Trump's job-killing tariff

[gowlerk 2,275]

Quote

By moving all the manufacturing overseas we've also moved coal mining there.

I've gotta disagree with this part only. Coal jobs are down for two reasons. Depressed prices due to competition from natural gas and increased mechanization. Coal can only be mined from where it is. While there is a lot of it in the world, America is "blessed" with huge reserves of cheap to mine coal.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 3,116]

>If people working themselves to death and more babies born with birth defects are what
> it takes to produce ever cheaper electronic stuff and cut rate leather coats for us Great
> While Bwana's in the west I'd rather pay more.

That is actually an argument to import more solar and use less coal. (Fewer deaths, fewer birth defects.)

[AlanS 1]

billvon

That is actually an argument to import more solar and use less coal. ...

Coal and Solar are two very different types of energy generation. You comment implies that you can just replace coal with solar. You cannot. Coal is base power generation and should be replaced by zero carbon emitting nuclear power plants, but instead are being replaced by marginally better natural gas plants. Natural gas energy plants do expel less CO2, but it takes fracking to make it cheap enough to be a replacement for coal.

Putting a tariff on solar panels (many of them subsidized by the Chinese govt.) does improve the position of solar panel manufacturing Tesla's (Solar City) division. I think this is a good thing.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/trump-solar-tariffs-manufacturing-renaissance#gs.KXR7k58

And the argument that Trump is just doing this to boost coal isn't that clear case your initial post on this thread pretends it is.

Quote

There are a total of 14 crystalline-silicon cell and/or module manufacturers in the U.S. by GTM’s count: CBS Solar, Colored Solar, Csun USA, Lumos, Mission Solar, Prism Solar Technologies, Seraphim USA Manufacturing, SunSpark Technologies, Tesla, Solaria, Itek Energy and SolarTech Universal -- plus Section 201 trade case petitioners Suniva and SolarWorld Americas.

Theoretically, all of these companies will benefit from tariffs on imported solar products, but it’s not clear that all of these companies have active factories in the U.S. with the ability to reach any kind of scale.

[billvon 3,116]

>You comment implies that you can just replace coal with solar. You cannot.

Right. You'd need to replace coal with solar plus storage.

>Coal is base power generation and should be replaced by zero carbon emitting nuclear
>power plants, but instead are being replaced by marginally better natural gas plants.

I'm all for that. Unfortunately, nuclear power isn't price competitive with natural gas or solar, even with the massive government subsidies it gets.

>Putting a tariff on solar panels (many of them subsidized by the Chinese govt.) does
>improve the position of solar panel manufacturing Tesla's (Solar City) division. I think this
>is a good thing.

That is a good thing. The bad thing is the hit that the solar installation industry will take, which overall employs a lot more people than the solar manufacturing business. (You can automate one; you can't automate the other.) So far the best estimate to the number of local installation jobs to be lost is 23,000. Will Tesla (and other panel manufacturers) hire 23,000 people to make panels, when a typical panel fab line requires about a dozen people to operate it? Probably not - which means a net loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

Now, maybe it's so important to punish the Chinese that 23,000 jobs is a price we are willing to pay. Odd, though, that the two companies that pushed for this tariff are Chinese and German.

[Phil1111 1,182]

I don't necessarily disagree. But nuclear is very unpopular and utilities would have a hard regulatory and investor road to travel getting nuclear approvals. Canada has lots of nat gas w/o fracking.

A world map of subsidies for renewable energy and fossil fuels,2016.
http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/files/2016/07/GR262Xcarbon_tax_modern_energy_SR_CHART.png
https://www.ft.com/content/fb264f96-5088-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

[billeisele 130]

energy policy is a complicated topic, here on the East Coast there are State social welfare programs (tax incentives) that go along with the federal social welfare

combine those subsidies together and solar can compete economically with conventional generation, remove the subsidy and the industry dies under the weight of economics

Trump is not killing it, the social welfare that is not sustainable once removed kills it, unless the cost of the technology drops another 20-50%

i'm not anti-solar but don't like paying a tax so a solar user can have panels

the other issue is the solar user isn't paying their share of the grid costs, if they want to be independent that's fine, disconnect from the grid, but solar without storage only provides power 23% of the time under the best circumstances, so these folks want to stay connected to the grid but don't want to pay their fair share of the costs of the grid, that's not fair

some utilities have rate structures that remove the subsidy, in those cases the solar owner pays their fair share of the grid costs, but then the economics of solar are terrible so almost no one does it

and that's how it should be

these facts are different in different parts of the country

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[Bob_Church 7]

AlanS

***That is actually an argument to import more solar and use less coal. ...

Coal and Solar are two very different types of energy generation. You comment implies that you can just replace coal with solar. You cannot. Coal is base power generation and should be replaced by zero carbon emitting nuclear power plants, but instead are being replaced by marginally better natural gas plants. Natural gas energy plants do expel less CO2, but it takes fracking to make it cheap enough to be a replacement for coal.

Putting a tariff on solar panels (many of them subsidized by the Chinese govt.) does improve the position of solar panel manufacturing Tesla's (Solar City) division. I think this is a good thing.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/trump-solar-tariffs-manufacturing-renaissance#gs.KXR7k58

And the argument that Trump is just doing this to boost coal isn't that clear case your initial post on this thread pretends it is.

Quote

There are a total of 14 crystalline-silicon cell and/or module manufacturers in the U.S. by GTM’s count: CBS Solar, Colored Solar, Csun USA, Lumos, Mission Solar, Prism Solar Technologies, Seraphim USA Manufacturing, SunSpark Technologies, Tesla, Solaria, Itek Energy and SolarTech Universal -- plus Section 201 trade case petitioners Suniva and SolarWorld Americas.

Theoretically, all of these companies will benefit from tariffs on imported solar products, but it’s not clear that all of these companies have active factories in the U.S. with the ability to reach any kind of scale.

I know it's more sci fi than anything but I've always wondered about tidal force. Not the ocean sort, but very large fulcrums that would be lifted or shifted sideways by tidal force release then that energy as they are allowed to slowly return to their starting point.

[normiss 897]

Only the cheap motorcycle leathers, there are still a number of very high quality leather biker products made in the US.
Significantly higher price and quality.
The zippers actually work AND last too.



Funny thing...one of them is a customer of the company I work for....last time they had a major outage they contacted me directly because I've been their customer too.

ETA: It has always seemed to me that the cheap leather at biker rallies is mostly Pakistani. Only buy that when you stay too late and the temps have dropped. Because that's about as long as the zippers will last.

[normiss 897]

Steam and wind are also great sources to produce electricity with.

[gowlerk 2,275]

normiss

Only the cheap motorcycle leathers, there are still a number of very high quality leather biker products made in the US.
Significantly higher price and quality.
The zippers actually work AND last too.



Funny thing...one of them is a customer of the company I work for....last time they had a major outage they contacted me directly because I've been their customer too.

Oh, there are still leather products sewn in US. But the leather is tanned overseas. Raw hides are brined at the packing plants, loaded into containers, and sent to India. There the hair is removed, the noxious chemicals and other treatments for the tanning process are done, and the usable leather is shipped to wherever fine goods are sewn.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 897]

That's not accurate at all.

http://www.tntanningcompany.com/ is one example I'm personally familiar with, and Fox Creek still swears ALL of their products and processes are US only.

I believe there are others as well.

[gowlerk 2,275]

Sure, there are still a few tanneries around. I believe there is even one here in Winnipeg. But they are very small compared to the number of hides that come from the packing plants. And mostly they produce specialty products. Vegetable tanning uses fewer chemicals and is still done here. But most or the hides go overseas.

http://8020usa.org/2017/02/5-tanneries-sticking-made-usa/

This is a website listing some of the "tanneries still in the USA"

From an industry report:

Quote

US hides and skins companies – including producers, processors, brokers, and dealers – regularly export more than 90 percent of total US production and are one of the top raw material suppliers to the global leather manufacturing industry.

http://www.rendermagazine.com/articles/2017-issues/april-2017/us-hide-skin-and-leather/


How do I know about this? I once worked for a trucking company that hauled stinking wet cowhides from Alberta to a port near Houston. One of the worst jobs I ever had. I talked to a few shippers and receivers along the way and they explained that it was no longer possible to do large scale tanning in first world counties because the chemicals were too noxious.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 897]

Thankfully I'm not, never have been, nor never will be a mass produced cheap ass customer for quality products.
It's a big reason why I avoid big box stores. Especially the blue one.

I seek out the small, locally owned companies for a LOT of products.
I despise Asian steel products too.
I'm willing to pay a premium for products that deserve it.
Stopped buying Harley Chinese leather years ago because of it.

There are still tanneries in the US that deserve the business they have earned through their quality and their customer service.

[yoink 321]

normiss

I despise Asian steel products too.

I've got some VERY good Japanese knives and woodworking blades. They're up there with the best of German steel.

Its like anywhere else. Buy mass produced crap and it won't be any good, but I'm sure asia has its artisans and craftsmen that produce superb gear too.

[billvon 3,116]

>However, this idea that we're going to run the world off of solar panels is absolutely
>ridiculous.

In the short term, agreed. With the technology we have now we could get about 30% of our energy from solar.

In the long term we'll get a much higher percentage. We get enough solar energy every hour to power the entire world for a year. To put it another way, cover just .01% of the earth's surface with PV and we could provide all the energy we need. And it's energy neutral - we're going to receive that energy whether we want to or not. What form it's in is up to us.

[normiss 897]

I'll have to agree with knife metal working from Asia.
No way on the industrial steel products thank you, including vehicles.
It's taken me years to get my wife to stop buying Chinese crap steel products for outside. They rust at an amazing rate.

[gowlerk 2,275]

Time for my 2 cents on nuclear. It is not going to be the answer. It can be done safely, but at great cost. And no one has yet come up with an acceptable answer to waste disposal. It is essentially a dead technology. And as long as the Sun shines and the wind blows it is not needed. Long term the solution will be distributed, more local, and involve storage of some kind.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wmw999 2,588]

One of the ways to make things like solar work is simply to reduce overall need by choosing technologies. LED lights, charging rechargeable computers etc during the day, using fans and passive cooling instead of cranking up the A/C in ever-bigger houses. USA favors the more-is-better approach to its detriment. Just look at serving size and food waste in restaurants. We'll waste a lot for a minor increase in perceived convenience.

Not just USA, but we seem to be trying to perfect it. And ads keep telling us that we can have it all, and that we deserve that whatever.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Bob_Church 7]

The same summer that the School of Art was having all of its electrical system replaced to keep up with demand by Wife's parents moved into a retirement community in Wisconsin. I got to talking with the maintenance man about the problem and he laughed. He said that when they designed the electrical supply for the place they took absolutely everything into consideration and basically doubled that. They could put a window a/c unit in every room and each have their own personal computers, and the list went on. There's no way this could fail.
Then a couple of years after that those electric carts came out. And everyone, no exaggeration, everyone got one, including Vivian. The area around the dining room looked like a storage area for a golf course. And right after dinner, every night, they all ride them back to their rooms and plug them in. And you could hear the breakers popping. They've added and rearranged to take care of that situation but now nobody says "well, we definitely won't have any problems now."

[Phil1111 1,182]

America's newest reactor:
-47 years to build, 42 years of actual construction.
-$2.5 billion in 2007, ended up at $5 billion
- Five months after starting it had to shut down for 4 months of repairs.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2017/aug/01/tva-restarts-watts-bar/441309/
-https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/10/19/watts-bar-is-now-commercial/#28c63ca73680
-https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-industry-decline/new-nuclear-reactor-builds-fall-to-zero-in-h1-2016-report-idUSKCN0ZT0QS

Only a electrical agency with a death wish would even study nuclear power today.

"Exelon, based in Chicago and the largest operator of nuclear plants in America, says that five of its 14 plants are vulnerable because of economic factors, including Three Mile Island’s Unit One, which it owns. “It’s ironic. People ask why we still operate a reactor there. But if gas prices were not [so low], it would be making money,” says David Brown of Exelon."..

More than three-quarters of nuclear plants in the rich world are 25 years old or more. In the coming years the number of them shutting down is only likely to accelerate.
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21677243-nuclear-power-emits-no-greenhouse-gases-yet-it-struggling-rich-world-half-death

[billvon 3,116]

>Time for my 2 cents on nuclear. It is not going to be the answer. It can be done safely,
>but at great cost. And no one has yet come up with an acceptable answer to waste
> disposal. It is essentially a dead technology.

In terms of modern nuclear, I tend to agree.

People had high hopes for the GE AP600/1100 series of cheap, safe reactors. But by the time any were actually built (as AP1000's) they ended up being even more expensive than conventional reactors. Westinghouse shed the division making them; Toshiba bought the division and tried to make a go of it. Then that division of Toshiba went bankrupt. It was just purchased by investment bankers which is a little worrisome. They are high up on the list of "people you don't want in charge of a nuclear power project."

Meanwhile the only two projects in the US using AP1000's - the Summer Plant expansion and the Vogtle expansion project - have been cancelled after massive cost overruns and delays. (Vogtle is $9 billion over budget and 5 years late.) A recent regulatory decision may save Vogtle for the time being, but since the decision does not say who will pay the extra $9 billion or so, it's pretty tenuous. If it's ratepayers there will likely be a revolt, and if it's the utility they will either have to declare bankruptcy or cancel it themselves.

There's a lot of hope on the horizon for new technologies - but then again, there's new hope about once every ten years, and they never seem to pan out. PBMR's (pebble bed modular reactors) were the big thing for a while (hydrogen economy! inherently safe!) but they didn't pan out. Today small modular reactors and thorium reactors are the big new thing. And I hope they pan out and give us a cheap, safe source of power - but it's hard to see why this latest crop will be different from all the promises going back over 60 years that we will soon have nuclear energy "too cheap to meter."

[AlanS 1]

billvon

>However, this idea that we're going to run the world off of solar panels is absolutely
>ridiculous.

In the short term, agreed. With the technology we have now we could get about 30% of our energy from solar.

...

I'm full in favor of solar panel + batteries would want it on every house where it makes sense. I would alter the design of the grid to better handle homes being a generator of power during the day, and force utility companies to stop penalizing solar.

But being realistic, solar isn't going to work as a main source of power for anyone that lives where it snows. The moment it snows, or leaves cover your panels, or your neighbor's tree or clouds block the sun your panels are not generating power.

Solar will never realistically be the main source of energy - within this century at least - and if we are going to meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions to stop global warming, we need to do it now. Not start 100 years from now.

[yoink 321]

AlanS

But being realistic, solar isn't going to work as a main source of power for anyone that lives where it snows. The moment it snows, or leaves cover your panels, or your neighbor's tree or clouds block the sun your panels are not generating power.

You don't get all your power from the coal plant just down the road... You know that, right?

It goes into a grid where it is produced, stored and distributed by all the production facilities on that grid. You get just as much of your power from a power station 500 miles away as one 5 miles away. The same would be true of solar. The people in the snowy climates would get their power generated by solar farms in the desert if it became an industrial / societal power generation. You wouldn't produce your own power for your own home....

[billvon 3,116]

>But being realistic, solar isn't going to work as a main source of power for anyone that
> lives where it snows.

There are thousands of off-gridders who use solar as their main source of power all year in places from Hawaii to Minnesota. One trick is to orient the panels vertically during winter; no snow then sticks to them (and they generate the most energy in the winter at that angle.) And, when it snows, you get the reflectance gain - and solar panels are more efficient when it's cold.

In San Diego (a great place for solar) people generate, on average, about 5 kwhr per meter of panel per day in January. In northern Maine, people generate, on average, about 3.9 kwhr per meter of panel per day in January. That's a significant, but not insurmountable, difference. It's not even 2x.

Twenty years ago, when panel prices were $10/watt, that meant solar couldn't work in Maine. A month ago, when panel prices were $.75/watt, that meant solar can (and did) work in Maine. The rapidly dropping price of solar means that even the 22% lower harvest you get in Maine during the winter isn't a dealbreaker. (Provided, of course, we don't do mind-numbingly stupid things like putting a special tax on them to protect Chinese and German companies.)

>Solar will never realistically be the main source of energy - within this century at least

I disagree. Solar-PV is growing 20% a year, and right now supplies 1.5% of electrical energy in the US. That means if all we do is keep that growth rate going we're over 10% by 2028, and over 50% by 2037.

>and if we are going to meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions to stop global warming, we
>need to do it now. Not start 100 years from now.

We are doing it now. 2037 is a pretty good goal for over 50% renewables for the electric grid.

Of course, solar won't be the only renewable out there. Wind will be a big part of the equation. I am hopeful nuclear will too, and that the new designs out there pan out. But like you said, we have to start now - we can't wait 40 years until someone finally comes up with a cheap, reliable, safe nuclear power technology.

[ryoder 1,590]

AlanS

But being realistic, solar isn't going to work as a main source of power for anyone that lives where it snows. The moment it snows, or leaves cover your panels, or your neighbor's tree or clouds block the sun your panels are not generating power.

Funny, I was pretty sure it snowed here in CO.
Explain that to Xcel Energy: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/16/16895594/colorado-renewable-energy-future

According to Carbon Tracker, based on these bids, new wind+storage energy in Colorado is cheaper than energy from the state’s existing coal plants; solar+storage energy is cheaper than 75 percent of the state’s coal energy. This is worth repeating, because it’s a significant milestone: In Colorado, getting energy from new renewable energy projects with storage is cheaper than getting it from existing coal plants. Coal is dead.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.