China ranks first worldwide in PV power capacity

[Audio]

Europe kicked out Chinese solar companies because it didn't want Chinese brands giving competition to and replacing European brands. Europe didn't think Chinese brands could compete with European brands but Chinese brands sold advanced solar panels at an affordable price and took away market share from European brands. This angered Europe and brought a BS claim to WTO and the biased WTO committee discriminated against China. It's trade protectionism, plain and simple.

Claim was not BS, evidenced by Chinese actions itself it admitted to it indirectly by agreeing on quotas in a subsequent bilateral agreement with EU.
Like i said above, it has failed to adhere to this too and since then the case has been reopened.

EU reopens China solar dumping probe | EurActiv

Chinese bargaining power was limited because China's own solar market was small back then so it had no choice but accept the thuggish demands of Europe.
China thus realised it needs to develop its own solar market so it's companies can rely on the domestic market instead of foreign market.

This was 3 years ago, Chinese market wasn't that small to accept any thuggish demands, but circumstances (from market saturation to WTO pressures) forced the manufacturers to reorient to home, supported by CCP policy of a.) going environmentally friendly (because what good are shiny new buildings if you can't see them through the smog) and b.) supporting the industry so as solar workers don't go the way of steelers (which btw lost a WTO dispute on you guessed it-price dumping) and miners, which would impair stability and thus mandate of governance.

 

[Economic superpower]

I attach with argument. Why dont you have a look and reply.





You repost as usual. I have answered it in post 384

The one who can only claim from thin air without proof is you.

I have proved Korea excel China in some areas of technology (Display, Semiconductor, Medical, Automotive, etc). Those are enough to prove that what KIET says is reliable enough.

It is time for you to prove the other way round, if you dont agree with what KIET say, and I am still waiting until today.

Remember you failed to prove that China ahead Korea in PC etc.

Source: China rapidly narrows technology gap with S. Korea | Page 26

Display technology China is equal with Korea in LCD which is the mainstream display technology. Promotional technology is not an indication of technology supremacy. I've said there are smartphone companies that come up with promotional technology but never becomes mainstream.

Automotive technology China is equal to Korea and J20blackdragon proved it.

Memory chips Korea is ahead.

Medical technology, you have yet to provide any proof of Korean supremacy.

You have to prove 13 industries.

Claim was not BS, evidenced by Chinese actions itself it admitted to it indirectly by agreeing on quotas in a subsequent bilateral agreement with EU.
Like i said above, it has failed to adhere to this too and since then the case has been reopened.

EU reopens China solar dumping probe | EurActiv



This was 3 years ago, Chinese market wasn't that small to accept any thuggish demands, but circumstances (from market saturation to WTO pressures) forced the manufacturers to reorient to home, supported by CCP policy of a.) going environmentally friendly and b.) supporting the industry so as solar workers don't go the way of steelers and miners, which would impair stability and thus mandate of governance.

China had no choice but to accept European thuggery because most Chinese solar companies relied so heavily on European market because Chinese market was small. If China didn't accept European harassment, then Chinese solar industry would be eliminated as they had no where else to go at that time. All these quotas had to be accepted by China for the reason I stated above.

Losing European market is not as important now as it was back then because now Chinese brands have the large domestic market it can rely on. Before it had no choice.

 

[Audio]

China had no choice but to accept European thuggery because most Chinese solar companies relied so heavily on European market because Chinese market was small. If China didn't accept European harassment, then Chinese solar industry would be eliminated as they had no where else to go at that time. All these quotas had to be accepted by China for the reason I stated above.

Losing European market is not as important now as it was back then because now Chinese brands have the large domestic market it can rely on. Before it had no choice.

The agreement happened in 2013. By 2013 China was already in the process of exponentially increasing it's installed capacity as per Solar power in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going in circles.....

 

[antonius123]

China's solar panels are setting the standard. What do you mean of reaching the standard when the Chinese companies set it by default due to market share?

First, you must realize that Korea and Japan are essentially non-players in solar. There are almost zero (0) companies from these 2 countries involved in solar and none of them are competitive with global leaders in either technology or cost. They may have certain small advantages, but not enough to make them market leaders.

Thank you. But I think that is biased justification:





Panasonic Quickly Beats SolarCity's Solar Module Efficiency Record | CleanTechnica





Global production is not an objective measurement of sophistication / technology level.

Efficiency, Quality, Performance, patents is.





Scientific literature is not an objective measurement of technology of the products.

Now, one or two typical claims has been debunked.

It is not China that set the international standard in term of sophistications - that some Chinese members want to believe, but recently it is Japan! by Panasonic that come up with the most sophisticated solar panel in spite of lower market penetration due to high price.
Salute to Japanese champion that can retain their leadership in some area of green technology

Panasonic Quickly Beats SolarCity's Solar Module Efficiency Record | CleanTechnica

October 9th, 2015 by Steve Hanley

Originally published on Solar Love.

Recently, SolarCity announced it will begin manufacturing the “world’s most efficient solar panels” at its factory in Buffalo, New York, starting in 2016. It claims it has designed a panel that converts 22.1% of sunlight into electricity.



Now, less than a week later, Panasonic says it has trumped that achievement. A Panasonic solar panel has established a new world record module conversion efficiency of 22.5% on a commercial sized prototype using solar cells based on mass production technology.

 

[Dungeness]

They already have solar shingles. I can see it being a standard in the future as many people (like myself) refuse to put heavy ugly solar panels on their homes.

The other problem is many densely populated areas are at a latitude that is not the best for solar panels. If we all lived in the South more people would be buying.

I did not know it is already on the market. Look much better than traditional roof mount solar panels. You are right, people up north can not take advantage of this tech. I am in Pacific NW, and it gets dark around 4 pm in the winter months.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I did not know it is already on the market. Look much better than traditional roof mount solar panels. You are right, people up north can not take advantage of this tech. I am in Pacific NW, and it gets dark around 4 pm in the winter months.

Yep, I'm in the NorthEast so the sun is never directly overhead. I'd buy panels if I could get significant power out of them.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Thank you. But I think that is biased justification:





Panasonic Quickly Beats SolarCity's Solar Module Efficiency Record | CleanTechnica





Global production is not an objective measurement of sophistication / technology level.

Efficiency, Quality, Performance, patents is.





Scientific literature is not an objective measurement of technology of the products.

And Panasonic's cell is still more expensive than Trina's Solar's which has similar performance at 22.13% vs. Panasonics 22.1%:

Trina Solar sets efficiency record with c-Si cell: pv-magazine

You don't understand that in photovoltaics, it's price per watt that matters, not absolute power conversion efficiency. Single crystal GaAs multijunction cells can get 40%+ efficiency. Nothing can beat it. It also costs hundreds of dollars per cell meaning it is only used in satellites. That's why researchers still work on technologies that produce 5-10% PCE because the low efficiency is irrelevant if the cost is low enough.

 

[j20blackdragon]

I have proved Korea excel China in some areas of technology (Display, Semiconductor, Medical, Automotive, etc). Those are enough to prove that what KIET says is reliable enough.

Absolutely amazing. You received a 26 page smackdown in your other thread and now you're going to bring your insecurities and flawed arguments into THIS thread as well LOL?

OK, I'm challenging your claim on medical equipment.

Does South Korea make a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine?
Give me the company name and model name.
Even better, just give me a direct link to their website.

 

[Dungeness]

And Panasonic's cell is still more expensive than Trina's Solar's which has similar performance at 22.13% vs. Panasonics 22.1%:

Trina Solar sets efficiency record with c-Si cell: pv-magazine

You don't understand that in photovoltaics, it's price per watt that matters, not absolute power conversion efficiency. Single crystal GaAs multijunction cells can get 40%+ efficiency. Nothing can beat it. It also costs hundreds of dollars per cell meaning it is only used in satellites. That's why researchers still work on technologies that produce 5-10% PCE because the low efficiency is irrelevant if the cost is low enough.

I think they do understand this simple economics, but they just have to trash China one way or the other.

 

[Economic superpower]

The agreement happened in 2013. By 2013 China was already in the process of exponentially increasing it's installed capacity as per Solar power in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going in circles.....

You're running out of excuses that Europe harassed Chinese solar companies because they didn't want Chinese companies operating in the solar industry.

When Europe saw Chinese companies winning market share with advanced solar panels sold at an affordable cost and used trade protectionism to try and eliminate Chinese solar companies.

This backfired as China decided to expand its own solar market and within a couple of years became the largest solar market in the world. Chinese companies install the solar capacity n China.

You've lost your flimsy argument!

Your claim (blind assumption) that OLED is not viable and feasible technology already broken. And I've proved Korea excel China in OLED.

Please dont play denial.




Your bragging volvo has been challenged and you cannot address anymore.
Other than Volvo china sill need to prove they have reached the international standard. I have proven that China car quality is still below.




OK, but in pharmaceutical China is behind.
China's Pharmaceutical Industry Lacks Innovation, Lags Behind | Worldwatch Institute
Please stop playing denial. It is time for you to prove what you deny.

OLED can never take off because it's not an accepted technology as its still just another promotional technology and you have given absolutely no proof whatsoever that OLED is mainstream. You said multiple Chinese panel makers are already producing OLED, yet you have give no proof. I want actual confirmation from the company websites themselves. Not rumours and reports from random websites speculating they MIGHT.

QD is the future technology as it gives the same picture quality at a fraction of the price of OLED and companies can use their current manufacturing facilities to produce QD. OLED is a demo technology that's being shoved down people's throat that it's the future. OLED will be even a bigger failure than plasma.

Promotional technology that's not widely used is not part of the conversation of who is ahead in display technology. LCD is the mainstream display technology and in that, both China and Korea are equal. If OLED is accepted and becomes mainstream, then we can bring OLED into the conversation, but that's not happened and it won't happen because OLED is far too expensive to produce for a technology that gives no leap in picture quality over QD. This is why there is no demand by the consumer.

You haven't proven anything in automotive. Volvo is Chinese technology now and even in electric vehicles China is one of the world leaders. All you've given is a bunch of biased opinion pieces which in no way proves Korean automobiles are technologically advanced. You were saying Korea is technologically superior to China in automotive but you have yet to prove what technology Korea has that China don't have.

LOL how does your link prove Korea is ahead of China in medical technology be it in drugs, vaccines, medical equipment?
What medical technology does Korea have that China doesn't have that you say makes Korea so far ahead of China?

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

The heading of this thread by Tai Shang is "China ranks first worldwide in PV power capacity" which indeed is an undeniable fact.

The argument brought forward by antonius123 is off topic and way off the mark even by its own merit.

EXAMPLE: He keep using the same points (which is available in public domains) as his main points on OLED supremacy over Quantum Dot Technology as though it is the only technology that determine the supremacy of one nation level of technology over the other. The fact is OLED is expensive to produce resulted in many manufacturers opting for the other e.g. China's Hisense 50" UHT TV will costs less than US$1000.

While repeating his same old argument about an imported technology licensed from USA by South Korea, he failed to provide answers to the questions raised by his opponents. That is ludicrous to the rest of us.

The different between the two technologies is a classic clash reminiscent of Sony versus Panasonic (Japan vs Japan) in the Betamax-VHS video standard back in the 1980. Panasonic won the endorsement by consumer hence enjoyed years of dominance in the market as well as profit.

This is not dissimilar to a contemporary case where the world's two autos powerhouse in Asia Japan and China, are jostling for supremacy on the future as to how future alternative energy vehicles draw their power from - batteries or hydrogen-powered fuel-cells.
Who will be the eventual winner of this technology race?

In fact it has nothing to do with the technology as both nations race to mature and ready their different solutions for the world stage. It is in fact demands from the consumers that determined who will be the eventual winner.
IMO China with a 23 million annual sales already has the edge - the country with the greatest demand as demonstrated by BYD sales figure recently..

 

[Economic superpower]

Absolutely amazing. You received a 26 page smackdown in your other thread and now you're going to bring your insecurities and flawed arguments into THIS thread as well LOL?

OK, I'm challenging your claim on medical equipment.

Does South Korea make a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine?
Give me the company name and model name.
Even better, just give me a direct link to their website.

He brings up a random industry and says Korea is ahead and when we ask for proof he can can't give a link to prove his claim. The guy is a grade 1 troll thats jealous of China.

Apparently Korea is so far ahead in 13 industries, then he said its only 6 industries, now it's only 4 industries. Even in the 4 industries, he can't prove how Korea is so far ahead of China as he claims.

Remember how he said Korea was ahead of China in construction technology and he lost that argument so now he doesn't bring up that industry anymore.

He continues to embarrass himself with every post.

The heading of this thread by Tai Shang is "China ranks first worldwide in PV power capacity" which indeed is an undeniable fact.

The argument brought forward by antonius123 is off topic and way off the mark even by its own merit.

EXAMPLE: He keep using the same points (which is available in public domains) as his main points on OLED supremacy over Quantum Dot Technology as though it is the only technology that determine the supremacy of one nation level of technology over the other. The fact is OLED is expensive to produce resulted in many manufacturers opting for the other e.g. China's Hisense 50" UHT TV will costs less than US$1000.

While repeating his same old argument about an imported technology licensed from USA by South Korea, he failed to provide answers to the questions raised by his opponents. That is ludicrous to the rest of us.

The different between the two technologies is a classic clash reminiscent of Sony versus Panasonic (Japan vs Japan) in the Betamax-VHS video standard back in the 1980. Panasonic won the endorsement by consumer hence enjoyed years of dominance in the market as well as profit.

This is not dissimilar to a contemporary case where the world's two autos powerhouse in Asia Japan and China, are jostling for supremacy on the future as to how future alternative energy vehicles draw their power from - batteries or hydrogen-powered fuel-cells.
Who will be the eventual winner of this technology race?

In fact it has nothing to do with the technology as both nations race to mature and ready their different solutions for the world stage. It is in fact demands from the consumers that determined who will be the eventual winner.
IMO China with a 23 million annual sales already has the edge - the country with the greatest demand as demonstrated by BYD sales figure recently.

The red highlighted part is exactly my point regarding OLED. Until it is deemed the winner as the accepted winner in future of display technology, it will remain a promotional technology. Right now, QD is more likely to be the future than OLED.

He uses a promotional technology to argue that Korea is ahead of China when it's still LCD that is the mainstream display technology.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

This one below is currently one of the benchmark used to determine the level of technology among nations and South Korea is not among them.

This is currently one of the benchmark used to judge the level of technology among nations and South Korea is not among them.

China is planning a supercomputer 1000 times more powerful than the Tianhe-1A
By IANS | Saturday, January 23, 2016

Beijing: China is planning a supercomputer 1,000 times more powerful than its ground-breaking Tianhe-1A as it faces rising demand for next-generation computing.

Meng Xiangfei, head of the applications department of the National Supercomputer Centre, said on Friday that the centre will release a prototype in 2017 or 2018 of an "exascale" computer -- one capable of at least a billion calculations per second, Xinhua reported.

Exascale computing is considered the next frontier in the development of supercomputers.

Tianhe-1A was recognised as the world's fastest computing system in 2010. Though it has since been superseded by Tianhe-2, Tianhe-1A was being more widely used. Computer scientists are finding it challenging to run contemporary applications at their optimum on faster supercomputers.

With its uses including oil exploration data management, animation and video effects, biomedical data processing and high-end equipment manufacturing, Tianhe-1A's capacity is being stretched, said Meng.

It is carrying out more than 1,400 computing tasks and serving about 1,000 users per day.

The exascale computer will be wholly independently developed by the National Supercomputer Center, according to Meng.

About a seventh of Tianhe-1A's CPU chips are Chinese.

If we search on Alibaba.com we can find many OLED as well as AMOLED manufacturers, suppliers in China hence the technology is not nascent to China.

It is just the adoption of the standard.

At the current stage, it is considered a high price to pay for a small improvement which majority of the consumers can do without. Betamax lost although it was considered superior to VHS then. Not much buyer and I was a sucker then.

Similar argument for Japanese manufacturers, why didn't Panasonic, Sony, Sharp, etc opts for OLED? Reason is so obvious. The manufacturing cost off course and the final product price to consumers!

 

[antonius123]

Absolutely amazing. You received a 26 page smackdown in your other thread and now you're going to bring your insecurities and flawed arguments into THIS thread as well LOL?

OK, I'm challenging your claim on medical equipment.

Does South Korea make a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine?
Give me the company name and model name.
Even better, just give me a direct link to their website.

As I said you can't smack down logic with assumption, logical fallacy, delusion and denial.
Military technology is irrelevant in that topic, the thread talk about industrial technology.

Your 26 pages did not prove anything except logical fallacy, delusion and ignorance. I debunked with lot of PROOFs and LOGIC.

I have corrected the medical into pharmaceutical; but since you ask :
Dynamic MR - Samsung Medison
Samsung Unveils NExCT 7, Its First Premium CT Scanner | Medgadget
Samsung Displays Full Portfolio for Healthcare Imaging at RSNA 2013 | Imaging Technology News
Samsung Electronics America Acquires CT Imaging Company - Industry News - MedImaging.net

And Panasonic's cell is still more expensive than Trina's Solar's which has similar performance at 22.13% vs. Panasonics 22.1%:

Trina Solar sets efficiency record with c-Si cell: pv-magazine

You don't understand that in photovoltaics, it's price per watt that matters, not absolute power conversion efficiency. Single crystal GaAs multijunction cells can get 40%+ efficiency. Nothing can beat it. It also costs hundreds of dollars per cell meaning it is only used in satellites. That's why researchers still work on technologies that produce 5-10% PCE because the low efficiency is irrelevant if the cost is low enough.

Everybody knows that Panasonic is not the leader in term of market share, Trina is.

But what I was asking you is "International Standard" which refer to sophistication level, not the sales

OLED can never take off because it's not an accepted technology as its still just another promotional technology and you have given absolutely no proof whatsoever that OLED is mainstream. You said multiple Chinese panel makers are already producing OLED, yet you have give no proof. I want actual confirmation from the company websites themselves. Not rumours and reports from random websites speculating they MIGHT.

QD is the future technology as it gives the same picture quality at a fraction of the price of OLED and companies can use their current manufacturing facilities to produce QD. OLED is a demo technology that's being shoved down people's throat that it's the future. OLED will be even a bigger failure than plasma.

Promotional technology that's not widely used is not part of the conversation of who is ahead in display technology. LCD is the mainstream display technology and in that, both China and Korea are equal. If OLED is accepted and becomes mainstream, then we can bring OLED into the conversation, but that's not happened and it won't happen because OLED is far too expensive to produce for a technology that gives no leap in picture quality over QD. This is why there is no demand by the consumer.

You haven't proven anything in automotive. Volvo is Chinese technology now and even in electric vehicles China is one of the world leaders. All you've given is a bunch of biased opinion pieces which in no way proves Korean automobiles are technologically advanced. You were saying Korea is technologically superior to China in automotive but you have yet to prove what technology Korea has that China don't have.

LOL how does your link prove Korea is ahead of China in medical technology be it in drugs, vaccines, medical equipment?
What medical technology does Korea have that China doesn't have that you say makes Korea so far ahead of China?

Please dont derail this thread like you used to do.

You only repost what I have debunked already - as you always like to do. Reposting - such a bad habit in discussion that you also demonstrate in this thread with other member . That demonstrates your "behavior" : when you lost your debate - you will be always still stubborn with your claim/opinion

As I said: your claim about OLED never can take off, only demonstrator, etc above is simply your own assumption coming from thin air and show your ignorance and delusional behavior. I have debunked it in post #351 and many others.

Global OLED Market Expected to Reach $ 37.2 Billion by 2020 | LightNOW

Key findings:
* World OLED market is expected to grow rapidly owing to increased adoption of OLED technology into smartphones, television and lighting applications.
* Lighting application of OLED technology expected to grow at a CAGR of 45.8% during the forecast period 2015-2020, owing to rapid technological advancement.
* The Asia-Pacific market is expected to see tremendous growth for OLED technology. The region will account for nearly 35.9% of the total market by 2020, growing at a CAGR of 16.8% during the forecast period.

Thats what Experts have concluded by market research, same like Panasonic boss and the other expert statement that you downplayed. Not a simply blind claim from thin air like you always do . And you should respect that instead of forcing somebody else to accept your baseless claim from thin air against evidence just like many other chinese member like to do

If you still not satisfied with it, please request moderator to re open that thread, but please dont be off topic again.

Again please stop derailling this thread.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Everybody knows that Panasonic is not the leader in term of market share, Trina is.

But what I was asking you is "International Standard" which refer to sophistication level, not the sales

And if you actually read the article, it says that Trina has a 22.13% efficiency cell which is the same as Panasonic's 22.1% cell. I have not said *one thing* about market share. Where do you see the words market and share in sequence anywhere in my post? I don't see the difference in sophistication. And until we know the unit price of both cells, it is irrelevant. GaAs based multijunction panels cost 50,000 dollars per square meter with 40% efficiency, is that "sophisticated"?

While I'm here offering my expertise as someone who actually does research in this field, we have some Indonesian guy flapping his mouth about "quality" and "performance". My boss would laugh in my face if I talked about "quality" or "performance". Quality of what? What does quality mean? What does performance mean? They're just marketing buzzwords.