that happens is that they sell the same area of land over and over. Or in cases where companies bought credits from area in rain forests and that country goes ahead and lets them cut down and burn the land. 

It is kind of like buying a star..........

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

True.  Yet, completely disingenuous and false.  Great lie.

None of these are the solution.  All of these are small parts of the greater solution.

Then why does the left push it as the main solution? The issue isn't with the generation using those methods, it is the storage capacity. 

I never said they don't have a place, they just aren't the "end all be all" that the left thinks they are. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

26 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Then why does the left push it as the main solution? The issue isn't with the generation using those methods, it is the storage capacity. 

I never said they don't have a place, they just aren't the "end all be all" that the left thinks they are. 

Please, you are not that ignorant.  Don't be disingenuous.  The "main solution"? 

There is no "end all be all".   We have to adopt many, many solutions.  Stop condemning the efforts.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Please, you are not that ignorant.  Don't be disingenuous.  The "main solution"? 

There is no "end all be all".   We have to adopt many, many solutions.  Stop condemning the efforts.

What is your breakdown of the mix of different sources you think is best?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

What is your breakdown of the mix of different sources you think is best?

That answer is evolving with every breakthrough, every discovery.  I do believe nuclear is the most under appreciated at the moment.

[homersapien 11,362]

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

You are thinking about some of the LEED programs that provide tax breaks, incentives to be more efficient. 

I posted a video about carbon credits, essentially it is where a company or entity can buy "carbon offsets" such as paying XXX amount for a section of forest not to get cut down. So this allows them to emit more emissions. Problem is, many cases the land that was used for the credit is already protected and would not be cut down, etc. Another thing that happens is that they sell the same area of land over and over. Or in cases where companies bought credits from area in rain forests and that country goes ahead and lets them cut down and burn the land. 

It is kind of like buying a star..........

That sounds like a fraudulent abuse of the program's intent, which is a problem with administration, not with the concept.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

You're getting closer to understanding my points.

China's emissions are increasing because - like every other country with a relatively lower standard of living (per capita) they are trying to improve that standard of living.

That's why it is so important that the U.S. show leadership to maintain a relatively high standard of living with relatively low - eventually zero - emissions.

Or to put it another way, if these countries all suddenly increased their standard of living by exactly duplicating current U.S. performance in per capita emissions,  the human species is doomed. 

No matter how well we seem to be doing in absolute numbers, we cannot hold ourselves up as the standard for everyone else to follow with our current per capita emissions rate.

That might be easier for us in the short term, but it will be disastrous for our progeny.

 

 

Your focus on per capita emissions doesn't tell the whole story and quite frankly not a good metric to go by. For instance India has a per capita emission output that is about 7.5 times less than the US. However if you consider that India accounts for only 3.10% of global industrial output and contributes 7.10% towards global emissions the per capita doesn't really mean much. In fact using this metric makes the US second worse in the top 10 highest emitting countries only behind Canada. It even makes Iran look like they are better than the US with a per capita rate that is about 1.80 times less than the US. But they are ranked 8th in top emitting countries as the contribute 1.8% to global emissions yet their industrial output is only 0.27%. That is a 6.63 multiple difference. 

Some European countries are doing very good, but you aren't really comparing apples to apples when you consider the size of the country, the fact that the best performing ones have great public transportation systems. Also, can we really trust the data from China? My guess is that reality isn't quite what they report.

You should stop looking at this issue from a political point of view. Looks like you have been fed all the talking points others on the left have. The fact of the matter is the US is still a leader in reducing emissions, you can try to pick and choose what data you want to present to make your case such as the per capita argument. That is not a good metric in this case to make comparisons. Do you honestly think that if Iran were to ramp up their industrial output to match ours that they would pollute less than the US? Do you really think that Canada pollutes 25% worse than the US?

 

[homersapien 11,362]

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Your focus on per capita emissions doesn't tell the whole story and quite frankly not a good metric to go by. For instance India has a per capita emission output that is about 7.5 times less than the US. However if you consider that India accounts for only 3.10% of global industrial output and contributes 7.10% towards global emissions the per capita doesn't really mean much. In fact using this metric makes the US second worse in the top 10 highest emitting countries only behind Canada. It even makes Iran look like they are better than the US with a per capita rate that is about 1.80 times less than the US. But they are ranked 8th in top emitting countries as the contribute 1.8% to global emissions yet their industrial output is only 0.27%. That is a 6.63 multiple difference. 

Some European countries are doing very good, but you aren't really comparing apples to apples when you consider the size of the country, the fact that the best performing ones have great public transportation systems. Also, can we really trust the data from China? My guess is that reality isn't quite what they report.

You should stop looking at this issue from a political point of view. Looks like you have been fed all the talking points others on the left have. The fact of the matter is the US is still a leader in reducing emissions, you can try to pick and choose what data you want to present to make your case such as the per capita argument. That is not a good metric in this case to make comparisons. Do you honestly think that if Iran were to ramp up their industrial output to match ours that they would pollute less than the US? Do you really think that Canada pollutes 25% worse than the US?

 

I am not politicizing anything. 

I am presenting a valid analytical argument.  You are claiming it's political because you don't understand it.  You're talking all around it - while mostly making my point - but you still don't "get" it. 

Bottom line, the fact you are so simple-minded is not my problem, it's yours.

PS:  The adverb is "well" not "good".

[wdefromtx 3,159]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not politicizing anything. 

I am presenting a valid analytical argument.  You are claiming it's political because you don't understand it.  You're talking all around it - while mostly making my point - but you still don't "get" it. 

Bottom line, the fact you are so simple-minded is not my problem, it's yours.

PS:  The adverb is "well" not "good".

Lmao, you say I don’t get it. Avoiding the facts like usual. BTW, we can get very close to China’s per capita by leaning on natural gas for more electricity and transportation. It will reduce emissions way more dramatically and quicker than other forms. 
 

You can’t even answer the questions I ask you. I didn’t expect you too though. 
 

Based on your way of thinking, India China and Iran are doing more to prevent pollution. Guess they are way more advanced than Canada and the US. Maybe we should ask Iran about their clean energy. 🤣

BTW, China has a lower per capita to begin with because they are piggybacking off of the advancements we already made. So you should be thankful for that otherwise their emissions would be way worse.

All of this assumes we can trust their data. 
 

You aren’t thinking analytically, you are thinking emotionally and zoned in on one metric that for whatever reason you think is the best way to make a comparison. 
 

 

[Leftfield 2,593]

14 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Lmao, you say I don’t get it. Avoiding the facts like usual. BTW, we can get very close to China’s per capita by leaning on natural gas for more electricity and transportation. It will reduce emissions way more dramatically and quicker than other forms. 
 

It would, but it would also put more pressure on finding sources and getting it out of the ground. As mentioned, China is pouring huge amounts of money into natural gas, for the very reason you mention....at present, it is the easiest and fastest way to reduce emissions. You can bet that developing nations will look to it, as well. Like any fossil fuel, it's a finite resource. Will we find sufficient quantities to keep it affordable as more and more countries begin using it as a major part of their infrastructure? Possibly. Is it wise to put all our eggs in that basket? In my opinion, no. You may disagree.

14 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Based on your way of thinking, India China and Iran are doing more to prevent pollution. Guess they are way more advanced than Canada and the US. Maybe we should ask Iran about their clean energy.

You seem to be arguing that homer's only frame of reference for judging emissions is per capita. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he, or anyone else, is saying that. Of course overall emissions need to be considered, but per capita is a very important piece of the overall puzzle, for many reasons already mentioned. It's foolish to ignore data that can help understand the overall equation of why the numbers are what they are. You accuse homer of thinking emotionally, but I believe if you really stopped to think about what goes into the per capita number you would agree it needs to be considered. Of course Iran's and India's per capita emissions are lower. This is not because they have more efficient technologies, it's because the quality of life on average is below that of the average North American. Houses are smaller,  so even though air conditioning is becoming more widespread, it's easier to cool most residences. There are also more people living in the average household, so you have efficiency of scale. Cars are not as widespread, and consumerism is nowhere close to the level it is here, along with all the business and infrastructure that entails. 

I've also not denied that China has piggybacked off of some technologies developed here. That does not mean they're not investing in developing their own solutions (they are). That government is ruthless and is hell-bent on becoming the preeminent power in the world. They will do whatever they can to catch up and surge ahead, and they are no longer as far behind as many people think. They've already shown significant advancement in developing their war machine, particularly with their navy, next-generation aircraft, and hypersonic missiles. Cyber warfare is of course one of their specialties. And economic warfare is something they are in a great position to use because of how much we have come to depend on cheap products and raw materials from them. Developing clean energy is just another piece of that, because the vast majority of developed nations are moving that direction and will be looking for where they can find it fastest and cheapest. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Leftfield

[homersapien 11,362]

11 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Lmao, you say I don’t get it. Avoiding the facts like usual. BTW, we can get very close to China’s per capita by leaning on natural gas for more electricity and transportation. It will reduce emissions way more dramatically and quicker than other forms. 
 

You can’t even answer the questions I ask you. I didn’t expect you too though. 
 

Based on your way of thinking, India China and Iran are doing more to prevent pollution. Guess they are way more advanced than Canada and the US. Maybe we should ask Iran about their clean energy. 🤣

BTW, China has a lower per capita to begin with because they are piggybacking off of the advancements we already made. So you should be thankful for that otherwise their emissions would be way worse.

All of this assumes we can trust their data. 
 

You aren’t thinking analytically, you are thinking emotionally and zoned in on one metric that for whatever reason you think is the best way to make a comparison. 
 

 

1. I am not avoiding facts, you are.

2. I have never said China and India are doing better than we are in limiting emissions.  To know that, one would need to compare the investments they are making per capita.  Because of their population it may be they aren't doing as well as we are.  I don't know and neither do you - at least you have not made that argument using data.

3. I don't know what's happening in Iran, I haven't looked for it.

4. I am glad if any country "piggybacks" off our technological advancements to reduce emissions.  Likewise, we should "piggyback" off their examples.

That's one of the major points of why we should be showing leadership and - not making the excuse that we shouldn't because China and India are the bigger problem (which is obvious because of their population.)

5. I am not "zoned in" on any one metric. I am introducing what is apparently a new way to you  of viewing reality based on the common mode of analysis used by scientists and economists to normalize absolute data.  It's how you accurately compare dissimilar countries.

You are hopelessly ignorant about this,  You don't understand it. There's no shame in that, but you are making a fool of yourself by being belligerent about it.

You think physics really gives a s*** about this country or that country?  It's responding to what humans are doing.  All humans in the world, period.   If you want to study that, you have to consider per capita data to get a accurate picture.

You sound like the typical ugly American. You think we are the only ones in the world with a right to enjoy the standard of living we have.  You criticize other countries when actually, they have a much much lower emissions rate per capita than we do.  For whatever reasons (almost exclusively lifestyle), they are currently doing better than we are in the amount of emissions they emit per capita.  And that's a fact.

I have no more time to try to rectify your problem with understanding this perspective. You simply refuse to open your mind to alternative - but valid - ways of viewing the issue.

You don't get it but then, you don't want to. 

(The alternative is that you just aren't very intelligent.)

 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

1. I am not avoiding facts, you are.

2. I have never said China and India are doing better than we are in limiting emissions.  To know that, one would need to compare the investments they are making per capita.  Because of their population it may be they aren't doing as well as we are.  I don't know and neither to do since you have presented that date either.

3. I don't know what the data is for Iran, I haven't looked for it.

4. I am glad if any country "piggybacks" off our technological advancements to reduce emission.  Likewise, we should "piggyback" off their examples. That's one of the major points of why we should be showing leadership and not making the excuse that we shouldn't because China and India are the bigger problem (which obviously they are because they have much larger populations.)

5. I am not "zoned in" on any one metric. I am introducing what is apparently a new way to you  of viewing reality based on the common mode of analysis used by scientists and economists to normalize absolute data.  It's how you accurately compare dissimilar countries.

You are hopelessly ignorant about this,  You don't understand it. 

There's no shame in that but you are making a fool of yourself by being belligerently ignorant.

You think physics really gives a s*** about this country or that country?  It's responding to what humans are doing.  All humans in the world, period.   If you want to study that, you have to consider per capita data to get a complete picture.

I have no more time to try to rectify your ignorance on this.  You simply refuse to open your mind to alternative - but valid - ways of viewing the issue, which is far worse than your ignorance.

 

Then do you realize that countries that develop and gain more quality of living will most likely have their per capita jump upward? This points back to what Leftfield mentioned…Countries aren’t the same, many have smaller houses, multiple families in them, etc. Which is going to skew per capita downwards. More cars will cause it to jump upward as well. The living standards create a situation where it’s not really normalizing  the data correctly to look at emission reductions or how well they are doing. 

What the per capita shows is that our freedom loving society with all our cars and little public transportation, big houses, etc. we require so much more power. But, I’m talking about reducing emissions by type of power generation. I’m not including building more public transportation, more efficient buildings, etc. When you include those items then yes per capita is a better indicator. However when looking at energy production only, you need to look closer to the % of industry of global output and compare to % of emissions of global output. 
 

I think we are talking about two different things, perhaps you are including our overall behavior and I’m only talking about energy production itself at the moment. 
 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

 Then do you realize that countries that develop and gain more quality of living will most likely have their per capita jump upward? This points back to what Leftfield mentioned…Countries aren’t the same, many have smaller houses, multiple families in them, etc. Which is going to skew per capita downwards. More cars will cause it to jump upward as well. The living standards create a situation where it’s not really normalizing  the data correctly to look at emission reductions or how well they are doing. 

 

Of course I realize that.  And if they approach our standard of living without enormous gains in reducing emissions per capita - by switching to renewable fuels, nuclear power, and whatever new technology becomes available - we are all sunk.

We as a species cannot afford to have everyone emit the same amount per capita we currently do.

That is exactly why we need to show leadership to develop the strategies to reduce emissions per capita.  There will always be differences between countries in standard of living, but the amount of emission per capita for the human species must be much lower than our current values.

This is why it's so crucial for us to show leadership in reducing our emissions per capita.  It's crucial for human survival. 

The only alternative would be for us to enslave the rest of the world and keep their standard of living (emissions per capita) lower than human aspiration would accept.  I don't think that is morally or practically possible in the age of nuclear weapons.

Again, you're starting to get it.

[homersapien 11,362]

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

What the per capita shows is that our freedom loving society with all our cars and little public transportation, big houses, etc. we require so much more power. But, I’m talking about reducing emissions by type of power generation. I’m not including building more public transportation, more efficient buildings, etc. When you include those items then yes per capita is a better indicator. However when looking at energy production only, you need to look closer to the % of industry of global output and compare to % of emissions of global output. 

 

Exactly. 

And as you say, the goal is to reduce the amount of emissions everyone produces which is just as much a function of efficiency and conservation as it is energy consumption.

We as a country have a HUGE opportunity in that regard. It's the area I have personally focused on all my life in choices such as passive solar home design, high mileage cars, etc.  Admittedly, I do so to morally justify my (still) relatively high emissions compared to people in the rest of the world, but I am sort of kidding myself. I do better than most Americans of similar economic status but it's still way high compared to most of the world with their standard of living. 

[homersapien 11,362]

On 7/30/2022 at 9:40 AM, wdefromtx said:

I  think we are talking about two different things, perhaps you are including our overall behavior and I’m only talking about energy production itself at the moment.

Of course I include our overall behavior when evaluating our performance in addressing emissions.  That's exactly what emission per capita measures.  And it accounts for most of the differences in our per capita emissions vs. countries like India and China.

We could greatly reduce our contribution to the problem with lifestyle changes.

(Ever notice the "conga-line" of huge, gas-guzzeling and idleing SUV's qued up at your local elementary school to pick up one or two kids? That's just one example. There are thousands and thousands of others.)

Granted, it would be nice if we could be 100% "clean" energy (renewables and/or nuclear) ASAP.  After all, that's the ultimate goal.  But - just like many on this forum keep bleeting  - we've got to depend on fossil fuels at least somewhat in the meantime.

The point is we need to accelerate our efforts using every tool in the box.  Time is not on our (humanity's) side. 

And we don't need to be throwing up absolute data from much more populous countries - as if we are doing so much better overall in addressing the problem than they are - as an excuse not to try harder or have more aggressive policies.  Figuratively speaking, that's like throwing rocks while living in a glass house.

But you starting to actually understand my point regarding the consideration of per capita data. 

See how much more rational (and civil) the discussion has gotten?

Edited July 31, 2022 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Exactly. 

And as you say, the goal is to reduce the amount of emissions everyone produces which is just as much a function of efficiency and conservation as it is energy consumption.

We as a country have a HUGE opportunity in that regard. It's the area I have personally focused on all my life in choices such as passive solar home design, high mileage cars, etc.  Admittedly, I do so to morally justify my (still) relatively high emissions compared to people in the rest of the world, but I am sort of kidding myself. I do better than most Americans of similar economic status but it's still way high compared to most of the world with their standard of living. 

It’s not that I’m now  “getting” it, we were talking about slightly different things. 
 

In this conversation I was specifically talking about one part to the equation. I’m all for being the model of efficiency, it only helps everyone. That’s why I support LEED designs. My house is a “green home” and is super efficient. I can keep my temperature as low as I want and my power consumption is about a third of my previous house. 
 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Of course I include our overall behavior when evaluating our performance in addressing emissions.  That's exactly what emission per capita measures.  And it accounts for most of the differences in our per capita emissions vs. countries like India and China.

We could greatly reduce our contribution to the problem with lifestyle changes.

(Ever notice the "conga-line" of huge, gas-guzzeling and idleing SUV's qued up at your local elementary school to pick up one or two kids? That's just one example. There are thousands and thousands of examples.)

Granted, it would be nice if we could be 100% "clean" energy (renewables or nuclear) ASAP.  After all that's the ultimate goal.  But - just like many on this forum keep bleeting  - we've got to depend on fossil fuels at least somewhat in the meantime.

The point is we need to accelerate our efforts using every tool in the box.  Time is not on our side.  And we don't need to be throwing up absolute data from much more populous countries to compare ourselves to as if we are doing such a better job in addressing the problem than they are.

You starting to understand. 

See how much more rational (and civil) the discussion has gotten?

Yes, the conga line of soccer moms. Seen it many times. lol 

[homersapien 11,362]

Here's and interesting article that is topical to the discussion (emphasis mine):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/07/30/climate-solar-manchin-china/

How Joe Manchin’s change of heart could revive the U.S. solar industry

An industry on the skids is suddenly positioned for a major resurgence

By Evan Halper

July 30, 2022

DALTON, Ga. — The gamble by a company here churning out large volumes of solar panels was starting to look risky.

Its plan to be a launchpad for a solar manufacturing resurgence was already audacious in an industry so dominated by China, whose cheap products drove the closure of many American solar plants. Government investment championed by the White House was supposed to position domestic firms to compete, but a paralyzed Congress was refusing to write the check.

But the wager in Dalton by Qcells North America may have paid off with an ambitious climate package now on a path to President Biden’s desk. The bill, negotiated in part by Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), would deliver billions of dollars in tax and other incentives to U.S. solar manufacturers, equipping them with government support on a scale of those China used to corner the market.

“This is a historic climate bill, but it’s also one of — if not the — most significant industrial policy bills of this era,” said Harry Godfrey, who oversees domestic manufacturing policy for Advanced Energy Economy, a trade group that represents clean tech companies eager to ramp up U.S. production.

The boost to the industry comes at a time of solar power reckoning for America.

Bringing back domestic production is no longer a nostalgic aspiration. It is a national security issue. Solar panels produce some of the cheapest electricity, a significant asset at a time of skyrocketing energy prices and aggressive climate targets. China’s domination over the solar supply chain also poses an ever-growing threat to America’s energy independence and financial health.

“This is a globally competitive market the U.S. has fallen behind in,” said Scott Moskowitz, who heads marketing strategy at Qcells North America, a subsidiary of Korean industrial giant Hanwha. “This country never had policies that created the environment possible to compete. This legislation changes things a lot. It will make companies want to invest in new manufacturing in Georgia and around the country.”

Qcells established a manufacturing beach head in Dalton in 2018 at the urging of local officials. Its panels are assembled using wafers and cells from abroad, but the company aims to help reseed a domestic supply chain so that every component of a solar panel can be made in America.

“There is no shortage of demand,” said Moskowitz, standing on the floor of the sprawling Dalton factory. “It is just a question of whether factories like this can exist in this country and be profitable.”

The energy security risks created by the collapse of the U.S. solar manufacturing industry over the past decade have come into sharp focus amid power shortages gripping the globe, propelled by Russia’s control over key energy sources and supply chains. But the current state of play in solar production leaves America’s energy transition vulnerable to the whims of another rival superpower.

“Project developers here were willing to rely on China for panels and never thought through the long game and how overly dependent we would become,” said Mark Widmar, chief executive of First Solar, one of the only solar manufacturing giants still operating in the United States. “We are at a vulnerable inflection point. If we can’t figure this out now, I’m not sure we will be at a place where we can have a domestic industry.”

Widmar said on an earnings call Thursday that if the climate package passes, his company will look to expand more aggressively in the United States.

China now controls more than 80 percent of solar panel production. That includes commanding 95 percent of the production of certain elements that are essential to making a panel, including polysilicon and wafers. Much of the polysilicon supply for the world’s solar panels is processed in China’s Xinjiang region, where companies are accused of using forced labor.

The International Energy Agency warns in a new report that the lack of diverse supply chains leaves the United States and other nations on a shaky energy foundation.

China’s strategy of investing more than $50 billion to dominate the solar supply chain is paying enormous dividends for that country. As American companies struggle to bring new plants online that can supply enough panels for a few of gigawatts of energy, a single facility now being built in China will churn out 20 gigawatts* of solar capacity — accounting for 1 in 7 panels produced worldwide. 

*(Note: the average out put of nuclear power plant is 1 gigawatt.)

It’s a harsh reality for the United States, where the modern solar cell was invented and which not long ago was positioned to lead the industry. Seven factories have closed here since 2018 alone.

The challenges facing the industry are underscored by an ongoing fight between the companies that make panels and the U.S. developers that buy and install them. The meager U.S. production has strained alliances in the solar world. Domestic manufacturers want the Biden administration to enforce trade laws that would restrict the flow of Chinese panels into the United States. Developers and installers protested a Commerce Department investigation into potential tariff dodging, warning there are so few American-made panels that it would trigger shortages, soaring prices and the cancellation of big projects.

The investigation threatened to choke off the flow of solar panels into the United States, jeopardizing Biden’s clean energy goals. Last month, the White House moved to avoid a shortage by exempting American purchasers of potentially illegally imported panels from penalties for two years.

The move landed like a gut punch to manufacturers. They were unimpressed by the accompanying measures Biden unveiled at the time to boost American manufacturing plants, which included engaging the Defense Production Act.

But the outlook brightened dramatically for American manufacturers with the revival of the climate bill, emerging Thursday night after a turnabout by Manchin. The senator’s earlier opposition had appeared to doom the legislation.

Biden administration officials say the incentives give the American manufacturing industry motivation to ramp up production during the stretch in which tariff enforcement has been relaxed, showing that it can meet the intense demand for panels. At that point, under the White House road map, the federal government would resume aggressive enforcement of trade laws, further boosting the industry.

Big U.S. purchasers of solar panels say they remain ready to step up and buy American. One group of solar project developers has pledged to spend $6 billion on American made panels over the next four years. The group says it wants to send a market signal that if the industry scales up domestically, there are ready and willing buyers.

“We are trying to jump-start this domestic supply chain,” said Leo Moreno, president of AES Clean Energy. “It is a very large commitment from leading players.”

The plan hinges on the approval of the tax and other incentives in the climate package. “For this to be successful over the long term, suppliers need to scale up,” Moreno said. “If the subsidies end up not passing, they will not be able to.”

One company already scaling is First Solar, a firm that built its business plan around Biden’s climate agenda. It is building its third plant in Ohio and uses a different technology than others in the industry, making thin film modules that can be manufactured without the imported cells and wafers used in 95 percent of solar panel production.

Back in Dalton, the same community that sent anti-solar crusader Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) to Congress is rooting for the subsidies.

Dalton has long been known as the “flooring capital of the world,” a nod to the many textile manufacturing operations there that make carpet and other materials used in home building. Yet it is eager to diversify, looking to lure industries that are less vulnerable to the fluctuations of the housing market.

“We want them to be able to make solar panels here and be just as competitive as anywhere else,” said Carl Campbell, executive director of the regional development authority, which lobbied Qcells to locate in Dalton. “We’ve had a lot of people call and say, ‘Hey, how can I get involved? I want to help build something that is going to make a difference.’ … Regardless of where you fall politically, I think everybody can support good jobs with good benefits to do something that might help our world.”

Edited July 31, 2022 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,050]

Uighur power!

[I_M4_AU 7,799]

26 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Uighur power!

That population doesn’t have a large carbon footprint.