BP Solar lays off 320 workers (The company is moving production to other countries.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1921401

BP Solar lays off 320 workers

March 27, 2010 - 8:06am

Even as the use of solar energy to power homes, offices and other buildings increases, the cost of making panels and other equipment is still high in the U.S.

It was that cost that led to the shutdown of manufacturing at BP Solar in Frederick on Friday and the layoffs of 320 employees.

The site, opened in 1981, had once employed more than 500, turning silicon into wafers and then assembling them into solar panels.

The global market has taken its toll, said Reyad Fezzani, BP Solar CEO. The company is moving production to other countries.

...

[Xipe Totec]

1. Sunnier countries? nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Countries with cheaper labor

i.e. China and India

[Xipe Totec]

5. So, yes?

:hide:

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Uh, no, sunniness has nothing to do with it

Please follow the link if you actually care.

[Xipe Totec]

7. Gallows humor. Forgive me nt

[Brickbat]

2. Which is the main reason I consider a lot of the blah-blah about green jobs to be just that, a bunch

of blah-blah, until someone can explain to me how these jobs won't be outsourced.

[Cleita]

4. Right. eom

[Merchant Marine]

24. We need a Jones Act for green energy...

American plants should be built with american components, made in america by americans.

[Radical Activist]

36. installation, building large utility scale solar, energy efficiency projects.

Many green jobs can't be outsourced.

[kristopher]

8. There is an industry shake out because of cheaper thin-film solar.

It has little to do with labor overseas and everything to do with new technologies that can produce panels at a small fraction of the cost of older technologies.

For example, NanoSolar has a new "printer" that costs $1.6 million and can produce 1GW worth of panels per year. The company closing has been around since 1981 and probably has completely outdated (marketwise) technologies at that facility that simply can't be made competitive.

[NNadir]

9. You mean they can be driven out of business by a company that can manage the energy of a small gas

plant.

In delusional solar talk, 1 GW/year is equivalent to a real 100 MW/year plant, since solar PV runs at about 10% of capacity utilization.

It must be a crappy trivial industry. Come to think of it, it is.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

We're supposed to bet the entire planet's atmosphere on this?

Or was it this that we were supposed to bet our atmosphere on?

[jpak]

13. More solar capacity was produced globally last year than stupid new nuclear capacity

global PV production in 2009 was 5.95 GW

http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2009-intro.htm

global nuclear capacity DECLINED and will continues - so says the Nuclear Energy Institiute

Nuclear decline set to continue, says report

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2053966

Nuclear will continue to decline according to a new report written from an antinuclear point of view. At this point there is no obvious sign that the international nuclear industry could turn the decline into a promising future, it says.

"The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009" by independent consultant, Mycle Schneider, professor for energy policy Steve Thomas, consultant Antony Froggatt and Doug Koplow, was released on 27 August. Commissioned by the antinuclear German federal ministry of environment, nature conservation and reactor safety, it gives facts on the nuclear power plants in operation, under construction and in planning phases throughout the world. It also assesses the economic performance of past and current nuclear projects including Calvert Cliffs, Flamanville and Olkiluoto.

The report says that there seems to be a “widening gap” between the industrial reality with its current trends and the "perception of some sort of nuclear renaissance”.

In 2007 nuclear power plants generated about 2600TWh and provided 14% of the world's electricity, a 2% fall compared with 2006.

<more>

crappy little inudustry indeed...

:rofl:

[Statistical]

45. A one year blip. 55 reactors under construction around world with combined capacity of 50.9GW

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/
Country No. of Units Total MW(e)
ARGENTINA 1 692
BULGARIA 2 1906
CHINA 21 20920
FINLAND 1 1600
FRANCE 1 1600
INDIA 5 2708
IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 1 915
JAPAN 1 1325
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 6 6520
PAKISTAN 1 300
RUSSIAN FEDERATION 8 5944
SLOVAK REPUBLIC 2 810
UKRAINE 2 1900
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 1165
Total: 55 50905

The number of reactors under construction right now is more than all the installed solar capacity in the world.

Also number of new starts in 2009 was a record (11 reactors, 12.2GW)
# Construction initiation:

* Hongyanhe 3 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 7 March
* Sanmen 1 (1000 MW(e), PWR AP-1000, China) - construction officially started on 19 April
* Yangjiang 2 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 4 June
* Fuqing 2 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 17 June
* Novovoronezh 2-2 (1085 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Russia) - construction officially started on 12 July
* Fangjiashan 2 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 17 July
* Hongyanhe 4 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 15 August
* Shin-Kori 4 (1340 MW(e), PWR-APR 1400, S. Korea) - construction officially started on 15 September
* Haiyang 1 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 24 September
* Taishan 1 (1700 MW(e), PWR-EPR, China) - construction officially started on 18 November
* Sanmen 2 (1000 MW(e), PWR AP-1000, China) - construction officially started on 17 December

Of course reactors also have a 85% capacity factor(92% in US) compared to 15% to 20% for solar.
So in terms of delivering power 1 GW of nuclear is worth about 4 to 5GW of solar.

Pst the US one is a secret.
Anti-nukkers would freak out if they learned a reactor has been under construction for 3 years now and will go critical in 2013. It is often ignored by media who cite "no NEW reactors under construction".

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. "It has little to do with labor overseas."

...

The global market has taken its toll, said Reyad Fezzani, BP Solar CEO. The company is moving production to other countries.

"There is a demand for the product all over the world," Fezzani said Friday in a telephone interview from the company's headquarters in California. "We will do that at lower-cost locations, through a range of third-party manufacturers. We have a joint partnership with some in India and China."

...

Fezzani said the cost of production is a global issue, not just local, and complimented the city, county and state for their support of BP Solar over the years.

"We shut down plants in Australia and Spain," Fezzani said.

...

[kristopher]

11. What do you expect them to say, "Our product is too expensive?"

When they invest in new manufacturing that duplicates the process they just closed down, get back to me.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Check the products they make in China

http://www.bpsunoasis.com/en/service.asp

[kristopher]

14. Do you know how to actually make an argument?

If so, do it. If not, then take your endless implications elsewhere.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. OK, I'll tell you what

Why don't you offer evidence to back up your claims for a change?

[kristopher]

16. In other words you don't have an argument.

As usual.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Let's see...

I posted an article.

You claimed it wasn't true, but offered no evidence to support that claim.

What argument do you expect me to make?

[kristopher]

18. Unless you are unaware of the price differential between thin film and older technologies

then the evidence is staring you in the face and is composed of facts with which you are well acquainted. It isn't on my shoulders to teach you to *think* instead of just parroting news articles as if the content of said articles represented the end all of facts in evidnce.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. According to Solar Buzz

Lowest Mono-crystalline Module Price     $2.13/Wp  (€1.55/Wp)
Lowest Multi-crystalline Module Price    $1.74/Wp  (€1.27/Wp)
Lowest Thin Film Module price            $1.76/Wp  (€1.28/Wp)

(Looks like the price differential isn't all that great.)


Is BP no longer able to sell their cells? No, however, they're feeling price pressures.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bp_solar_layoffs_2

...

The company, a San Francisco-based unit of London-based BP PLC, said the sharply falling price of solar-power modules prompted it to shift its remaining in-house production to lower-cost joint ventures in China and India and contract with other manufacturers for the rest.

...

In 2009, BP Solar announced its global sales rose more than 26 percent. The company said it expects sales growth exceeding 50 percent in 2010.

BP Solar said it is increasingly focused on developing utility-sized projects. Fezzani said about 70 percent of solar industry jobs are in design, installation and maintenance. As a major project developer, BP Solar will help create hundreds of these new jobs, he said.

...

"They're obviously going to be making the solar cells somewhere, but they're choosing physically to relocate and not be here, and that's indicative of, I guess, the environment — the business environment and the economy," Brinkley said.

...

[kristopher]

20. Is there an actual argument buried in that?

ETA - I prefer you explicitly state your point because when you don't you always try to pretend you were saying something else as that point is shown to be wrong.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. I posted an article

You claimed it was false. However, you see no burden of proof.

I have provided evidence to support the article. I don't know why I bother.

BP is not the first solar manufacturer to move production overseas recently.

http://www.wbur.org/2009/11/05/evergreen-china

Evergreen Solar To Move Jobs To China

By FRANNIE CARR
Published November 5, 2009 UPDATED 4:45 PM

A solar panel company that received $58 million in state aid to build its factory in Massachusetts is now moving jobs overseas.

Evergreen Solar is shifting some of its production, currently done at a plant in Devens, to China next year, after posting an $82 million loss in the third quarter.

Gov. Deval Patrick calls the move unfortunate, but says some of Evergreen’s operations will remain here.

“I’m disappointed about the manufacturing,” Patrick said, “but I’m delighted that they will continue to grow jobs in Massachusetts and they will be a part of our emerging clean tech sector.”

...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/14/technology/renewable_manufacturing/?postversion=2009011512

U.S. solar panel makers prefer overseas

Tax credits for makers of renewable energy products could revive the U.S. industrial sector. But most find other countries more attractive.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: January 15, 2009: 6:26 PM ET

NEW YORK, CNNMoney.com -- When SunPower, one of the country's largest makers of solar panels, went looking to build a factory a few years back, several countries vied for their business.

Ultimately, the company was attracted to a place that offered a competitive workforce and favorable taxes - and 5,000 high-skilled manufacturing jobs ended up in the Philippines.

"We would love to have the opportunity to invest in our own backyard," said Julie Blunden, a spokeswoman for the San Jose, Calif.-based company. But "the tax packages offered in the Philippines are difficult to compete with in the U.S. today."

It's not just taxes that entice companies to build abroad - lower wages and, in some cases, a better trained workforce help too. But taxes are a key part.

...

[kristopher]

22. As I said, I can't teach you to think...

The company in the OP has been in business there since 1981.

Now, what is most recent, the competition to older technologies from newer thin film, or the availability of cheaper labor overseas? If it were an issue of lower cost labor being the primary cause, it would have happened long ago.

BTW, I didn't "claim the article was false" so much as I asserted the company wasn't forthcoming on the real reasons they were having trouble.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. I already know how to think (thank you.)

"It has little to do with labor overseas."

[kristopher]

27. Of course you do.

You just don't do it very well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x238427#238642

[Statistical]

28. Your argument is silly.

BP isn't closing every single plant in the world.
Mono & Poly crystaline panels still make up the bulk of panel shipments.

They are closing plant in US and keeping plants up in cheap labor markets.
If they thought poly crystaline was dead end and couldn't compete they would be closing all their plants.

[kristopher]

That isn't true.

They own an older technology and they are slowly being forced out of the market by a newer technology. Incremental ares of cost improvement (such as labor) are not the fundamental issue - outdated technology is. Barring a new breakthrough technology for Si, as thin film production ramps up they almost certainly will shut down production of facilities making the cells they've relied on in the past.

That doesn't mean the company will necessarily disappear as I am sure they have assets that can transition to a thin film market.

They are a prime example of a technology driven industry shake-out, not a case of two competitors with the same technology seeking competitive advantage by moving operations to lower cost labor markets.

[Statistical]

30. However they are NOT shutting down their Chinese plant. Right?

They will still be making crystaline solar panels for years.

Thin film is only 15% of the market and it will take some time before it completely displaces crystalline production.

[kristopher]

31. The amount of time it takes will depend on the amount of investment in thin film

And there is a lot of money flowing into thin film.

I know that, being a salesman for nuclear power, you really don't need to understand market behavior, but when a new tech is pegged as a winner (like the GE move demonstrates) change can occur very, very rapidly.

15 years ago the CD walkman was state of the art.

[Statistical]

32. But they aren't closing their Chinese plant.

They COULD close the Chinese plant to reduce capacity of older technology but they chose the US plant.

Why would that be? Oh labor costs? However it has nothing to do with labor right?

[kristopher]

33. Another fuckiing straw man?

Read my original comment.

You sound more and more like Josh every day...

[Statistical]

34. No strawman. Just reality.

They have 2 plants that can close. China & US.

Even if the reason for closing A plant is due to lower priced competitors thus less market share they still are only closing one plant.

They COULD close the plant in China.
They COULD also close the plant in US.

The fact that they close the plant in US indicates labor costs has some effect on the decision.
Otherwise why not just close plant in China? Same output = reduction in production capacity in market of falling marketshare.

Either plant can accomplish that goal. They chose to close US plant because of labor costs.

Nuclear jobs will remain in the United States. Construction jobs will be done by Americans and operations jobs will always require Americans.

[kristopher]

35. The fact that they have to close ANY plant is due to technology Einstein.

[Statistical]

37. However they chose the one with lower labor costs rights?

So all this hype about green jobs is just hype.

When push comes to shove companies will outsource the "green" jobs to low cost producers like China & India.
Domestic thin-film plants will need to compete with foreign thin-film plants. So they aren't magically exempt.

[kristopher]

38. It isn't hype no matter how much your little nuclear driven heart wishes it were...

[Statistical]

40. Well it isn't hype for China. I expect them to rack in millions of green jobs.

[kristopher]

43. And i'm sure they will; but so will we.

[kristopher]

29. That isn't true.

They own an older technology and they are slowly being forced out of the market by a newer technology. Incremental ares of cost improvement (such as labor) are not the fundamental issue - outdated technology is. Barring a new breakthrough technology for Si, as thin film production ramps up they almost certainly will shut down production of facilities making the cells they've relied on in the past.

That doesn't mean the company will necessarily disappear as I am sure they have assets that can transition to a thin film market.

They are a prime example of a technology driven industry shake-out, not a case of two competitors with the same technology seeking competitive advantage by moving operations to lower cost labor markets.

[OKIsItJustMe]

46. And you see no need to verify your facts

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=209486&mesg_id=209574
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234520&mesg_id=234555
...

[Dead_Parrot]

23. And the fact that BP pulled out of thin-film nearly a decade ago...

...has no bearing on what they might be producing in those overseas plants?

No, of course not. Carry on, K! You're doing an epic job.

lol.

[kristopher]

26. It's great you bring that up.

It demonstrates the lack of knowledge underpinning the beliefs of rabid nuclear supporters such as yourself.

There are two kinds of thin film and amorphous silicon thin film (which would have been the technology of ten years ago) appears to have been a dead end.

However, polycrystalline thin film is a different story.

Business News: General Electric (NYSE: GE) Working on Major Push in Solar Technology
March 28th, 2010

General Electric Co (NYSE: GE) is investing in a new thin-film solar technology and plans on rolling out a new solar panel based on the technology next year which has the potential to lead the market, according to a statement from a company executive on Friday.

GE is the largest US conglomerate company and currently is only a small player in the solar panel market, however the company has stopped investing in traditional crystalline-silicon panels and is now pouring its research efforts into panels made with little or no poly-silicon, more commonly known as thin film.

The company will have to compete with established market players including First Solar Inc, Sharp and Applied Materials who is also hoping to expand its market share...

It is relevant that GE has been producing silicon solar cells for a while. But in 2008 they bought Colorado's PrimeStar Solar - and their CIGS technology. At about the same time they sold their standard silicon cell operation in Delaware. At the time "GE indicated that it scaled back operations at the Delaware plant because crystalline silicon panels "have fallen behind in the race to be the least costly and most efficient solar cell system.""

Interestingly, one of the technologies that BPSolar has tried to use to make more profitable the older technology they have rights to is provided by GE backed Solar Edge. Apparently the productivity increase wasn't enough to offset the price advantage of thin film.

PS. LOL

[Dead_Parrot]

39. Hmmm

"We now have a number of new technologies we're taking to the market," Eric Daniels, vice president of technology, said of BP's advances in crystalline products. "We look every year at thin films and have no plans to rekindle thin films. We see a very long future ahead in crystalline."

Still, what would he know?

[Statistical]

41. I mean he is only VP of technology, practically a nobody.

An anonymous loud mouth, know it all on a forum is far more credible source than actual VP of a multi-billion dollar solar division.

Then again maybe he is looking at analysis like this

4. CIGS and amorphous silicon (particularly turnkey line production) will likely not see meaningful market share before 2013, after which cost reductions and efficiency improvements will finally start to drive a competitive product offering at an adequate margin. This is also the time horizon required for bankability concerns to be alleviated for thin film companies with quality modules. The chart below displays thin film market share for two scenarios, a "low-penetration" scenario where overall market share stagnates at 21% by 2012, and a "high-penetration" share that assumes a share of 30% by this time. In both cases, there is limited opportunity for a-Si and CIGS producers after assuming 90 percent utilization for First Solar.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-future-of-thin-film-beyond-the-hype/

70%-80% of the market will still be crystalline for next 3 years.

Crystalline is seeing production cost drop as new techniques to cut silicon into thinner and thinner cells emerge. Plus the higher efficiency means less panels so less overhead costs. Also many consumer have limited space of south face roof so there is considerable ability to price a premium product that is more efficient and thus requires less labor, less mounting hardware, and uses less space.

[kristopher]

44. ROFLMAO

:rofl:

[Statistical]

42. double post. delete