This is crazy:

"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.

It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.

Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/oil-giants-drill-deep-profits-trump-climate-concerns-2023-07-03/

There is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but it takes those people a decade to do anything. Their main job seems to be the creation of an elaborate hierarchy of bureaucracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

All this trouble because of a handful of mindless, greedy "investors"- a collective of treeless monkeys.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>This is crazy:
>
>"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.
>
>It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
>
>Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."

"Up to 8%" probably averages negative.

>
>https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/oil-giants-drill-deep-profits-trump-climate-concerns-2023-07-03/
>
>There is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but it takes those people a decade to do anything. Their main job seems to be the creation of an elaborate hierarchy of bureaucracy.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
>
>All this trouble because of a handful of mindless, greedy "investors"- a collective of treeless monkeys.
>
>

Businesses that make money tend to out-survive businesses that lose
money. Their shareholders are happier too.

On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 19:44:59 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This is crazy:
>>
>>"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.
>>
>>It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
>>
>>Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."
>
>"Up to 8%" probably averages negative.

It depends on what they're doing.

Arco used to make photovoltaics many years ago. They did a good job
of it too.

Electronics manufacturing in the R.E. field can be profitable but the
Chinese and India are kind of taking over those sales as the US is
more expensive.

boB

>
>>
>>https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/oil-giants-drill-deep-profits-trump-climate-concerns-2023-07-03/
>>
>>There is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but it takes those people a decade to do anything. Their main job seems to be the creation of an elaborate hierarchy of bureaucracy.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
>>
>>All this trouble because of a handful of mindless, greedy "investors"- a collective of treeless monkeys.
>>
>>
>
>Businesses that make money tend to out-survive businesses that lose
>money. Their shareholders are happier too.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 23:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 3:18:00?PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 19:44:59 -0700, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>This is crazy:
>> >>
>> >>"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.
>> >>
>> >>It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
>> >>
>> >>Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."
>> >
>> >"Up to 8%" probably averages negative.
>>
>> It depends on what they're doing.
>>
>> Arco used to make photovoltaics many years ago. They did a good job
>> of it too.
>>
>> Electronics manufacturing in the R.E. field can be profitable but the Chinese and India are kind of taking over those sales as the US is more expensive.
>
>That's not what's going on. About twenty years ago, Germany invested a lot of money in making solar cells in ten times the volume that anybody had before, and the economies of scale involved let them halve the unit price (which is what usually happens when you scale up production by a factor of ten).

Germany is definitely part of the equation but the fact is that China
could supplly PV panels cheaper than anyone else. Price is
everything. Then the worry was about dumping them cheaper than
manufacturing costs and it put American PV makers out of business.

Germany stopped investing in solar as much as they did 10 years ago.
And now, there are big tariffs on everything China. We need China to
continue making solar panels cheap. The US sucks at making things
inexpensive enough to afford.
India doesn't buy from us much because of their taxes or tariffs or
duties on US made products. Similar with other countries too.

boB

>
>About a decade later, China did exactly the same thing, which presumably cost them ten times as much money. They manufactured a slightly better solar cell which had had been invented in the meantime, and now have 85% of the solar cell market. It's high time somebody did it again.
>
>The US probably has enough money to do it, but it's political system is a mess.

On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 13:47:28 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 23:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 3:18:00?PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 19:44:59 -0700, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>>> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>This is crazy:
>>> >>
>>> >>"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.
>>> >>
>>> >>It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
>>> >>
>>> >>Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."
>>> >
>>> >"Up to 8%" probably averages negative.
>>>
>>> It depends on what they're doing.
>>>
>>> Arco used to make photovoltaics many years ago. They did a good job
>>> of it too.
>>>
>>> Electronics manufacturing in the R.E. field can be profitable but the Chinese and India are kind of taking over those sales as the US is more expensive.
>>
>>That's not what's going on. About twenty years ago, Germany invested a lot of money in making solar cells in ten times the volume that anybody had before, and the economies of scale involved let them halve the unit price (which is what usually happens when you scale up production by a factor of ten).
>
>Germany is definitely part of the equation but the fact is that China
>could supplly PV panels cheaper than anyone else. Price is
>everything. Then the worry was about dumping them cheaper than
>manufacturing costs and it put American PV makers out of business.
>
>Germany stopped investing in solar as much as they did 10 years ago.
>And now, there are big tariffs on everything China. We need China to
>continue making solar panels cheap. The US sucks at making things
>inexpensive enough to afford.
>India doesn't buy from us much because of their taxes or tariffs or
>duties on US made products. Similar with other countries too.
>
>boB
>
>
>>
>>About a decade later, China did exactly the same thing, which presumably cost them ten times as much money. They manufactured a slightly better solar cell which had had been invented in the meantime, and now have 85% of the solar cell market. It's high time somebody did it again.
>>
>>The US probably has enough money to do it, but it's political system is a mess.

BTW, it was almost 20 years ago that Germany was investing in solar.
That was kind of strange in a way because the sun shines about the
same there as it does in here in the Pacific Northwest where I live
and there is some solar here.

From VOA.... I remember this time...

"In 2011, the Commerce Department ruled that China was "dumping" solar
panels in the U.S. market, or pricing the panels below the cost of
manufacturing them. This forced U.S. firms out of the business because
they could not operate at a profit while matching Chinese prices."

boB

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:59:04 PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 13:47:28 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 23:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 3:18:00?PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 19:44:59 -0700, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
> >>> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>This is crazy:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."
> >>> >
> >>> >"Up to 8%" probably averages negative.
> >>>
> >>> It depends on what they're doing.
> >>>
> >>> Arco used to make photovoltaics many years ago. They did a good job
> >>> of it too.
> >>>
> >>> Electronics manufacturing in the R.E. field can be profitable but the Chinese and India are kind of taking over those sales as the US is more expensive.
> >>
> >>That's not what's going on. About twenty years ago, Germany invested a lot of money in making solar cells in ten times the volume that anybody had before, and the economies of scale involved let them halve the unit price (which is what usually happens when you scale up production by a factor of ten).
> >
> >Germany is definitely part of the equation but the fact is that China
> >could supplly PV panels cheaper than anyone else. Price is
> >everything. Then the worry was about dumping them cheaper than
> >manufacturing costs and it put American PV makers out of business.
> >
> >Germany stopped investing in solar as much as they did 10 years ago.
> >And now, there are big tariffs on everything China. We need China to
> >continue making solar panels cheap. The US sucks at making things
> >inexpensive enough to afford.
> >India doesn't buy from us much because of their taxes or tariffs or
> >duties on US made products. Similar with other countries too.
> >
> >boB
> >
> >
> >>
> >>About a decade later, China did exactly the same thing, which presumably cost them ten times as much money. They manufactured a slightly better solar cell which had had been invented in the meantime, and now have 85% of the solar cell market. It's high time somebody did it again.
> >>
> >>The US probably has enough money to do it, but it's political system is a mess.
> BTW, it was almost 20 years ago that Germany was investing in solar.
> That was kind of strange in a way because the sun shines about the
> same there as it does in here in the Pacific Northwest where I live
> and there is some solar here.
>
>
> From VOA.... I remember this time...
>
> "In 2011, the Commerce Department ruled that China was "dumping" solar
> panels in the U.S. market, or pricing the panels below the cost of
> manufacturing them. This forced U.S. firms out of the business because
> they could not operate at a profit while matching Chinese prices."

They were mainly targeting Solyndra. So in accordance with some hard to work with authority, Obama banned Chinese solar imports. Now you know how Vietnam became a solar panel manufacturing powerhouse, China just moved everything there to skirt the ban.

>
>
> boB

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:59:04?PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 13:47:28 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 23:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 3:18:00?PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 19:44:59 -0700, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>> >>> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>This is crazy:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."
>> >>> >
>> >>> >"Up to 8%" probably averages negative.
>> >>>
>> >>> It depends on what they're doing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Arco used to make photovoltaics many years ago. They did a good job
>> >>> of it too.
>> >>>
>> >>> Electronics manufacturing in the R.E. field can be profitable but the Chinese and India are kind of taking over those sales as the US is more expensive.
>> >>
>> >>That's not what's going on. About twenty years ago, Germany invested a lot of money in making solar cells in ten times the volume that anybody had before, and the economies of scale involved let them halve the unit price (which is what usually happens when you scale up production by a factor of ten).
>> >
>> >Germany is definitely part of the equation but the fact is that China
>> >could supplly PV panels cheaper than anyone else. Price is
>> >everything. Then the worry was about dumping them cheaper than
>> >manufacturing costs and it put American PV makers out of business.
>> >
>> >Germany stopped investing in solar as much as they did 10 years ago.
>> >And now, there are big tariffs on everything China. We need China to
>> >continue making solar panels cheap. The US sucks at making things
>> >inexpensive enough to afford.
>> >India doesn't buy from us much because of their taxes or tariffs or
>> >duties on US made products. Similar with other countries too.
>> >
>> >boB
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>About a decade later, China did exactly the same thing, which presumably cost them ten times as much money. They manufactured a slightly better solar cell which had had been invented in the meantime, and now have 85% of the solar cell market. It's high time somebody did it again.
>> >>
>> >>The US probably has enough money to do it, but it's political system is a mess.
>> BTW, it was almost 20 years ago that Germany was investing in solar.
>> That was kind of strange in a way because the sun shines about the
>> same there as it does in here in the Pacific Northwest where I live
>> and there is some solar here.
>>
>>
>> From VOA.... I remember this time...
>>
>> "In 2011, the Commerce Department ruled that China was "dumping" solar
>> panels in the U.S. market, or pricing the panels below the cost of
>> manufacturing them. This forced U.S. firms out of the business because
>> they could not operate at a profit while matching Chinese prices."
>
>They were mainly targeting Solyndra. So in accordance with some hard to work with authority, Obama banned Chinese solar imports. Now you know how Vietnam became a solar panel manufacturing powerhouse, China just moved everything there to skirt the ban.
>

Solyndra never had a viable product. It was doomed to failure
before they even got their $500M and wasted it.

BAD idea to fund them.

>>
>>
>> boB

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:07:33 PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:59:04?PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
> >> On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 13:47:28 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 23:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> >> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 3:18:00?PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
> >> >>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 19:44:59 -0700, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
> >> >>> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >>This is crazy:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >"Up to 8%" probably averages negative.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It depends on what they're doing.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Arco used to make photovoltaics many years ago. They did a good job
> >> >>> of it too.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Electronics manufacturing in the R.E. field can be profitable but the Chinese and India are kind of taking over those sales as the US is more expensive.
> >> >>
> >> >>That's not what's going on. About twenty years ago, Germany invested a lot of money in making solar cells in ten times the volume that anybody had before, and the economies of scale involved let them halve the unit price (which is what usually happens when you scale up production by a factor of ten).
> >> >
> >> >Germany is definitely part of the equation but the fact is that China
> >> >could supplly PV panels cheaper than anyone else. Price is
> >> >everything. Then the worry was about dumping them cheaper than
> >> >manufacturing costs and it put American PV makers out of business.
> >> >
> >> >Germany stopped investing in solar as much as they did 10 years ago.
> >> >And now, there are big tariffs on everything China. We need China to
> >> >continue making solar panels cheap. The US sucks at making things
> >> >inexpensive enough to afford.
> >> >India doesn't buy from us much because of their taxes or tariffs or
> >> >duties on US made products. Similar with other countries too.
> >> >
> >> >boB
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>About a decade later, China did exactly the same thing, which presumably cost them ten times as much money. They manufactured a slightly better solar cell which had had been invented in the meantime, and now have 85% of the solar cell market. It's high time somebody did it again.
> >> >>
> >> >>The US probably has enough money to do it, but it's political system is a mess.
> >> BTW, it was almost 20 years ago that Germany was investing in solar.
> >> That was kind of strange in a way because the sun shines about the
> >> same there as it does in here in the Pacific Northwest where I live
> >> and there is some solar here.
> >>
> >>
> >> From VOA.... I remember this time...
> >>
> >> "In 2011, the Commerce Department ruled that China was "dumping" solar
> >> panels in the U.S. market, or pricing the panels below the cost of
> >> manufacturing them. This forced U.S. firms out of the business because
> >> they could not operate at a profit while matching Chinese prices."
> >
> >They were mainly targeting Solyndra. So in accordance with some hard to work with authority, Obama banned Chinese solar imports. Now you know how Vietnam became a solar panel manufacturing powerhouse, China just moved everything there to skirt the ban.
> >
> Solyndra never had a viable product. It was doomed to failure
> before they even got their $500M and wasted it.
>
> BAD idea to fund them.

The DoE is handing out 'grants', not loans, on the order $500M these days like it's a routine. And the web is full of investment industry articles about Solyndra and how it was sure bet to yield massive returns as well as heading for a market capitalization of several trillion $$$.

Their business model had the chair kicked out from under it when this happened:

Between 2009 and mid-2011 the price of polysilicon, the key ingredient for most competing technologies, dropped by about 89%. [ That's a really big drop.]

The price of natural gas fell substantially too- and that might have largely been a result of government subsidization also.

When billions of $$$ Solyndra pending orders were cancelled, they went under overnight.

The whole thing became an anti-Obama witch-hunt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investigation

The technology was not a failure. They had over a thousand installations worldwide, and people were very satisfied with the performance.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42058.html

The founder and first CEO is now "Health coaching for high performance executives."

>
> >>
> >>
> >> boB

On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 05:36:40 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:07:33?PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:00:21 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:59:04?PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 13:47:28 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 23:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 3:18:00?PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
>> >> >>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 19:44:59 -0700, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >>This is crazy:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >"Up to 8%" probably averages negative.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It depends on what they're doing.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Arco used to make photovoltaics many years ago. They did a good job
>> >> >>> of it too.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Electronics manufacturing in the R.E. field can be profitable but the Chinese and India are kind of taking over those sales as the US is more expensive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>That's not what's going on. About twenty years ago, Germany invested a lot of money in making solar cells in ten times the volume that anybody had before, and the economies of scale involved let them halve the unit price (which is what usually happens when you scale up production by a factor of ten).
>> >> >
>> >> >Germany is definitely part of the equation but the fact is that China
>> >> >could supplly PV panels cheaper than anyone else. Price is
>> >> >everything. Then the worry was about dumping them cheaper than
>> >> >manufacturing costs and it put American PV makers out of business.
>> >> >
>> >> >Germany stopped investing in solar as much as they did 10 years ago.
>> >> >And now, there are big tariffs on everything China. We need China to
>> >> >continue making solar panels cheap. The US sucks at making things
>> >> >inexpensive enough to afford.
>> >> >India doesn't buy from us much because of their taxes or tariffs or
>> >> >duties on US made products. Similar with other countries too.
>> >> >
>> >> >boB
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>About a decade later, China did exactly the same thing, which presumably cost them ten times as much money. They manufactured a slightly better solar cell which had had been invented in the meantime, and now have 85% of the solar cell market. It's high time somebody did it again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The US probably has enough money to do it, but it's political system is a mess.
>> >> BTW, it was almost 20 years ago that Germany was investing in solar.
>> >> That was kind of strange in a way because the sun shines about the
>> >> same there as it does in here in the Pacific Northwest where I live
>> >> and there is some solar here.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From VOA.... I remember this time...
>> >>
>> >> "In 2011, the Commerce Department ruled that China was "dumping" solar
>> >> panels in the U.S. market, or pricing the panels below the cost of
>> >> manufacturing them. This forced U.S. firms out of the business because
>> >> they could not operate at a profit while matching Chinese prices."
>> >
>> >They were mainly targeting Solyndra. So in accordance with some hard to work with authority, Obama banned Chinese solar imports. Now you know how Vietnam became a solar panel manufacturing powerhouse, China just moved everything there to skirt the ban.
>> >
>> Solyndra never had a viable product. It was doomed to failure
>> before they even got their $500M and wasted it.
>>
>> BAD idea to fund them.
>
>The DoE is handing out 'grants', not loans, on the order $500M these days like it's a routine. And the web is full of investment industry articles about Solyndra and how it was sure bet to yield massive returns as well as heading for a market capitalization of several trillion $$$.
>
>Their business model had the chair kicked out from under it when this happened:
>
>Between 2009 and mid-2011 the price of polysilicon, the key ingredient for most competing technologies, dropped by about 89%. [ That's a really big drop.]
>
>The price of natural gas fell substantially too- and that might have largely been a result of government subsidization also.
>
>When billions of $$$ Solyndra pending orders were cancelled, they went under overnight.
>
>The whole thing became an anti-Obama witch-hunt.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investigation
>
>The technology was not a failure. They had over a thousand installations worldwide, and people were very satisfied with the performance.

And many people might be satisfied with a solar freakin' roadway, too.

So if Solyndra's design was so good, why hasn't anybody else,
including the Chinese made cylindrical solar panels that waste 1/2 of
the silicon ?

It's because it was a flop.

boB

>
>https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42058.html
>
>The founder and first CEO is now "Health coaching for high performance executives."
>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> boB

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 20:44:18 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 6:47:47?AM UTC+10, boB wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 23:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 3:18:00?PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 03 Jul 2023 19:44:59 -0700, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>This is crazy:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"It responds to pressure from a majority of investors to maximise their oil and gas profits rather than invest in lower margin renewable energy businesses.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It also defies protests from a minority of activist investors who want oil companies to be more closely aligned with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Upstream oil and gas have historically had returns of around 15%-to-20%, while most renewables projects have delivered up to 8%."
>> >> >
>> >> >"Up to 8%" probably averages negative.
>> >>
>> >> It depends on what they're doing.
>> >>
>> >> Arco used to make photovoltaics many years ago. They did a good job
>> >> of it too.
>> >>
>> >> Electronics manufacturing in the R.E. field can be profitable but the Chinese and India are kind of taking over those sales as the US is more expensive.
>> >
>> >That's not what's going on. About twenty years ago, Germany invested a lot of money in making solar cells in ten times the volume that anybody had before, and the economies of scale involved let them halve the unit price (which is what usually happens when you scale up production by a factor of ten).
>>
>> Germany is definitely part of the equation but the fact is that China could supplly PV panels cheaper than anyone else.
>>
>> > About a decade later, China did exactly the same thing, which presumably cost them ten times as much money. They manufactured a slightly better solar cell which had had been invented in the meantime, and now have 85% of the solar cell market. It's high time somebody did it again.
>
>You started typing before you'd read that part of my comment, and clearly don't understand how high volume production can give you a cheaper product..
>
> > Price is everything. Then the worry was about dumping them cheaper than manufacturing costs and it put American PV makers out of business.
>
>They weren't being dumped at cheaper than manufacturing cost - China had invested enough to manufacture solar cells in the volume that they thought that they'd need. and that roughly halved the unit cost of each cell produced.
>
>> Germany stopped investing in solar as much as they did 10 years ago.
>
>Because the Chinese were making the same - actually a slightly - product for half the price.
>The German production lines had become obsolete.
>
>> And now, there are big tariffs on everything China. We need China to continue making solar panels cheap. The US sucks at making things inexpensive enough to afford.
>
>It didn't used to. The first Ford cars sold for half the price of the competition because they were made in ten times the volume.
>
>> India doesn't buy from us much because of their taxes or tariffs or duties on US made products. Similar with other countries too.
>
>That misses the point. India needs to boost it's own production sector.

Some design ideas are just bad ideas and have been re-introduced time
after time. Like VAWT Vertical Access Wind Turbines.

boB