

Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China - yanw
http://www.nytimes.com/chrome/#/a/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html

======
onteria
This brings up some really weird reader that screws up the layout in Chrome.
Here's a standard one page link instead:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-
environmen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-
environment/15solar.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

~~~
raintrees
Thanks for this link, I would have otherwise skipped this article for now. I
received a warning that nyt was trying to store data on my system "for offline
use."

~~~
knowtheory
The link above is to a page intended for the NYT's Google Chrome App. It does
indeed cache articles and the like in your browser as per the HTML5 spec, so
that if you were to lose your connectivity (say on a mobile device) you could
continue to browse and review stuff the app has cached.

I happen to think that this layout is considerably less annoying than the
NYT's main site.

~~~
raintrees
Thanks. After finishing the article, I found the definition of that request:
[https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Offline_resources_in_Firefo...](https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Offline_resources_in_Firefox).

I am guessing I had pre-primed myself for paranoid thinking after previously
reading another HN post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2106677>.

------
cagatayk
So we're loaning the finance industry trillion dollars at essentially zero
interest rate just so they can lend it back to federal government by buying
treasuries and pocket the difference (and thus "recover from the crisis"),
while China lends tens of billions dollars more than US does to solar energy
companies. I hope I'm not the only one who finds the implications scary.

------
ck2
This is exactly what is going to happen with the lithium battery technologies
being developed for hybrids - lots of federal money being poured into research
with no restrictions on where they are going to be made.

LiFePo4 battery technology was invented in the USA but now is mostly made in
China.

Why do we protect corn with massive subsidies and massive import tariffs
(creating horror shows of destructive ethanol, food products and animal feed)
but not our technology and jobs?

~~~
riobard
You want all the (potential) pollution?

~~~
anonymous246
Citation? This seems to be a reflexive "counterpoint" to anybody who says that
manufacturing can be done in the US.

I live near a car plant and have lived near a small semiconductor fab (in the
US) and I can tell you that I've _never_ seen any smoke or smelled anything.
I've also lived in India and even small-scale industries used to emit smoke
and smells (indicating chemicals).

The point being that China and India _choose_ to pollute (to save costs), not
that the technology to manufacture with low impact doesn't exist.

In almost any major US city, if you go a couple of miles perpendicular to most
major roads, you will likely see some light industrial activity. It's usually
so quiet and non-polluting that you don't even realize it's there. At least,
that's been my experience. YMMV.

~~~
riobard
That's exactly my point. You don't want pollution. Factories in the U.S. need
to take care of that. And it costs money.

Moving to less regulated places like China and India saves that cost.

~~~
anonymous246
Ok. Your original post sounded as if you thought the technology to do things
with low impact didn't exist (i.e., pollution was inevitable).

On a different note: So you're OK with pollution in China? You do realize that
China and the US are on the same planet, right?

Airborne pollution from China is exacerbating fog in LA [1]. A beneficial
example is that sands of the Sahara are a major source of fertilization in the
Amazon [2].

[1]
[http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=392&catid=10...](http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=392&catid=10&subcatid=66)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_storm>

~~~
riobard
No, I'm not OK with pollution in China at all. I'm from China!

And having lived in Germany for a while, I do believe there are clean
technologies. The place where I used to live is close to a coal-burning power
station. I can see the white smoke from its chimney everyday, but the quality
of air in that area is insanely great (compared to what I used to have in
China).

I'm not sure how much more clean technologies cost there, yet somehow Germans
found a way to keep their industry within its border. I hope U.S. firms could
learn something there. However I'm not so optimistic given the vast financial
benefits of moving dirty industries to other continents and relatively small
number of people like you guys here that worry about such things. Most people
probably won't give a damn.

~~~
anonymous246
> No, I'm not OK with pollution in China at all. I'm from China!

Whoa! :) Thanks for your responses.

------
melvinram
I upvoted because I hadn't seen this layout for the NYT website before. It's
kind of neat, especially when you click the X button the top right. Very
cleanly laid out.

~~~
barrkel
<http://i.imgur.com/BAefW.png>

Very clean :)

(Firefox 3.6.13 on Windows 7)

------
pstuart
It appears from the outset that Evergreen was operating in bad faith in
accepting government stimulus, but they did have their back against the wall.

China has dirt cheap labor, no pollution regulations and strong government
support -- how can any US manufacturing survive against that?

~~~
mikecarlucci
According the article, and assuming Evergreen and China are honest about
environmental regulations, the labor prices are not the real issue here. It's
grants and loans made by the Chinese banks and local governments that are
making up the bulk of the savings.

Still, $300 per month per employee in China vs $5400 in Massachusetts is going
to turn some attention to China regardless of other costs.

~~~
ximeng
Would be interesting to know how polluting these factories are. I visited a
solar panel factory in China and it was pretty much as described here: clean,
white rooms, automated machines, protective clothing for staff. Didn't look
like there was much sign of pollution.

The other question is the long term effect of this export of work to China.
Can they really make a profit at this rate, or are they hoping that by selling
below cost and concentrating manufacturing within China they will eventually
be able to invest in research at a better return and one day start extracting
economic rents on their monopoly in manufacturing knowledge.

~~~
knowtheory
well, the other thing to consider is whether China is basically trying to do
what Walmart did to it's competitors.

If you can undercut competition to the point where your competitors drop out,
then you have free reign to do whatever you wish in the market, since you have
a monopoly.

~~~
ximeng
This depends on how quickly you can ramp up capacity if China starts to
increase prices or decrease supply. My guess with developed countries is that
the answer to that is "not quickly", as we tend to be more fastidious about
bureaucracy. The rate of ramping back up capacity decreases even quicker once
China starts to get an R&D advantage from economies of scale and years of
research into improving their processes. Compare the hoo hah over rare earth
metals.

Who's responsible for long-term planning of renewables in the US? The first
result in DDG for "US renewable energy plan" is "US renewable energy plan
'shortsighted'":

[http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/...](http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/us-
renewable-energy-plan-short.html?DCMP=ILC-
hmts&nsref=specrt11_head_Misguided%20states)

------
PonyGumbo
This is local for me. We're losing 800 jobs.

------
john_horton
On the bright side, the supposed force driving the move (plunging prices for
solar panels) is a good thing.

