[dissident]

What the deciders are drooling over is the prospect of hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers completely overshadowing the 150 million US consumers (the ends of the population distribution are not active consumers). So what if 50 million US workers become poor and have to scrape at odd jobs to survive. There will be 200 million or more Chinese to take their place in the global economy. If you add India and other developing economies then those numbers are even larger.

But I think that the deciders are wrong. Globalism will die along with the fossil fuel era. Also, China has many problems and its own agendas. Maybe it is acting like a banana republic now, but it is not going to pay tribute to white devils forever.

[Plantagenet]

why the US doesn't set up economic policies that help us?

The reality is that the US government sets up policies to help the people who OWN Evergreen Solar make more money (by facing lower overhead, taxes, and less regulation by moving their mfg to China), NOT the American people who WORK there.

Right-O.

And who did Obama just pick to head up his economic team? Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE----a company that took a big government bailout and then paid ZERO US income tax in 2009 because all of its profits came from its overseas manufacturing plants.

[Ludi]

Also, China has many problems and its own agendas.

Its agenda is apparently to flush itself down a toxic toilet.

The US outsourced not only industry, but unbelievable pollution. Though industry creates a "waste" stream, there is technology to deal with virtually any form of "waste." But rather than face the inconvenience of dealing with it, we just moved it to China where they don't bother to deal with it either, besides dumping it into their water and air (and often into products which end up back here).

[bratticus]

The question is ---- why the US doesn't set up economic policies that help us?.....

They are protecting us with their policies; doesn't QE2 make you feel safe?

[timmac]

There needs to be a law against this crap, this company gets $43 million from tax payers but than pulls up carpet and all and skips off 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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

[tex123]

Well that's just friggin' great.

[Plantagenet]

I started a thread about this some time ago. In addition to the grant from the state of Massachusetts, this company also received large grants from the obama administration.

Obama promised in 2008 to create millions of "green" jobs....he just didn't tell us those jobs would be in China.

[careinke]

On the bright side, their stock was down 57% today.

[AgentR11]

On the bright side, their stock was down 57% today.

So their Chinese partners can buy a larger percentage of the company at a deep discount.

I'm sure they are ever so displeased.

[The Practician]

I think if a company that has set up operations in one country wants to move to a different one and abandon all its workers, it should be forced to leave all its capital stock behind, in the control of its former workers, who could do with as they see fit. this should be especially especially if said company has received large ammounts of govt. stimulus.

[Graeme]

China’s Solar Energy Plans Become Even More Ambitious

The People’s Republic of China has increased its target for installed solar power by 50%. It now aims to have 15GW of installed solar generating capacity, by 2015, Reuters reports.

The move comes just months after China doubled its solar goal from 5 GW to 10 GW earlier this year, following the partial meltdown of the Fukishama nuclear plant in Japan.

How can China be so ambitious? It’s thought that the revised target has been made possible by an uptick in solar installations thanks to new government supports for the industry. China’s government introduced its first unified national feed-in tariff for solar energy in August, guaranteeing a price significantly higher for solar power than was previously being paid by various state agencies. Note that feed-in tariffs are believed to have driven three-quarters of global photovoltaic solar power installations.

To give you a sense of the scale of what China’s trying to achieve, consider this: at the end of 2010, the country had less than 1 GW of installed solar capacity. A government think-tank reported in August that it expected there to be 2 GW of installed solar capacity by the end of 2011.

The revised plan does not change the existing, equally ambitious target for wind power, of 100 GW of installed capacity. Add on hydropower and biofuels, and China plans to install over 500GW of renewable energy by 2020.

cleantechnica

[Graeme]

Europe to Investigate Chinese Exports of Solar Panels

Defying Chinese threats of retaliation against European wines and industrial materials, the European Union is preparing to begin on Thursday morning a broad investigation into whether Chinese companies have been exporting solar panels for less than it costs to make them.

The case would be one of the largest trade actions in European history and could lead to steep tariffs on much of China’s $20 billion in annual exports of solar products to Europe, four people familiar with the dispute said Wednesday.

The anti-dumping case, which follows a series of bankruptcies and factory closings by European and U.S. solar panel manufacturers, would broaden what has already become one of the biggest sticking points in trade relations between China and the United States. The U.S. Commerce Department imposed preliminary anti-dumping tariffs in May of at least 31 percent on Chinese solar panels, in addition to preliminary anti-subsidy tariffs of 2.9 percent to 4.73 percent that were imposed in March.

The Chinese government has responded by accusing American producers of polysilicon, the main material used in solar panels, of engaging in unfair trade practices and has threatened steep tariffs on the producers.

nytimes

[Graeme]

Wind & solar outpace coal in China by 2030 - Bloomberg

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) has released analysis which finds renewables will make up more than half of new power capacity growth in China to 2030, across a variety of plausible scenarios. By 2030 total installed capacity of renewable energy power plants will equal that of coal.

This study sought to examine how technological and economic changes might realistically alter the make-up and growth of China’s power sector. They found that coal’s dominance will be challenged by:

– faster technological improvement and cost reductions achieved by renewable energy technologies;

– increased social concern and, consequently, government regulation over environmental pollution;

– the prospects of shale gas, and;

– a potential price on carbon emissions.

The chart below illustrates BNEF’s outlook for power capacity additions under the four scenarios it examined, of which the New Normal scenario is considered their most likely. According to BNEF, the key reasons underlying the rapid growth of renewable energy are i) the continuously improving economics of wind and solar PV due to falling technology costs, ii) increasing costs for coal-fired plants as a result of environmental controls, and iii) the expected uptake of distributed solar PV in China's commercial sector.


BNEF also examine likely developments in carbon emissions from the power sector. Under all scenarios China’s emissions begin to decline prior to 2030. If a carbon price is placed on China's power sector, as has been foreshadowed by government officials within the National Reform and Development Commission, emissions will peak as soon as 2023. This is at a relatively low averaged carbon price of 99 yuan, or $US16, per tonne of CO2 across 2017-30.

It’s worth noting that stabilisation and decline of emissions around the 2020-25 period is quite impressive given that BNEF also forecasts that China’s power market will double between now and 2030. China is still going through a process of urban industrialisation as it brings its population out of rural poverty – something the western world overcame in the early 20th century.

The implications of this transformation in the Chinese power sector will extend well beyond China. The rest of the world will benefit from the vastly greater economies of scale China will provide in wind turbines, solar PV, solar thermal and nuclear. So China will effectively help the rest of the world decarbonise.

businessspectator

[dohboi]

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/05/chi ... n-3-chart/

China Is #1 In Renewable Energy Investment, US #2, Japan #3

U.S. Lags Behind China in Renewables Investments

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s. ... ents-17257

So is China the eco-savior, or the eco-terminator, or both?

[BobInget]

Not 'per person' they certainly are not.

At the same time here in the US, Tea Baggers and so called 'conservatives' appealing to their 'base'
closed hundreds of Women's Health clinics where birth control and abortion services were offered.
An old, certainly outmoded idea that a middle class require lots of underpaid, undereducated, Americans for dull, repetitive low paid work drives "Pro Life" movements. Those jobs went to China along with a portion of our pollution.

Here in the West we are making some most interesting advances in Alternative Energies. On both ends, production and consumption. For the latter I read only this morning that GE will be marketing so called
"Magnetic Refrigeration": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration
I never knew about this before today. Sounds great. Air-conditioning and refrigeration use lots of energy.

[KaiserJeep]

Both of you are spouting meaningless statistics.

China's appetite for energy is incredible, along with their population growth rate which was barely impacted by the "one child" policy. Unfortunately they are also the country with the fastest growing appetite for dirty coal.

While China's demand for renewable energy is huge, it is because they are starting from way behind. The US is a poor country to measure them against because we have more installed and functional renewable energy than any other country. Arguably even being #1 in this category is far from satisfactory, but I don't see such headlines above as anything more refined than the press in the 1950's screaming about the "Yellow Peril". Surely we don't need any more of that.

[dohboi]

https://www.google.com/search?q=populat ... channel=sb

[rollin]

This is not a competition, not a race between countries. It may be a race against time and pollution. This is survival not a national banner to be waved saying "Look at me, I made the most PV!". Meanwhile coal use and fuel use rises.

The critical point is what percentage of total energy used is renewable? If it's just a few percent, the effort won't mean much in the big picture.

The other critical point is why do we keep increasing our need for energy when we could be pushing conservation and efficiency. Eliminating the need for energy in an area is far more important than supplying energy to activities that really do not need energy or need very little.

Production of energy should be falling now against major efforts at conservation and efficiency.
Wake me up when energy production is in half and most of it is sustainable.

[dohboi]

https://www.google.com/search?q=america ... B570%3B300

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25

Note: #159 China 12.31 births per 1000 population
vs. #147 United States 13.68 births per 1000 population

[kublikhan]

Both of you are spouting meaningless statistics.

China's appetite for energy is incredible, along with their population growth rate which was barely impacted by the "one child" policy.

Sounds like you are the one spouting meaningless statistics. According to the Population Research Institute, China's one child policy prevented 400 million births, more than the population of the United States.

Party Secretary Gao responded that the population of China is 400 million less than it would have been had the Party not adopted and enforced a one-child policy. He went on to say that China had prevented more births than the population of the United States, which currently stands at 312 million.

China's One-Child Policy Toll Reaches 400 Million