The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Monday, May 20, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

A "Third Way" Approach for U.S.-China Solar Trade

Ron Kenedi, Contributor
July 30, 2012  |  27 Comments

Last October, SolarWorld led a U.S. manufacturer coalition that asserted trade law violations by Chinese makers of solar cells. The coalition's filing with the Department of Commerce led to significant tariffs being levied on solar products originating in China entering the U.S.

According to filing by the U.S. manufacturers, Chinese manufacturers received lavish incentives from China’s government that gave them an unfair cost/price advantage over U.S. manufacturers. In addition to this advantage, it is asserted that the Chinese makers sold product to U.S. customers at below manufacturing costs, a practice often referred to as dumping.

Chinese manufacturers and the Chinese government argue that they did not receive unlawful or excessive incentives and did not sell solar cells and modules at below cost. Also, they allege that not enough attention is given the other factors that allow a cost advantage over U.S. makers, namely “know how” and scale. They claim the solar manufacturers coalition’s trade case was brought forward because SolarWorld had lost its competitive edge and couldn’t compete successfully in a highly competitive marketplace.

Now, because of a loophole in the tariff judgment, only the solar cell, not the entire module, has to be manufactured outside of China to avoid all tariffs.

The case has been presented that SolarWorld itself was the recipient of large amounts of incentives from the German, U.S., and Oregon governments and has no right to complain about the special treatment received by Chinese makers from their government. There are also rumors of SolarWorld modules occasionally being sold in the U.S. for extremely low, below market prices.

The result of all this chest pounding and legal maneuverings (the extent of which might not be resolved for years) is that the U.S. solar industry and all its participants—from manufacturer to end-user — has suffered. The only winners are Taiwanese cell makers. Solar modules from China that are being sold in the U.S. are now more expensive because of retroactive tariff penalties that must be paid and the additional cost of securing “out of country” cells. That price increase is magnified as the product moves from maker to EPC to end-use customers in the case of project business, and from maker to distributors and dealers to end-use customers in the case of sales through channels. Each organization marks up the increase as the modules moves from manufacturing to installation. This higher price is even more striking today as euro weakness has caused a lowering of the module price in Europe creating a 20 percent or more difference between U.S. and European pricing.

Threat of unresolved tariff amounts (that might change in the future) also has caused uncertainty among buyers which creates insecurity in the market and damages the efforts of U.S. sellers.

The reputations of both SolarWorld and the Chinese manufacturers have been tarnished, and profits, which are in short supply throughout the global solar industry, have been further squeezed by this action.

But let’s be realistic. Yes, the U.S. manufacturers have a difficult time competing pricewise with Chinese makers because the cost of doing business in China is less than in the U.S. for many reasons — including cost of labor, taxes, insurance, property, and the steadfast support of an exceedingly generous government. But also, the Chinese solar industry has been willing to take risks to establish scale which lowers solar’s total cost, and the Chinese makers have learned to refine silicon, make wafers and cells and build modules as well as or better than any other group of manufacturers.

I believe there is a “third way” of moving forward for the benefit of the solar power customer and industry participant:  Foster collaboration between U.S. and Chinese entities that lead to jointly owned factories in the U.S. that service the domestic market. The Chinese makers want access to the U.S. market and the U.S. market needs investment and the ability to create more jobs. Let the Chinese use Chinese-made cells — without penalty tariffs — if deployed in U.S.-assembled modules. Encourage the Chinese solar industry to invest in U.S. factories that produce solar products “made in the USA.”

Of course this simple suggestion is not so simple.  The complication lies in keeping the cost low for normally more expensive U.S. labor and non-silicon expenses. However, I believe U.S. manufacturing could benefit from the challenge. The same ingenuity that created commercially produced photovoltaics in the first place can be used to develop new, low cost manufacturing procedures and practices. 

Also, for this idea to become a reality a “Buy American” provision needs to be put in place where taxpayer-funded incentives (including tax incentives would be tied to mandatory American content. This idea is not loved by all, but my view is that if the taxpayers are funding the programs then taxpayers should be given some of the jobs thus making incentivizing solar power twice as valuable.

This artcle was originally published on Clean Edge and was republished with permission.

Lead image: Counting hand via Shutterstock

27 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
August 10, 2012
Ron, I really like your idea. The U.S. keeps claiming it wants renewable energy yet it keeps showing contradictory actions. In this case by slapping duties on Chinese cells. SolarWorld, as any other business in America is profit driven before anything else. Customer affordability and reduction in carbon emissions comes in second hand for them. The fact of the matter is, the U.S. is never going to be able to produce and sell at prices that the Chinese can, with or without gov't assistance. Their currency is undervalued, abundance of cheap labor and less regulations. And instead of using the low price of Chinese cells to their advantage, the U.S. slams them with duties. Some type of a collaboration btw the U.S. and Chinese would have been the key. After all, no one mentions that the Chinese purchase 90% of the raw materials to produce the cells from the U.S. These duties will only slow down the growth of solar energy in the U.S. as prices will definitely increase. Price increases will result in a lower demand, which in turn will affect the entire supply chain of the solar industry, including the supply in raw materials and installations. The drawbacks of these duties far outweigh the benefits claimed by SolarWorld.
Edward Smeloff
Edward Smeloff
August 10, 2012
To re-suumarize, the idea is to 1) rescind the Dept. of Commerce ruling that ant-competitive dumping has occured, 2) encourage Chinese cell makers to continue to sell below costs for an unstated period of time and 3) find U.S. Investors to build module assembly plants in the U.S. that will contract with the Chinese cell manufacturers.
Sam Salamay
Sam Salamay
August 9, 2012
MARK,
THEY HAVE OUR MONEY AND WE WANT IT BACK TO PUT IT TO GOOD USE HERE, FOR JOBS AND LOW COST SOLAR PANELS.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 9, 2012
Not to be rude....but what products and services do the Red Chinese have that USA really needs?
What products and services does USA have that Red China needs?

Then think back over the last 40 years. We have had the world's worst trade policy. And now we owe them $trillion.
Peter Dingus
Peter Dingus
August 9, 2012
"Chinese money can head toward the US to open factories, using US cells and US marketing skills. Just as the Japanese have done in the auto industry,..."

I think this is a much better approach than the one presented in the piece above...reenforcing Chinese predatory dumping by using their cells and conceding the most far reaching part of solar makes no sense to me.
Sam Salamay
Sam Salamay
August 9, 2012
Ron, Thanks for your insight and hopefully Chinese money can head toward the US to open factories, using US cells and US marketing skills. Just as the Japanese have done in the auto industry, solar manufacturing can succeed here. As a representative of Lightway Solar, our product is first class and even though we are not a Tier 1 firm, we have the capabilities that meet or exceed the quality of any top tier 1 company. Financing firms such as Clean Power Finance should allow more Chinese companies into their realm. Sam...
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 9, 2012
I am sure you, Ron, are well-intentioned, but to do what you suggest would involve changing the predatory way that so many Chinese companies do business. I wish that Chinese managers and investors read this newsletter and commented on it.
Ron Kenedi
Ron Kenedi
August 9, 2012
Thank you all for the comments. The purpose of the blog is to stimulate discussion that is aimed towards a solution. Answering some questions: Yes, using Chinese cells only in American assembly plants will not avoid tariffs...what I was suggesting is that in an effort for cooperation that benefits the solar end user and American worker, a change in the tariff ruling is needed to effect that result.
Another question about where are the Chinese solar manufacturers are going to get the money to invest in US manufacturing when they are losing money is fairly obvious. Solar companies have come up with creative solutions for financing expansion before from alligning themselves with a captive customer to recieving government and private support.
The main point, however, is that creative thinking should have been explored before resorting to the most noxious solution. Neither side is right and a better ,"third way" approach should have been taken.
Dr. JAMES WOLTER
Dr. JAMES WOLTER
August 4, 2012
The proposed solution to use Chinese made cells in US panel (module) plants WILL NOT AVOID TARIFFS - please rethink this ... the Chinese solar cells are indeed subject to the tariff if they were made in China.
Ron, where and what is the "loophole" you refer to?
Peter Dingus
Peter Dingus
August 2, 2012
What I mean is this: as food becomes more expensive and clean water is in short supply and people on the east coast and in the mid-west north-south corridor find themselves without insurance (actuaries believe in climate change), and the true cost of oil and gas is calculated because of the environmental impact that results in food and water shortages with the tax-payer no longer willing to pick up the tab, reality will set in. Meanwhile, those countries that 'plan' for the future, believe in science (and not rhetoric), and have a good supply of technically competent graduates will seize the obvious opportunities.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 2, 2012
To: Peter

When you write that the "crisis is immediate." ...
...Are you writing about this solar lawsuit?
Because, as long as gas companies keep finding more of it, gas and oil are certainly here to stay. Bio-fuels might fill in the cracks.
I wonder if anybody from Shell, BP, or Exxon reads this newsletter.
Peter Dingus
Peter Dingus
August 2, 2012
I think the crisis is immediate, and I agree with your assessment of the problems. I don't agree with the solution Ron has posted--I don't think it's in our best interests. However, one way or the other cleaner energy, with solar PV a prominent component, will be the wave of future economies. What Americans need to decide is whether they want to be part of it, or continue to decline.
JACK KLUEMPKE
JACK KLUEMPKE
August 2, 2012
Great article Ron and some great reader comments. Personally I believe SolarWorld made a huge marketing blunder with the lawsuit and that much of the debate is over semantics. We will argue and debate the details for years, but to what end. Until we make a fundamental paradigm shift in how we view, legislate, and finance energy the debate will go on. The only way to create this shift is through education and I believe that will take a generation to complete, longer given our current legislative and educational ideologies. "If it is not immediate and I don't have to pay for it directly, I'm good with it," seems to be the mantra of the American consumer and politicians. Change that and the technologies and solutions will come to fruition.
Sam Salamay
Sam Salamay
August 1, 2012
Our country is all fracked up. The GOP believes natgas is our solution for decades to come using the energy independence mantra. Forget about clean air and water and just keep drilling. Dense plasma fusion is just under 5 years from commercialization and it will knock the crap out of every known source of clean energy without any radioactive waste. Furthermore, advanced biofuels will solve the transportation issues via sugar platforms as used in Brazil but using a sweet sorghum feedstock. See www.epecholdings.com. We must stop the madness of COG by replacing with affordable and cost effective measures but unfortunately solar remains a luxury item and not a commodity quite yet.
Peter Dingus
Peter Dingus
August 1, 2012
No, I believe Sam is talking about Fusion. I am a physicist and although I like fusion, like many other exotics, it is probably not a good bet in the near term. Natural Gas is also up in the air--literally. The first thing that must happen is that all oil and gas drilling must be brought under the Clean Air and Water Act. Once that is done, we will get a correct assessment of what it means to pump a million gallons of water per well into the ground and have a third come back toxic and two thirds available for leakage from the bore hole into water supplies, not to mention gas seepage into the air. At that point, we can calculate the true levelized cost of NG.

I believe that solar is a good long term, clean energy source and hope that innovative solar can be developed in the US, although many of the financial and institutional points that GeraldR made are valid and it will be difficult to realize solar's potential here in the US.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 1, 2012
To: Sam

What is your conclusion? That natural gas price will forever govern the future?
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
August 1, 2012
Ron makes some very good points. First, scale: a module line these days needs at least 150 MW/a net capacity in order to approach optimal efficiency. A production facility needs 6 lines or more in order to optimize scheduling and logistics (assuming 85% OEE). Ideal scale is at least 900 MW/a. It is amazing how many announcements there are for really small (e.g. <100 MW/a) operations there in the US - this doesn't work. Second, capitalization: best practice module manufacturing is almost entirely hands free. Labor should never be a significant component of module manufacturing. While Solar World America has decent scale, capital investment at ~1 $/W/a seems light. Third: module manufacturing only seems simple; unfortunately, it can be done badly. Major factors are assembly process optimization (can improve module efficiency by 7-10%) and optimization of yield / minimization of scrapage. Neither can be easily achieved in a manual system. Also, optimization feeds on volume - it's nearly impossible to optimize 50 MW factorys as WIP per hour is just too small. Fourth: market is essential. This needs to be large and stable. The US herky-jerky approach is not conducive. The simplest way to increase prices is for demand exceed supply. Currently, the world is upside down on this and the US is punching way below its weight. Fifth: it all takes capital from willing investors. That relies on two things - a supply of excess money and investor confidence. A debt laden economy with an uncertain business environment with investors are flocking to safe/traditional harbors makes it nearly impossible to go at scale. Consequently, most ventures are underfunded and under scale.
I too fear Chinese competition but only because a) they are making STEM graduates by the boat load, b) they have very high savings rates, c) they have little NIH factor, d) they plan for the future, e) they are enormously practical, f) government support.
Sam Salamay
Sam Salamay
August 1, 2012
Ron, great to hear from you. Do you think for one minute COG (coal,oil & gas) interests would ever allow your idea to happen? I attempted this with MX Solar recently through a Chinese manufacturer, and when the smoke cleared, China backed-out, claiming way too much "red" tape. Our country will always remain in the hands of the "business as usual" leaders who regularly have their hands in the pie of profits. Everything is too complicated, especially now that the financial industry is involved. Bundling residential projects with no money down, utility scale projects and SunEdison models remain, but natgas is totally blowing everything away. This is why i am betting on www.lpphysics.com to become reality soon; purely tenths of a penny per kwh of clean power on a distributed scale. To me, this is exactly what the world needs now.
Edward Smeloff
Edward Smeloff
July 31, 2012
Ron, with EPS of -$7.58 how is LDK going to raise funds to open manufacturing in the U.S.?
ANONYMOUS
July 31, 2012
A couple of comments. First, much of the cell technology in c-Si is in the Si processing. In 2011 the US had a $2 billion trade surplus with China sending them poly-Si made by US manufacturers like Hemlock. Much of the Si technology the Chinese have is from other countries: Suntech started in Australia. The best Si cells in the world are made by SunPower, which has demonstrated the highest efficiency. SunPower is a US company. Several of the Chinese manufacturers "are" operating at 2%-5% margins (FS is at 15%).

If one believes that the high-tech innovative part of solar is the cells, conceding the cells for module assembly seems like conceding high-tech solar for low-tech assembly and framing--hardly a win-win.
In the 3ird way, if the Chinese cells are subsidized by $30 billion from the Chinese Investment Bank, then it seems as if low price, subsidized Si technology would kill investment in the US for second generation thin-film with potential intrinsic advantages. The physics of Si is that it is not a good solar absorber, it is an indirect band-gap semiconductor for solar photons, and it may not have the multi-junction advantages of thin-film.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
July 31, 2012
To:Lee

Red China took our solar panel designs years ago. They make millions more panels than America does.

Harley Davidson, on the other hand, wants to sell motor cycles to a billion Chinese people. At least if HD has a factory in Red China they might profit.... until some wealthy Chinese manufacturer builds another copy-cat factory across the street ..as happenned to GM in Red China.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
July 31, 2012
THIMK! What is so special about Chinese Solar Panels? They probably use designs from Stanford University scientists.

Red China has no SS Tax,no lawsuits, no FICA, no FUCA, no OSHA, no EPA, no ATF, etc. They don't care what happens to Chinese factory workers, or to the health of Americans.
Made in NA the parts will also have freight from Red China.

If Red China agreed to that idea, I would be very suspicious.
Industies with bright futures exist in Red China because it is government policy to keep their people employed now and forever. They don't care what happens to Americans.
Lee Bell
Lee Bell
July 31, 2012
Maybe they should go talk to the folks at Harley-Davidson. They figured out this setup years ago and have done well since then.
Jigar Shah
Jigar Shah
July 31, 2012
Ron, great post. I think we agree that it would have been better for SolarWorld to talk to someone, anyone about their problems before starting a legal case. Then we could have figured out how to achieve 1+1=3 on US soil.

In fact, once they filed their case, they had a window within which they could have withdrawn their case without creating the chaos. The Chinese mfgs offered them a partnership to help expand their facility and build modules for them in the USA on a contract basis in exchange for minimizing the chaos in the industry. Like a crazed agent provocateur, SolarWorld is fueling global solar industry infighting for its own selfish interest. Now SolarWorld is suffering at their facility in Oregon, probably will shut down the plant altogether on their way to bankruptcy.

It is amazing how pure crazy can color folks into a blind corner that only makes matters worse.
Deborah Holder
Deborah Holder
July 31, 2012
I love your thinking on this Ron! In my opinion, your proposal has the power to create a win/win/win scenario...for China, U.S., and the global environment.
Dr. JAMES WOLTER
Dr. JAMES WOLTER
July 31, 2012
I need clarification - the 4th paragraph of the original post says that "because of a loophole in the tariff - only the cell must be manufactured OUTSIDE of China to avoid tariffs" ... but the solution proposed in paragraph 10 is to use Chinese cells in US module plants.
What am I not understanding? If paragraph 4 is correct - building modules in the US with Chinese cells will not avoid tariffs.
Ken Stadlin
Ken Stadlin
July 31, 2012
Ron,
This is a great idea. There is a way to implement precisely the approach you are advocating. I have heard people discuss the idea of making 1603 Treasury Grants available only for ARRA-compliant equipment. This is not an additional benefit, as the 30% ITC is also available for projects using imported equipment. But it does provide the benefit of improved timing and ease of implementation while incentivizing domestic manufacturing.

Thank you for pushing a nuanced and balanced agenda.

Ken Stadlin

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Ron Kenedi

Ron Kenedi

Ron Kenedi is a solar industry veteran with more than 30 years of experience, including senior management roles at LDK Solar, Sharp Electronics Solar Division, Kyocera Solar Inc., and Photocomm, Inc. He currently heads up his own advisory...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 27
    Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 11
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 10
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Admirals Bank
  • Array Technologies
  • RevoluSun
  • Solmetric Corporation
  • Schletter Inc.
  • AltE
  • GreenBrilliance
  • Ambient Technologies, Inc.
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information