Critics of Tesla have long warned that investors should brace themselves for competition from other EV makers, and GM is a case in point. GM has just dialed its EV battery supply chain up to 11, and the company is also building on its decades-long experience with fuel cells to dip into the green hydrogen trend.

The big EV battery news from GM is a $2.5 billion loan, announced by the US Department of Energy earlier this week. The loan which will go to Ultium Cells, a joint venture that pairs GM with LG Energy Solution.

In support of its fuel cell business, GM is among the firms to help accelerate the green hydrogen trend. Last month, the company hooked up with Nel Hydrogen US, a subsidiary of the global firm Nel ASA, in a joint development deal aimed at ramping up production of Nel’s electrolyzer technology and pushing down the cost of green hydrogen.

Looks like right now GM is planning using fuel cells in its heavy duty applications market.

Speaking of Tesla, Elon Musk’s widely reported declaration that “fuel cells are so bull—t” does not resonate with quite the same force in 2022 as it did back in 2013. For that matter, neither does Musk himself, but that’s another story.

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/12/14/gm-sprints-past-tesla-with-big-ev-battery-plans-green-h2-too/

What is the chief huckster doing? Selling more Tesla stock to finance the Twitter lost cause. What kind of idiot spends $44B on a vapor asset with a record of losing $200M per quarter? Estimated interest payments on his $13.5B bank loan is $1B annual.

https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/elon-musk-sells-yet-another-3-6-billion-in-tsla-stock-to-fund-twitter-disaster/

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Critics of Tesla have long warned that investors should brace themselves for competition from other EV makers, and GM is a case in point. GM has just dialed its EV battery supply chain up to 11, and the company is also building on its decades-long experience with fuel cells to dip into the green hydrogen trend.
>
> The big EV battery news from GM is a $2.5 billion loan, announced by the US Department of Energy earlier this week. The loan which will go to Ultium Cells, a joint venture that pairs GM with LG Energy Solution.
>
> In support of its fuel cell business, GM is among the firms to help accelerate the green hydrogen trend. Last month, the company hooked up with Nel Hydrogen US, a subsidiary of the global firm Nel ASA, in a joint development deal aimed at ramping up production of Nel’s electrolyzer technology and pushing down the cost of green hydrogen.
>
> Looks like right now GM is planning using fuel cells in its heavy duty applications mark
>
>
> Speaking of Tesla, Elon Musk’s widely reported declaration that “fuel cells are so bull—t” does not resonate with quite the same force in 2022 as it did back in 2013. For that matter, neither does Musk himself, but that’s another story.
>
> https://cleantechnica.com/2022/12/14/gm-sprints-past-tesla-with-big-ev-battery-plans-green-h2-too/
>
> What is the chief huckster doing? Selling more Tesla stock to finance the Twitter lost cause. What kind of idiot spends $44B on a vapor asset with a record of losing $200M per quarter? Estimated interest payments on his $13..5B bank loan is $1B annual.
>
> https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/elon-musk-sells-yet-another-3-6-billion-in-tsla-stock-to-fund-twitter-disaster/

FYI: He sold $3.5B since then, and $10B more to go. After that he should be down to $50B or 10% of Tesla.

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Critics of Tesla have long warned that investors should brace themselves for competition from other EV makers, and GM is a case in point. GM has just dialed its EV battery supply chain up to 11, and the company is also building on its decades-long experience with fuel cells to dip into the green hydrogen trend.
>
> The big EV battery news from GM is a $2.5 billion loan, announced by the US Department of Energy earlier this week. The loan which will go to Ultium Cells, a joint venture that pairs GM with LG Energy Solution.
>
> In support of its fuel cell business, GM is among the firms to help accelerate the green hydrogen trend. Last month, the company hooked up with Nel Hydrogen US, a subsidiary of the global firm Nel ASA, in a joint development deal aimed at ramping up production of Nel’s electrolyzer technology and pushing down the cost of green hydrogen.
>
> Looks like right now GM is planning using fuel cells in its heavy duty applications market.
>
>
> Speaking of Tesla, Elon Musk’s widely reported declaration that “fuel cells are so bull—t” does not resonate with quite the same force in 2022 as it did back in 2013. For that matter, neither does Musk himself, but that’s another story.
>
> https://cleantechnica.com/2022/12/14/gm-sprints-past-tesla-with-big-ev-battery-plans-green-h2-too/
>
> What is the chief huckster doing? Selling more Tesla stock to finance the Twitter lost cause. What kind of idiot spends $44B on a vapor asset with a record of losing $200M per quarter? Estimated interest payments on his $13..5B bank loan is $1B annual.
>
> https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/elon-musk-sells-yet-another-3-6-billion-in-tsla-stock-to-fund-twitter-disaster/

Sounds like Solyndra on steroids.

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 5:03:46 PM UTC-5, Ed Lee wrote:
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Critics of Tesla have long warned that investors should brace themselves for competition from other EV makers, and GM is a case in point. GM has just dialed its EV battery supply chain up to 11, and the company is also building on its decades-long experience with fuel cells to dip into the green hydrogen trend.
> >
> > The big EV battery news from GM is a $2.5 billion loan, announced by the US Department of Energy earlier this week. The loan which will go to Ultium Cells, a joint venture that pairs GM with LG Energy Solution.
> >
> > In support of its fuel cell business, GM is among the firms to help accelerate the green hydrogen trend. Last month, the company hooked up with Nel Hydrogen US, a subsidiary of the global firm Nel ASA, in a joint development deal aimed at ramping up production of Nel’s electrolyzer technology and pushing down the cost of green hydrogen.
> >
> > Looks like right now GM is planning using fuel cells in its heavy duty applications mark
> >
> >
> > Speaking of Tesla, Elon Musk’s widely reported declaration that “fuel cells are so bull—t” does not resonate with quite the same force in 2022 as it did back in 2013. For that matter, neither does Musk himself, but that’s another story.
> >
> > https://cleantechnica.com/2022/12/14/gm-sprints-past-tesla-with-big-ev-battery-plans-green-h2-too/
> >
> > What is the chief huckster doing? Selling more Tesla stock to finance the Twitter lost cause. What kind of idiot spends $44B on a vapor asset with a record of losing $200M per quarter? Estimated interest payments on his $13.5B bank loan is $1B annual.
> >
> > https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/elon-musk-sells-yet-another-3-6-billion-in-tsla-stock-to-fund-twitter-disaster/
> FYI: He sold $3.5B since then, and $10B more to go. After that he should be down to $50B or 10% of Tesla.

Another thing that tells you is the banks aren't giving him any more money, which *may* mean the Tesla stock is no longer considered a viable asset for purposes of loan collateral.

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:14:22 AM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Critics of Tesla have long warned that investors should brace themselves for competition from other EV makers, and GM is a case in point. GM has just dialed its EV battery supply chain up to 11, and the company is also building on its decades-long experience with fuel cells to dip into the green hydrogen trend.
> >
> > The big EV battery news from GM is a $2.5 billion loan, announced by the US Department of Energy earlier this week. The loan which will go to Ultium Cells, a joint venture that pairs GM with LG Energy Solution.
> >
> > In support of its fuel cell business, GM is among the firms to help accelerate the green hydrogen trend. Last month, the company hooked up with Nel Hydrogen US, a subsidiary of the global firm Nel ASA, in a joint development deal aimed at ramping up production of Nel’s electrolyzer technology and pushing down the cost of green hydrogen.
> >
> > Looks like right now GM is planning using fuel cells in its heavy duty applications market.
> >
> >
> > Speaking of Tesla, Elon Musk’s widely reported declaration that “fuel cells are so bull—t” does not resonate with quite the same force in 2022 as it did back in 2013. For that matter, neither does Musk himself, but that’s another story.
> >
> > https://cleantechnica.com/2022/12/14/gm-sprints-past-tesla-with-big-ev-battery-plans-green-h2-too/
> >
> > What is the chief huckster doing? Selling more Tesla stock to finance the Twitter lost cause. What kind of idiot spends $44B on a vapor asset with a record of losing $200M per quarter? Estimated interest payments on his $13.5B bank loan is $1B annual.
> >
> > https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/elon-musk-sells-yet-another-3-6-billion-in-tsla-stock-to-fund-twitter-disaster/
> Sounds like Solyndra on steroids.

You should research Solyndra, it was actually a great technology, and the handful of installs they did complete worked as advertized. All they were doing was smartly repackaging a PV material developed by NREL, which sort of guaranteed a big development loan/ grant. It worked well enough to panic the Chinese into lowering the price of their panels by a full 70%- and it was that market pressure that caused a billion $$$ worth of Solyndra orders to be cancelled leading to their demise. So if nothing else Solyndra indirectly caused a massive reduction in the cost of solar PV. There is ongoing work in Europe refining and manufacturing the concept- and since a decade has passed the PV efficiency is way higher now.

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 8:37:44 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 11:42:06 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:14:22 AM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Sounds like Solyndra on steroids.
> >
> > You should research Solyndra, it was actually a great technology, and the handful of installs they did complete worked as advertized. All they were doing was smartly repackaging a PV material developed by NREL, which sort of guaranteed a big development loan/ grant. It worked well enough to panic the Chinese into lowering the price of their panels by a full 70%- and it was that market pressure that caused a billion $$$ worth of Solyndra orders to be cancelled leading to their demise.
> That wasn't why the Chinese lowered their solar cell prices by 70% - they'd invested a lot in making a cheap high-yield solar cell (actually developed by the University of New South Wales) in ten times the volume than anybody had before, and were able to sell them profitably at 30% of the price of anything comparable.
>
> They had to sell them cheaply to shift them at the rate they could produce them, and they had made them cheap enough that their solar cells were the cheapest source of electricity around.
>
> Solyndra's were just road-kill. The Chinese couldn't have cared less about the the companies they put out of businees
> > So if nothing else Solyndra indirectly caused a massive reduction in the cost of solar PV.
> Fred doesn't have much grasp of cause and effect.
> > There is ongoing work in Europe refining and manufacturing the concept- and since a decade has passed the PV efficiency is way higher now.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
>
> "Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin film solar cells "
>
> "The company claimed the cells themselves convert 12 to 14 percent of sunlight into electricity, an efficiency better than competing CIGS thin-film technologies"
>
> The cheap University of NSW silicon-based solar cells hit about 20% in 2018 and seem be doing better now.
>
> https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/unsw-and-leadmicro-announce-joint-initiative-develop-next-generation-high
>
> Fred has some funny ideas.

https://www.reuters.com/article/solyndra-lawsuit-suntech/update-1-bankrupt-solyndra-seeks-1-5-bln-in-damages-from-chinese-peers-idUKL1E8LD0PB20121013

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/20/us-imposes-tariffs-chinese-solar-panels

>
> --
> Bil Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 6:52:09 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:56:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 8:37:44 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 11:42:06 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:14:22 AM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Sounds like Solyndra on steroids.
> > > >
> > > > You should research Solyndra, it was actually a great technology, and the handful of installs they did complete worked as advertized. All they were doing was smartly repackaging a PV material developed by NREL, which sort of guaranteed a big development loan/ grant. It worked well enough to panic the Chinese into lowering the price of their panels by a full 70%- and it was that market pressure that caused a billion $$$ worth of Solyndra orders to be cancelled leading to their demise.
> > > That wasn't why the Chinese lowered their solar cell prices by 70% - they'd invested a lot in making a cheap high-yield solar cell (actually developed by the University of New South Wales) in ten times the volume than anybody had before, and were able to sell them profitably at 30% of the price of anything comparable.
> > >
> > > They had to sell them cheaply to shift them at the rate they could produce them, and they had made them cheap enough that their solar cells were the cheapest source of electricity around.
> > >
> > > Solyndra's were just road-kill. The Chinese couldn't have cared less about the the companies they put out of businees
> > > > So if nothing else Solyndra indirectly caused a massive reduction in the cost of solar PV.
> > > Fred doesn't have much grasp of cause and effect.
> > > > There is ongoing work in Europe refining and manufacturing the concept- and since a decade has passed the PV efficiency is way higher now.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
> > >
> > > "Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin film solar cells "
> > >
> > > "The company claimed the cells themselves convert 12 to 14 percent of sunlight into electricity, an efficiency better than competing CIGS thin-film technologies"
> > >
> > > The cheap University of NSW silicon-based solar cells hit about 20% in 2018 and seem be doing better now.
> > >
> > > https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/unsw-and-leadmicro-announce-joint-initiative-develop-next-generation-high
> > >
> > > Fred has some funny ideas.
> >
> > https://www.reuters.com/article/solyndra-lawsuit-suntech/update-1-bankrupt-solyndra-seeks-1-5-bln-in-damages-from-chinese-peers-idUKL1E8LD0PB20121013
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/20/us-imposes-tariffs-chinese-solar-panels

This article is over 10 years old and for a tiny 3% to 5% tariff. I think tariff should be 50%.

> Funny how the American free market wants tariff protection and tries to sue people who have worked out how to make a better, cheaper product.

Easy, if we can have slave labors as well.

> Back when the American domestic market was big enough to let them tool up for high enough production volumes to bankrupt everybody else, Americans just loved the free market. Once they'd off-shored enough production to China to let the Chinese do it to them they were less enthusiastic about it

It's not about free market. It's about free workers.

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 6:22:01 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 2:22:44 AM UTC+11, Ed Lee wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 6:52:09 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:56:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 8:37:44 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 11:42:06 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:14:22 AM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > > > Fred has some funny ideas.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.reuters.com/article/solyndra-lawsuit-suntech/update-1-bankrupt-solyndra-seeks-1-5-bln-in-damages-from-chinese-peers-idUKL1E8LD0PB20121013
> > > >
> > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/20/us-imposes-tariffs-chinese-solar-panels
> >
> > This article is over 10 years old and for a tiny 3% to 5% tariff. I think tariff should be 50%.
> Trump liked to think big too. Thinking well was beyond him.
> > > Funny how the American free market wants tariff protection and tries to sue people who have worked out how to make a better, cheaper product.
> >
> > Easy, if we can have slave labors as well.
> They aren't called slave labour in the US - the phase there is undocumented immigrant labour, and if they get uppity the employer tells the immigration service to deport them. Unlike slaves, the employer doesn't have to buy them or cover the costs of their travel to the US.
>
> > > Back when the American domestic market was big enough to let them tool up for high enough production volumes to bankrupt everybody else, Americans just loved the free market. Once they'd off-shored enough production to China to let the Chinese do it to them they were less enthusiastic about it..
> >
> > It's not about free market. It's about free workers.
> The US doesn't like workers who get organised and unionised. They gave up on the Pinkertons some time ago - it's cheaper to corrupt the union officials, and freeze out the occasional incorruptible one by supporting corruptible rivals

You have to argue for sake of arguing. You and I both know that the USA does not let in migrants just for cheap labours. You are arguing for forced slavery trade in the comfort of you free country, but that's not the fault of Australia. It's like Russia arguing that Ukraine is too aggressive in defending their country, and China arguing that USA is not fair trade. Yes, the WT(F)O should kick out the USA or China. We, the people in free country, do not belong to the same org with country that promote forced slave labour and cheap bloody oil in making free trade.

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:22:44 AM UTC-5, Ed Lee wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 6:52:09 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:56:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 8:37:44 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 11:42:06 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:14:22 AM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Sounds like Solyndra on steroids.
> > > > >
> > > > > You should research Solyndra, it was actually a great technology, and the handful of installs they did complete worked as advertized. All they were doing was smartly repackaging a PV material developed by NREL, which sort of guaranteed a big development loan/ grant. It worked well enough to panic the Chinese into lowering the price of their panels by a full 70%- and it was that market pressure that caused a billion $$$ worth of Solyndra orders to be cancelled leading to their demise.
> > > > That wasn't why the Chinese lowered their solar cell prices by 70% - they'd invested a lot in making a cheap high-yield solar cell (actually developed by the University of New South Wales) in ten times the volume than anybody had before, and were able to sell them profitably at 30% of the price of anything comparable.
> > > >
> > > > They had to sell them cheaply to shift them at the rate they could produce them, and they had made them cheap enough that their solar cells were the cheapest source of electricity around.
> > > >
> > > > Solyndra's were just road-kill. The Chinese couldn't have cared less about the the companies they put out of businees
> > > > > So if nothing else Solyndra indirectly caused a massive reduction in the cost of solar PV.
> > > > Fred doesn't have much grasp of cause and effect.
> > > > > There is ongoing work in Europe refining and manufacturing the concept- and since a decade has passed the PV efficiency is way higher now.
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
> > > >
> > > > "Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin film solar cells "
> > > >
> > > > "The company claimed the cells themselves convert 12 to 14 percent of sunlight into electricity, an efficiency better than competing CIGS thin-film technologies"
> > > >
> > > > The cheap University of NSW silicon-based solar cells hit about 20% in 2018 and seem be doing better now.
> > > >
> > > > https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/unsw-and-leadmicro-announce-joint-initiative-develop-next-generation-high
> > > >
> > > > Fred has some funny ideas.
> > >
> > > https://www.reuters.com/article/solyndra-lawsuit-suntech/update-1-bankrupt-solyndra-seeks-1-5-bln-in-damages-from-chinese-peers-idUKL1E8LD0PB20121013
> > >
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/20/us-imposes-tariffs-chinese-solar-panels
> This article is over 10 years old and for a tiny 3% to 5% tariff. I think tariff should be 50%.

I'm pretty sure the Obama administration outright banned the importation of China solar panels at one point.

No matter. China just relocated a bunch of manufacturing to southeast Asia. Vietnam was perfect because U.S. gives them some kind of favored trade status.
https://vir.com.vn/chinese-solar-manufacturers-in-vietnam-may-face-an-investigation-from-the-us-86748.html

> > Funny how the American free market wants tariff protection and tries to sue people who have worked out how to make a better, cheaper product.
> Easy, if we can have slave labors as well.
> > Back when the American domestic market was big enough to let them tool up for high enough production volumes to bankrupt everybody else, Americans just loved the free market. Once they'd off-shored enough production to China to let the Chinese do it to them they were less enthusiastic about it
> It's not about free market. It's about free workers.

Right- that's why Tesla has a giga-factory using Uyghur slave labor. China had some insane program in place where they send ethnic Chinese men to fill the role of the Uyghur husband in the family while he's absent working in the slave labor camp. Sounded like some kind of conquest by ethnic hybridization plan.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 5:42:29 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 10:22:44 AM UTC-5, Ed Lee wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 6:52:09 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 12:56:03 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 8:37:44 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 11:42:06 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:14:22 AM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Sounds like Solyndra on steroids.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You should research Solyndra, it was actually a great technology, and the handful of installs they did complete worked as advertized. All they were doing was smartly repackaging a PV material developed by NREL, which sort of guaranteed a big development loan/ grant. It worked well enough to panic the Chinese into lowering the price of their panels by a full 70%- and it was that market pressure that caused a billion $$$ worth of Solyndra orders to be cancelled leading to their demise.
> > > > > That wasn't why the Chinese lowered their solar cell prices by 70% - they'd invested a lot in making a cheap high-yield solar cell (actually developed by the University of New South Wales) in ten times the volume than anybody had before, and were able to sell them profitably at 30% of the price of anything comparable.
> > > > >
> > > > > They had to sell them cheaply to shift them at the rate they could produce them, and they had made them cheap enough that their solar cells were the cheapest source of electricity around.
> > > > >
> > > > > Solyndra's were just road-kill. The Chinese couldn't have cared less about the the companies they put out of businees
> > > > > > So if nothing else Solyndra indirectly caused a massive reduction in the cost of solar PV.
> > > > > Fred doesn't have much grasp of cause and effect.
> > > > > > There is ongoing work in Europe refining and manufacturing the concept- and since a decade has passed the PV efficiency is way higher now.
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
> > > > >
> > > > > "Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin film solar cells "
> > > > >
> > > > > "The company claimed the cells themselves convert 12 to 14 percent of sunlight into electricity, an efficiency better than competing CIGS thin-film technologies"
> > > > >
> > > > > The cheap University of NSW silicon-based solar cells hit about 20% in 2018 and seem be doing better now.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/unsw-and-leadmicro-announce-joint-initiative-develop-next-generation-high
> > > > >
> > > > > Fred has some funny ideas.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.reuters.com/article/solyndra-lawsuit-suntech/update-1-bankrupt-solyndra-seeks-1-5-bln-in-damages-from-chinese-peers-idUKL1E8LD0PB20121013
> > > >
> > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/20/us-imposes-tariffs-chinese-solar-panels
> > This article is over 10 years old and for a tiny 3% to 5% tariff. I think tariff should be 50%.
> I'm pretty sure the Obama administration outright banned the importation of China solar panels at one point.
>
> No matter. China just relocated a bunch of manufacturing to southeast Asia. Vietnam was perfect because U.S. gives them some kind of favored trade status.
> https://vir.com.vn/chinese-solar-manufacturers-in-vietnam-may-face-an-investigation-from-the-us-86748.html
> > > Funny how the American free market wants tariff protection and tries to sue people who have worked out how to make a better, cheaper product.
> > Easy, if we can have slave labors as well.
> > > Back when the American domestic market was big enough to let them tool up for high enough production volumes to bankrupt everybody else, Americans just loved the free market. Once they'd off-shored enough production to China to let the Chinese do it to them they were less enthusiastic about it
> > It's not about free market. It's about free workers.
> Right- that's why Tesla has a giga-factory using Uyghur slave labor. China had some insane program in place where they send ethnic Chinese men to fill the role of the Uyghur husband in the family while he's absent working in the slave labor camp. Sounded like some kind of conquest by ethnic hybridization plan.

Obama didn't ban them, but did put higher tariffs on them:
https://grist.org/climate-energy/obama-administration-slaps-higher-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels/