Solar company puts hold on $20M US investment following new tariff
I-think4me
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
January 26, 2018 - 12:31 PM EST
Solar company puts hold on $20M US investment following new tariff
Solar company puts hold on $20M US investment following new tariff
BY MIRANDA GREEN 2
TWEET SHARE MORE
U.S.-based solar energy company SunPower announced it's putting a hold on a $20 million plan to expand factories and create hundreds of new jobs in the U.S. until it can guarantee an exclusion from the new federal solar technology tariff, according to Reuters.
SunPower's decision to halt its growth in California and Texas follows President Trump's announcement Monday that a 30 percent tariff would be placed on all imported solar technologies.
The administration said the decision would protect American manufacturing jobs but some solar companies, like SunPower, argued that it will hurt their bottom line and result in fewer jobs in the industry.
While SunPower is based in San Jose, Calif., the majority of its solar technologies are manufactured in the Philippines and Mexico.
"We have to stop the $20 million investment because the tariffs start before we know if we’re excluded,” SunPower's Chief Executive Tom Werner, told Reuters. “It’s not hypothetical. These were positions that we were recruiting for that we are going to stop.”
plainolamerican
White Mark
Irie
Pittalum
plainolamerican
plainolamerican
ImStillMags Mags
Pittalum
PirateLT
plainolamerican
Since 2001, the United States has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs to China — that despite U.S. factory workers being far more productive.
Partly, it can be explained by China’s cheaper workers: The average hourly wage for Chinese manufacturing workers is less than a tenth that of their average U.S. counterparts, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It being about twice as cheap to live in China, those lower Chinese wages go further. But Chinese factory workers also tend to work longer hours, making them more appealing to some employers.
U.S. factory workers do have one critical advantage over others: They’re really productive. In fact, U.S. factory workers produce $73.45 per hour in output, one-third more than German factory workers and twice as much as workers in Taiwan, according to the BLS. That’s in part because U.S. workers still tend to build more expensive products than someone in Taiwan, such as airplanes instead of shoes, Brookings labor economist Gary Burtless said.
Chinese and U.S. workers differ in another important respect as well. Factory workers in China are more than three times more likely to get killed at work than their American counterparts, and the government’s health insurance programs do not cover basic care.
German factory workers, on the other hand, enjoy a higher quality of life than American manufacturing workers. Their wages are 11 percent higher than those in the U.S. — largely because their unions are more powerful.
plainolamerican
I-think4me
We keep using words like compete, implying that we should be able to make the same products on a level playing field. What we should be focused on instead is making what we can make best or better. The whole point of global trade is that different areas can produce goods more efficiently.
plainolamerican
Pittalum
PirateLT
Pittalum
Lobo
On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:55:28 PM UTC-5, PirateLT wrote:
Pittalum
Navy
PirateLT
Pittalum
But now, China’s solar industry is changing in little-noticed ways that create both an imperative and an opportunity for the United States to up its game. The Chinese industry is innovating technologically — indeed, it’s starting to score world-record solar-cell efficiencies — contrary to a long-held myth that all China can do is manufacture others’ inventions cheaply. It’s expanding its manufacturing footprint across the globe. And it’s scrambling to import more efficient ways of financing solar power that have been pioneered in the West. The United States needs to take these shifts into account in defining an American solar strategy that minimizes the cost of solar power to the world while maximizing the long-term benefit to the American economy.
A more-enlightened United States policy approach to solar would seek above all to continue slashing solar power’s costs — not to prop up types of American solar manufacturing that can’t compete globally. It would leverage, not aim to bury, China’s manufacturing superiority, with closer cooperation on solar research and development. And it would focus American solar subsidies more on research and development and deployment than on manufacturing. As solar manufacturing continues to automate, reducing China’s cheap-labor advantage, it is likely to make more sense in the United States, at least for certain sorts of solar products."
Lobo
Lobo
Navy
Lobo
Five myths about the Solyndra collapse
There are still plenty of nagging questions about the collapse of Solyndra, the California-based solar-panel maker that went bankrupt last month after getting $535 million worth of loan guarantees from the Obama administration. Such as: Did the Energy Department fail to do due diligence? And did the White House intervene inappropriately in pressing for the loan guarantees?
But as Solyndra becomes the newest political chew toy, there’s been no shortage of hyperbole about the affair — especially over what it means for energy policy more broadly. On Tuesday, for example, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that Solyndra’s downfall proves “that green energy isn’t going to be the solution.” That’s quite a leap. So here’s a look at five overheated arguments about Solyndra’s bust:
1) This scandal is no big deal. To the contrary, evidence is mounting that there was something irregular about the way the Solyndra deal got greenlighted. My colleagues Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig have obtained e-mails showing that the White House pressed the Office of Management and Budget to hurry up in reviewing the deal (note, however, that this only came after the Energy Department had approved the loan), even as OMB officials voiced concern about being rushed.
Does that prove the White House engaged in cronyism, shoveling cash toward a political ally? Not necessarily. Democrats have pointed out that Solyndra’s loan process was initiated by the Bush administration and that many key investors were Republicans. Still, there could have been other reasons the deal was hastened. As a former Clinton energy aide stressed to me, it was arguably a mistake to sell the loan guarantees as job-creating stimulus (the program was expanded as part of the 2009 stimulus bill). “It means you try to force huge amounts of money quickly through processes that aren’t quite ready yet,” the aide said. “It’d be better to have a calmer, steadier source of funding.”
2) Solyndra proves that energy-loan guarantees are a flop. Not exactly. The Energy Department’s loan-guarantee program, enacted in 2005 with bipartisan support, has backed nearly $38 billion in loans for 40 projects around the country. Solyndra represents just 1.3 percent of that portfolio — and, as yet, it’s the only loan that has soured. Other solar beneficiaries, such as SunPower and First Solar, are still going strong. Meanwhile, just a small fraction of loan guarantees go toward solar. The program’s biggest bet to date is an $8.33 billion loan guarantee for a nuclear plant down in Georgia. Improper political influence in the process is disturbing, but, at least so far, Solyndra appears an exception, not a rule. (That said, the GAO and others have pointed out potential pitfalls and the need for stricter oversight in the loan program.)
3) The government should leave energy R&D to the private sector. Actually, there’s reason to think the private market is drastically under-investing in new energy technology. As a new report from the American Energy Innovation Council lays out, the utility sector spends just 0.1 percent of its revenues on R&D — the average for U.S. industries is 3.5 percent. The electricity sector is heavily regulated and capital-intensive — power plants last for decades and turn over slowly — and hence tends to focus less on innovation. What’s more, many objectives that may be in the public interest, such as reducing carbon emissions, aren’t fully valued in the marketplace right now.
As such, the AEIC report concludes, “Energy innovation should be a higher national priority.” Right now, the federal government spends a middling amount on energy research (about $3 billion in 2009), compared with the sums lavished on the National Institutes of Health ($36.5 billion) or defense research ($77 billion). And the AEIC report recommends public support for all aspects of the innovation process, from basic research to pilot projects to helping companies commercialize their products. (Solyndra was in that last phase.)
4) Solar is a doomed industry. This view has been gaining popularity, but it’s not borne out by the numbers. Prices for solar photovoltaic modules continue to tumble, even as fossil-fuel prices rise. A June reportby Ernst & Young suggests that large-scale solar could become cost-competitive within a decade, even without government support. Of course, grid operators still have to grapple with the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine, but storage technologies continue to improve — in July, a solar plant in Seville, Spain, achieved continuous 24-hour operation using molten salt storage. All told, some 24,000 MW worth of projects are in the pipeline in the United States, led by California. Those projects may not all get completed, but that’s a lot of growth underway.
5) It’s all China’s fault. This one is complicated. China does provide hefty subsidies to its solar industry. As Climate Progress’s Stephen Lacey details, the Chinese Development Bank offers cheap long-term loans to domestic manufacturers that dwarf anything Solyndra ever got. That allows Chinese solar companies to offer cutthroat prices and drive competitors out. And yet, as Westinghouse Solar CEO Barry Cinnamon explains, it wasn’t China that caused Solyndra to go belly-up — the company had invented a solar panel that didn’t use silicon, unlike its competitors, and foundered after silicon prices plummeted.
What’s more, the fact that China hurls money at solar isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since cheaper solar prices can benefit the United States too. The Energy Department seems to have recognized that going toe-to-toe with China on direct subsidies may be futile and is instead trying to focus on complementary efforts to bolster innovation, through programs like its Sunshot Initiative. Also, for all China’s subsidy frenzy, the United States still exported $1.9 billion of solar products last year and actually has a trade surplus in solar with China.
Navy
PirateLT
plainolamerican
Washington (CNN)More than 60 years after a space race rivalry with the Soviet Union ushered in a new era of ballistic missile development, the US is facing another "Sputnik moment" amid a rapidly escalating international competition over artificial intelligence, according to former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work.
The technology
The race
The funding
PirateLT
On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:21:58 PM UTC-7, plainolamerican wrote:
Washington (CNN)More than 60 years after a space race rivalry with the Soviet Union ushered in a new era of ballistic missile development, the US is facing another "Sputnik moment" amid a rapidly escalating international competition over artificial intelligence, according to former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work.
The idea that rapid advances in artificial intelligence will define the next generation of warfare -- a concept known as the "Third Offset Strategy" -- was first articulated by former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel in 2014.Possible AI applications for the military include: creating more nimble systems, possibly at lower cost; developing more effective training systems; software that processes mountains of data from surveillance systems or for "pattern-of-life" surveillance; improved facial recognition capabilities; war games support and automated combat in so-called manned-unmanned operations, according to a September report from the RAND Corporation.But a new report published Wednesday and provided exclusively to CNN by Work and Govini, a data and analytics firm that conducts government analysis, warns that the US military must now decide if it wants to "lead the coming revolution, or fall victim to it" amid emerging challenges from China and Russia."This stark choice will be determined by the degree to which the Department of Defense (DoD) recognizes the revolutionary military potential of AI and advanced autonomous systems," the report said.
Specifically, the White House and Pentagon must determine the extent to which the US will ramp up research and development in technologies associated with artificial intelligence -- including advanced computing, artificial neural networks, big data, machine learning, unmanned systems and robotics, it said.The US must also determine a national strategy for how aggressively it will develop new systems, operational concepts and organizational constructs that exploit artificial intelligence advancements in warfare, according to the report.An important part of that strategy relates to "autonomy" which results "from delegation of a decision to an authorized entity to take action within specific boundaries," Work told CNN.The technology
While critics have often warned against the development of autonomous offensive weaponry for fear of losing operational control, Work told CNN that the US pursuit of "narrow AI" will always prioritize human control but allow the machine to "independently compose and select among different courses of action to accomplish assigned goals based on its knowledge and understanding of the world, itself, and the situation."
plainolamerican
PirateLT
Lobo
Solyndra
American Legislative Exchange Council
Americans for Prosperity
Energy and environment[edit]
AFP supports oil and gas development and opposes regulation, including environmental restrictions.[151] The AFP Foundation opposed President Obama's efforts to address global warming.[152] AFP was important in creating the Tea Party movement and in encouraging the movement to focus on climate change.[153] AFP helped defeat proposed U.S. legislation embracing cap and trade, a market-based approach to control pollution by providing economic incentives.[29][154] In August 2009, Mother Jones magazine identified cap and trade as one of the key domestic policy goals of the Obama administration, and identified AFP as one of the most prominent groups in opposition.[155]
In 2008, AFP circulated the No Climate Tax Pledge to government officials at the federal, state, and local levels, a pledge to "oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue."[154][156][157][158] By July 2013, 411 lawmakers and candidates, including a quarter of U.S. Senators and more than a third of U.S. Representatives, primarily Republicans, had signed the pledge.[154] Of the twelve Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2011, nine signed the pledge.[38]
AFP held more than eighty events in opposition to cap and trade,[9] including the nationwide Hot Air Tour, which involved floating hot air balloons in protest of what AFP described as "global warming alarmism."[27] AFP raised a balloon in Phoenix, Arizona, in fall 2008[159] and also over Al Gore's house in Tennessee.[29] AFP described cap and trade as “the largest excise tax in history.” AFP sponsored a Regulation Reality Tour to foment opposition to climate change legislation and federal regulation of carbon emissions.[160] The tour involved fake "carbon cops" with badges in green Smart cars with flashing lights who wrote citations for "carbon crimes" like running a lawn mower.[161] In 2011, AFP launched a Running on Empty website and national tour featuring a 14-foot inflatable gas pump intended to link rising gas prices to the Obama administration’s environmental regulations and to promote offshore drilling for oil.[162][163] Long lines formed in several states in 2012 when AFP offered drivers gas discounted to the price in effect when Obama took office.[145][164][165][166] In 2012, AFP campaigned against Republican political candidates who acknowledged the science of climate change.[167]
AFP advocates for the construction of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. In February 2015, AFP organized supporters to telephone the White House urging Obama to sign legislation authorizing the project.[168] AFP led an effort to repeal a federal tax credit for wind power.[169][170] In Kansas, Ohio, North Carolina, and other states, AFP campaigned to overturn renewable portfolio standards, state laws that mandated a percentage of the state's electricity come from renewable resources.[171][172][173][174] AFP announced plans to oppose Republican candidates who support a carbon tax in the 2016 presidential primaries.[175]
Lobo
plainolamerican
How to Be Seen as an Expert in Artificial Intelligence
Let’s face it: even if you’ve seen Bladerunner 2049 a few times you probably don’t truly understand the future of AI. But don’t let a lack of knowledge stop you from being seen as an AI industry expert. Here are 10 ways to be viewed as someone at the forefront of the AI revolution.
1. Never say “Artificial Intelligence,” always say “AI”
If someone says “artificial intelligence,” correct them by saying, “don’t you mean, AI?” You’ll immediately appear more well-read on the subject than any of your colleagues.
2. Offer to develop your company’s AI offering
When this honor is bestowed on you, simply take your company’s Digital or Cloud offering and Find All and Replace “Digital/Cloud” with “AI” and…hey presto – you’re an innovation leader. This will earn precious kudos in time for the all important year end performance review.
3. Casually throw around complicated concepts
When speaking to co-workers, casually throw around terms like: algorithm, up-skilling, and machine learning to show you are both leading and following your company’s direction – whatever the hell that means.
4. Suggest using the Voight-Kampff empathy test in your company’s hiring process
Suggest HR start including the Voigt-Kampff empathy test in your company’s hiring process to help root out unfeeling, cold replicants from the new human hires. But don’t be surprised if your HR rep fails the test themselves.
5. Ask powerful questions
Ask powerful questions in meetings such as: “Could a bot do this?” or “Can we gamify this?”. These questions show that AI is always top-of-mind for you and soon people will be referring to you as “our resident AI guru.” However, never ask out loud “What exactly is a bot?” or “What’s our communication strategy for the machines?” or “Just because we can do this, does it mean we should do this?” These questions make you seem like you don’t care enough about dominating the future.
6. Add key AI terms to your business title
Use your new expertise in AI to add oomph to your job title for tech conferences. For example, if you’re a Senior Analyst, change that to Senior Robotics Analyst. Or, if you’re a Business Consultant, change that to AI Business Consultant. Or if you’re a Sales Assistant change that to Machine Learning Sales Assistant. Don’t worry, people will be too scared to ask you what it means.
7. Calculate which team members could be replaced by Voice Assistant Device
Help drive efficiencies and add to that all important bottom line by calculating which team members could be replaced by a Voice Assistant device. Use this simple formula to help you quantify:
[Employee salary + Pension + medical]- Cost of device x No. of original thoughts employee has generated at work per annum / No. of working hours spent on non-work related social media.
Share your findings with the team in a brief memo. Then sit back and let the “Wow! Insightful!” replies pour in.
8. Begin regularly wearing a VR headset
Join all video conference calls wearing a VR headset. You can quickly make your own VR headset by covering a View Master in white cardboard. Stand back and bask in the glory as co-workers marvel at your bleeding edge technology.
9. Become irreplaceable
The secret fear everyone has is that as robots are increasingly used to automate repetitive tasks there will be nothing left for us humans to do. However, the only part of our working day that robots can’t replace is chatting about AI at the water cooler and visiting the bathroom. The more you do this, the less replaceable you become. And of course, the more time you spend at the water cooler, the more you’ll need to visit the bathroom, thus filling your working day even more.
10. When in doubt, do the robot
Not to be confused with “doing a robot” which is an entirely different activity and should not be attempted in the workplace.