China Dominates Solar. Can the U.S. Even Stand a Chance? -- Wall Street Journal- U.S. vs. China

[Caribbeans]

82,058 views Jul 21, 2023 #Solar #WSJ #China

Solar technology, an innovation birthed in the U.S., is now dominated by China on the global stage. Behind the simple switch from conventional to renewable energy lies a complex web of supply chains, manufacturing strategies and geopolitical rivalries.

How did China manage to monopolize this industry? And what needs to be done for the U.S. to reclaim its pioneering role in solar technology?

WSJ takes you on a deep dive into the dynamics of solar power, the transformation of the industry and the roadmap for the future.

0:00 China’s control over solar energy
0:39 Key comparisons between China and the U.S.
1:41 Raw materials in solar panels
2:25 U.S. manufacturing challenges
3:30 U.S.’s plan to catch up

U.S. vs. China
This original video series explores the rivalry between the two superpowers’ competing efforts to develop the technologies that are reshaping our world.

Scientific American 2016:

Why China Is Dominating the Solar Industry

Between 2008 and 2013, China's solar-electric panel industry dropped world prices by 80 percent

By John Fialka, ClimateWire on December 19, 2016

Between 2008 and 2013, China’s fledgling solar-electric panel industry dropped world prices by 80 percent, a stunning achievement in a fiercely competitive high-tech market. China had leapfrogged from nursing a tiny, rural-oriented solar program in the 1990s to become the globe’s leader in what may soon be the world’s largest renewable energy source...more
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-china-is-dominating-the-solar-industry/

China is now doing the EXACT SAME THING with Hydrogen. It's not a secret and they are not hiding their intentions.

Blowing trillions of dollars on world hegemony wasn't the best idea dreamed up in the last 25 years?
http://web.archive.org/web/20020604003105/http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[Think. Again.]

1. I know Biden is aware of all this...

...after all he DID run and win on an anti-fossil fuel campaign platform.

What I don't understand is what caused the sudden 'stop' after his first few steps to get the transition started?

The trump years set us waaay behind, and Biden started his term well, but we have soooo far to go, why aren't we moving?

[NNadir]

2. Who cares who controls a useless expensive industry?

The only people who might have an interest would be people looking to claim a need for redundancy, a redundancy, in the case of the hydrogen scam is actually a call to sell fossil fuels by pretending a useless but popular solar fantasy is remotely real.

It isn't real. It's a slick marketing chimera.

The planet is on fire. People are dying all over the planet from extreme heat, and after half a century of grotesque hype, the solar/hydrogen chant continues, this serving only to expand and support the continued use of coal, oil, and gas.

[Think. Again.]

3. The planet IS on fire....

And it's true, after half a century of trying to transition to solar and wind, at least 20 years of hydrogen, and OVER 70 YEARS OF NUCLEAR available to us to end fossil fuel use, we are STILL using CO2 emitting energy.

The U.S. has a long way to go to put all of our non-CO2 options to use, we need to do all of this as quickly as we possibly can.

[walkingman]

4. What is your solution? Whatever it is, unless we do more than we are now we are screwed.

[NNadir]

5. There is one and only one form of sustainable, infinitely expandable...

...form of primary energy left to us. It's nuclear energy.

If one looks, one will see the fossil fuel salespeople/sales bots trying to raise radiation paranoia and ignorance along with enthusiasm for derivative forms of secondary energy that destroy exergy, increase demand for fossil fuels and drive climate change, notably hydrogen but only slightly less disgusting, batteries.

[walkingman]

6. I know nothing about it but it would be nice if we could develop a nuclear application that

is easier to build, quicker to build, and has proven safety features. Otherwise, getting it approved on a massive enough scale anytime soon will be impossible. (My opinion based on the past).

It is pretty obvious that the fossil fuel industry will control the situation. They own most governments in the world, including ours, and will not go quietly. I honestly believe that profit far outweighs human lives and will until we literally burn up, wash away, or are blown away.

I know in Texas, people will fight the possible loss of jobs regardless of the human cost. Not sure what other states think but Texas worships the fossil fuel industry as much or possibly more than Jesus Christ himself and that is saying a lot for a Bible Belt state.

[NNadir]

13. How much "safer" should nuclear energy be?

The commercialn nuclear industry is 70 years old.

Seven million people will die this year from air pollution.

That's 19,000 today, tomorrow, the day after that. Every day next week, every day next year.

If nuclear industry should be "safer," is there any evidence that over a period of 70 years it killed 19,000 people?

[walkingman]

15. Good point - do you ☮honestly☮ think that we can get nuclear approved at the scale it will take

to solve our environmental issues? The big question "Is there really anything we can do to stop the continued rise in temperature or air/water pollution on a world wide basis? OR do future generations have to accept that the best we can do it prepare for the inevitable?" I trust science but since we have waited so long to even begin to do something about the problems what is the answer for our children and grandchildren?

I wonder....

[NNadir]

19. I do not know what can be done, but I do know what must be done.

If we are to address climate change, we must invest maximal resources into nuclear energy.

Whether we can convince ourselves as a culture to stop having reactionary fantasies about so called "renewable energy," or stop allowing slick salespeople and sales bots to rebrand dangerous fossil fuels - especially in a using a environmentally abhorrent path of exergy destruction - as "green" hydrogen, or rather whwther we embrace what works, nuclear energy, is not a technical issue, but rather a social issue.

Antinuke marketeers have been very successful at marketing fear and ignorance. Fear and ignorance in fact dominate most thinking about energy. It shows. The planet us burning. If the burning gets bad enough, will things change? I cannot say.

I will say this: I have been advocating for nuclear energy ever since I understood the outcome of Chernobyl, an outcome that caused me to question the assumptions drilled into my brain by popular mythology.

I do see attitudes changing in favor of the last, best hope for a sustainable world, nuclear energy. We have a long way to go though. The question is how much more must burn, how much must be lost before we face reality.

There are still people selling fossil fuels, and lying about doing so with slick evasion, and we are still buried under the weight of marketed ignorance. All the hydrogen marketing videos are in effect, marketing ignorance.

There's some hope, but I cannot report unbridled optimism. Things will get much worse before they improve.

[honest.abe]

7. That dude is hard core focused on nuclear.

His only solution is nuclear and if you dont agree with him you are idiot or clueless. His favorite insult is that those who support hydrogen or solar or wind have never opened a scientific textbook. I stopped responded to him months ago.

[NNadir]

8. Absolutely.

I will not apologize for it either, dude.

I note that very few people who whine about me ever do show evidence of having opened a scientific text of any type. My posts by contrast already full of them.

[Think. Again.]

9. I strongly suspect nnadir is...

...one of many people attempting to stall the transition away from fossil fuels by pretending we have to only use nuclear, which is absurd for so many obvious reasons.

However, I think it's important for us to address and correct nnadir's mis- and dis-information posts whenever we see them so that anyone reading them is not misled by the pro-fossil fuel propaganda nnadir is trying to plant.

[honest.abe]

10. Yeah, I dont really know for sure what his motives are.

I dont think he is fake, he truly believes he is right. I think he is the kind of person who thinks black and white. Its either right or wrong and no grey area or no compromise. Sometimes that works but in this case it doesn't.

[Think. Again.]

11. Well I do know...

..that there are people out there who are heavily engaged in spreading disinformation to try and stall the energy transition as long as possible, and nnadir's posts fit that model to a T. In addition, nnadir seems intelligent enough to realize the the contradictions of their own posts and yet they persist and continue to repeat the same falsehoods. Also, their offensive posts are obviously NOT trying to actually win anyone over to the argument that nuclear power can be very useful in the transition, even considering it's risks, and I personally believe we SHOULD be trying to make that case.

In any case, the reduction of CO2 emissions is a very serious issue and I still feel that wrong information like nnadir's needs to be corrected

[honest.abe]

12. So if that is the case why is he purposely "spreading disinformation"??

[Think. Again.]

14. The idea is to...

...cast confusion about the situation we're in regarding CO2 emissions.

They don't really support nuclear energy, they know that using ONLY nuclear energy is an impossibility, that is just a ruse to get people to think they are also anti-fossil fuel so that people will empathize with them and consider their arguments against any and all other fossil fuel alternatives.

Michael Shellenberger, featured in the article below and one of the more notorious climate-deniers, used the same "pro-nuclear' front as nnadir does.

Here's a great post made today by Hatrack on some of the more well-paid dis-info people:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127164583

And here's some more info on the massive dis-information campaigns being pushed by the fossil fuel industry:




There's a lot more info out there, it's a big business.

[honest.abe]

16. Thanks for the links.

However I dont believe NNadir is a paid dis-info person. He is a long-time member who has been consistent with his comments going back to the beginnings of DU. His posts are often very detailed fully supported by scientific published articles. I agree with much of what he says, he just goes off the rails at times criticizing hydrogen, solar, wind, basically anything non-nuclear and harshly insulting anyone who supports non-nuclear solutions to climate change. I think he's just a very stubborn old dude who thinks he's smarter than everyone else on this subject.

[Think. Again.]

17. Either way...

...their wrong information and manipulated statistics and data could have an unbased, negative, and misleading affect on the public perception of the need to transition away from fossil fuels and the only path available to us to do that.

Their support of other dis-informers as well as their pretense of presenting scientific research that does not apply to the topic under discussion in order to gaslight other discussion participants negates any point they may have about the potential use of nuclear power to achieve the transition as quickly as possible.

Their posts can not and should not be taken seriously on this very important and complex issue of decreasing and eliminating the use of fossil fuels.

[honest.abe]

18. Totally agree with you on this.