Slashdot Mirror
Solar Energy Now Employs More Americans Than Oil, Coal and Gas Combined (computerworld.com)
Solar energy now accounts for 43% of the workers in the U.S. power-generating industry, surpassing the 22% from all workers in the coal, oil, and gas industries combined, according to new figures from the Department of Energy. Slashdot reader Lucas123 writes:
In 2016, the solar workforce in the U.S. increased by 25% to 374,000 employees, compared to 187,117 electrical generation jobs in the coal, gas and oil industries... [N]et power generation from coal sources declined by 53% between 2006 and September 2016; electricity generation from natural gas increased by 33%; and solar grew by over 5,000% -- from 508,000 megawatt hours (MWh) to just over 28 million MWh.
Solar industry created jobs at a rate 20 times faster than the national average, according to the Energy Department, while 102,000 more workers also joined the wind turbine industry last year, a 32% increase. In fact, 93% of the new power in America is now coming from solar, natural gas, and wind -- but it's building out new solar-generating capacity that's causing much of the workforce increases, according to the Energy Department. "The majority of U.S. electrical generation continues to come from fossil fuels," their report points out, adding that the latest projections show that will still be true in the year 2040.
Solar industry created jobs at a rate 20 times faster than the national average, according to the Energy Department, while 102,000 more workers also joined the wind turbine industry last year, a 32% increase. In fact, 93% of the new power in America is now coming from solar, natural gas, and wind -- but it's building out new solar-generating capacity that's causing much of the workforce increases, according to the Energy Department. "The majority of U.S. electrical generation continues to come from fossil fuels," their report points out, adding that the latest projections show that will still be true in the year 2040.
So if Trump wants to create jobs in America he'd better dump coal and support wind and solar.
The goal is energy, not employment. We don't build factories and plants to keep people busy...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Have gnu, will travel.
Which specific regulation do you have in mind? And does it have a larger impact than the competition with natural gas?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If the world is laughing at us, it's because of antiques like you who think coal is the path to the future and prosperity. While every other country moves forward, we move backwards.
The oil industry employs far more people that solar. What this article is saying is, the number of people employed in the generation of electricity from solar is bigger than the number of people employed in the generation of electricity from oil, coal and gas. Only a tiny fraction of the oil in this country is used to generate electricity.
I genuinely want to know if this is a joke comment or not. Are you really arguing in support of coal mines being allowed to dump mercury into rivers?
...is that solar energy is not only less efficient with its physical footprint, but it's allocation of human labor. Solar still provides only a small percentage of our energy output, yet uses more labor than all the other forms combined? That's called INEFFICIENCY. It's a bug, not a feature.
Yeah, and a full half of them are in the employment of cold-calling marketers.
Of electricity generated in the U.S., solar generates just 0.6% of the total. Coal, gas, and oil generates 67% of it.
So what this stat means is that it takes 110x more people to generate each kWh of electricity with solar than with fossil fuels. If anything, this is an excellent argument for not using solar to generate electricity.
essential fragment from the report (page 28):
Proportionally, solar employment accounts for the largest share of workers in the Electric Power Generation sector. This is largely due to the construction related to the significant buildout of new solar generation capacity.
On pages 37+ there are some graphs with employment category distribution and construction and installation accounts for over 37% of solar employment (compared to less then 5% in coal and not even on graph for oil and gas.
The US Consumes ~ 5,000 mwh of power a year; this article is talking about 500mwh or about 10% of that in renewables. Of that, Hydro and Wind power make up over 90% of those renewables mwh. Solar is nowhere near competitive with those two.
The rational discussion is this. What we are doing today is using Nuclear (20%) and Coal (33%) for baseline power generation, using renewables (wind and hydro) to reduce the consumption of those, and using natural gas wells (33%) to provide peak power load. Solar panels do not produce much more energy than they take to make.
If we wanted to reduce hydrocarbon consumption today and in a serious way, we'd do a Manhattan project to figure out how to build safe nuclear plants and spend a lot of dosh on figuring out how to transport the power over long distances efficiently; e.g. figuring out how to cool underground copper wiring to near absolute zero then moving extremely high voltages over that. We'd replace that baseline power generation entirely with nuclear, and that would remove the need to burn hydrocarbons for baseline load generation. We'd have to keep the peak load plants. We would also make investments in safely cleaning up nuclear accidents, such as building robots that are capable of operating in the most irradiated environments, and use Chernobyl as a an opportunity to learn and as a testing ground. E.G. We would build the nuke plants with a containment structure over the entire site like the Sarcophagus at Chernobyl, and if an accident occurred, we'd use the melting of graphite and nuclear material as a method of containment (e.g. we'd build the entire underside of the reactor to be a neutron absorbing material). We'd then send in the robots, remove the nuclear material, then demo the structure and bury the remains in the desert. We can put distilleries near the nuclear plant and produce hydrocarbon fuels from the plant for transport along with raw electric, pulling hydrocarbons out of the air. Quite literally china could pollute all they want, and they are doing us a favor.
Instead what we get are madmen selling a carbon tax to save the world, and a bunch of morons like you who can't do basic arithmetic, use google to find out what the real 10-4 is, or think two steps ahead of your own ego. Unbelievable.
The point of the article was to highlight the workforce of the respective industries; wherein solar is now the leading employer in the industry. Taking your point that solar energy is still just a small fraction of energy production in our country, would you agree that continuing to ramp up solar production and investment while divesting from coal and oil is something economically benefitial? Shouldn't it be a priority for a jobs creating president?
Just under 374,000 individuals work, in whole or in part, for solar firms, with more than 260,000 of those employees spending the majority of their time on solar
But it gets worse.
Also included in the employment totals are any firms engaged in facility construction, turbine and other generation equipment manufacturing, as well as wholesale parts distribution of all electric generation technologies.
So manufacturing and distributing solar panels also counts as "generation"?
How about the USA joins everybody else and stops using centralised power production and instead start to concentrate on smaller local schemes ?
If you insist on old fashioned nuke stations,why build above ground,you have plenty of old deep workings,3.000 feet of rock is a better shield than a 30 foot thick containment and any shield that could be manufactured..
If something goes horribly wrong with a deep site nuke station,it's simple,bury it,if you try to take them apart after 50 years of useful life,what do you intend to do with all the craps and rubbish ? Oh,bury it,so why not just bury the whole lot in the first place..
That mercury will be disbursed on the ground (where it came from to begin with).
There is a big difference between mercury in a 300 million year old coal seam, and mercury in topsoil and surface water where it enters the food chain.
It is not just burning coal that is harmful, but the mining is also very filthy and destructive. If we want to help coal miners, we should give them financial assistance to move out of Appalachia and go where the jobs are. They could move to North Dakota and work on fracking rigs. They could go to Oklahoma and build wind farms. They could move to Arizona and install solar panels.
> Clinton did say that she would be putting coal companies out of business
No, that's what the alt-newsphere claimed she said. What she actually said was all the rich people are fucking you guys, and I'm not going to lie about that. But I will help you to get out from under their thumbs and have a better future.
You were lied to, plain and simple. Watch now as you cling to those lies in the face of hard evidence to the contrary.
In context: Hillary Clinton’s comments about coal jobs
Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right. Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.
So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?
And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.
Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.
So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America. We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.
Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope.
So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.
http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/construction-workers-more-likely-to-die-on-the-job/
"Over their careers, construction workers have a one in 200 chance of dying on the job, five times what the government considers the “significant” risk of death at work, a new study says. Construction injury risks are also very high.
The study, by Dr. Xiuwen Sue Dong of the Center to Protect Workers Rights, looked at construction fatality, injury and illness statistics over many years, to calculate the chances of a worker being killed or injured.
“Construction workers make up 6 percent to 8 percent of all workers, but account for 20 percent of all deaths on the job every year,” Dong explained at an Oct. 31 job safety and health seminar during the American Public Health Association’s convention here."
Construction workers are much more likely to be injured, or killed on the job compared to coal miners. Also, construction workers are more likely to be exposed to asbestos and other cancer causing and respiratory harming materials than coal miners are to coal dust nowdays. Lower pay, virtually no benefits, and most construction jobs going to migrant workers who are easy to exploit means construction jobs are not a suitable replacement for miner jobs.
very very very very expensive.
How come France can afford it for the last 40 years? Shouldn't they have gone broke by now? Instead, they're selling power.
LOL if you think the coal jobs will ever return.
They aint coming back, ever. Due exactly to what you said, automation and alt energy sources.
Solar panels produce, over their lifetime, several times the energy required to produce them.
Serial production - something the US is paradoxically quite bad at when it comes to nuclear power, at least now, it seems. Maybe you should nationalize it?
Ezekiel 23:20
Solar panels do not produce much more energy than they take to make.
I don't know where you got this information, but the best I can say is that you are way out of date.
The energy payback time for solar panels is, depending on location, between 0.4 and 1.4 years. Since the lifetime of solar arrays is usually warrantied for 30 years, they produce much more energy than they take to make.
See e.g., https://cleantechnica.com/2013...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Gas stations produce electricity?
Just as much as semi-truck drivers who happen to have, among the other unrelated items to be delivered in their trailer, a couple skids of PV cells, but are counted as 'solar energy' jobs.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Politics & ideology has muddied the waters so much that there's really no telling what is true or false anymore regarding such hot-button issues.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
> He campaigned on bringing back coal-producing jobs. ... The cost of coal compared to other energy-sources, combined with automation, may prevent him from doing so.
Let's put it this way. The Southern Company (big southeast utility company), just finished their first big "clean coal" plant in Mississippi. It's clean in the sense of having the latest scrubbing tech, and the CO2 it produces will be sent down a pipeline to be injected into Gulf Coast oil wells to pump out more oil, and sequester the CO2 underground. It cost *ten times* as much per kW of capacity as utility-scale solar farms in 2016, and solar farms don't need fuel to keep running.
That's why Georgia Power, one of the Southern Co's divisions, is building 2.5 GW of solar in the next few years ( http://www.prnewswire.com/news... ). The Utility's divisions (Georgia Power, Alabama Power, etc.) are divided that way because each state regulates them differently. They are also half-owner of the Vogtle nuclear plant on the GA/SC border, which is adding two new reactors with 2.2 GW capacity.
Coal is dying. Ten years ago it supplied half of the US's electricity. Now it's down to 30%. It's mainly being replaced by Natural Gas, wind, and solar. It just takes a while to replace half the nation's electric capacity. Trump got votes by telling coal-country voters he's bring back jobs, but it ain't happening. According to the Energy Department, ~15 GW of renewable power plants are scheduled to be added in 2017, and 4.7 GW of coal plants shut down. That just continues the trend of the last decade.
How many doctors lost their jobs thanks to less air pollution related illness ?
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
If you knew anything about the result of a meltdown you wouldn't be criticising the regulations.
Clinton disappointed coal-voters by campaigning to re-train coal-workers to do other jobs.
Which is exactly what we should be doing. The rest of the world is moving to renewables and we're stuck in the 1950's by the baby boomers who refuse to adapt and modernize. And then there's Trump, catalyzing the whole thing. We should be retraining these people into machining jobs as we advance our robotic and energy technology. That's the future, not coal.