Slashdot Mirror
Renewable Energy Powers Jobs For Almost 10 Million People (bloomberg.com)
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency's (IRENA) annual report, the renewable energy industry employed 9.8 million people last year, which is up 1.1 percent from 2015. The strongest growth was seen in the solar photovoltaic category with 3.09 million jobs. Bloomberg reports: Here are some of the highlights from the report: Global renewables employment has climbed every year since 2012, with solar photovoltaic becoming the largest segment by total jobs in 2016. Solar photovoltaic employed 3.09 million people, followed by liquid biofuels at 1.7 million. The wind industry had 1.2 million employees, a 7 percent increase from 2015. Employment in renewables, excluding large hydro power, increased 2.8 percent last year to 8.3 million people, with China, Brazil, the U.S., India, Japan and Germany the leading job markets. Asian countries accounted for 62 percent of total jobs in 2016 compared with 50 percent in 2013. Renewables jobs could total 24 million in 2030, as more countries take steps to combat climate change, IRENA said.
While coal and other environmentalist-hostile industries are assaulted by regulatory burdens. In addition, the alleged jobs in suitably-blessed energy forms do not translate well to places favored by coal - which can amount to an indirect assault on the Appalachian regions.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
With this new renewables thing we seem to be reversing the normal order of things. Where we normally try to be as efficient as possible and use as few people as possible, with renewables it seems to be a good thing to employ as many people as we can.
It's a wonderful new world.
You are denying the economics that exists in favor of a baseless fantasy. Natural gas made coal unprofitable, and the only debatable "outside" force is the reality of responsibility for the externalities previously socialized out to the mining communities. Those costs must be made whole by the firms operating the mines as they caused the air and water pollution killing their own workers.
If job creation is the goal we could implement a public works program where the government employs people to shift rocks manually to make a new pyramid or something, otherwise how is this good new?
Coal is being killed because natural gas is cheaper (thank fracking).
Solar power is already cheaper than natural gas in very sunny locations. By 2020, it will be cheaper than natural gas in most locations.
The real issue is battery technology and durability. Both are improving. An electric car fleet will improve on that further. Rooftop solar will improve on that even further.
The only way coal will get cheaper is to automate coal mining. Which they are already working on. That won't bring back jobs. But it may save a lot of ex coal miners from cancer and various other coal related deaths.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Fetters? Coal + Oil get massive tax subsidies, as well coal not having to pay market rates for water (coal power uses a ton of water, they're giant steam engines basically).
This is a limitation, not a feature.
Hmm... condensing the water and reusing it seems like a trivial solution to that specific problem of coal plants. GE says 99% efficiency for whatever it is worth:
http://www.powerengineeringint...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
What nonsense is all this alternative/renewable energy talk? As our leader says: the future is in coal! Open the mines! dig that black ore from the ground and put it into the sky! And screw Paris and our obligation to the world while we're at it. That's where the real jobs are. Let China and Germany, and well, the rest of the world have those puny jobs.. [interesting, well paying, lasting, fun, and beneficial to all as they may be.] We will be just fine with coal. Oh, and oil. And cars and factories that burn them in abundance. It's like a whole virtuous cycle of beauty and profit for.. somebody..
The figure that matters is are KwH produced for the money spent. We could employ everyone on earth riding stationary bicycles to drive little dynamos for electricity, but that's not a worthwhile goal.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The energy source - the Sun - that has been powering our biosphere since the dawn of life on this planet, THE REASON why you can even sustain life in this miserable rock, an energy source so MASSIVE (literally), so mind bendingly potent that minor fluctuations on it can just wipe us out, is apparently also good enough to power a good chunk of our infrastructure?
What an unexpected and shocking revelation!
The issue is not whether the technology exists to reuse water. There are even technologies for power plants to use no water - totally closed loop and air cooled. It's about cost. And at a time where coal is already struggling, adding more costs onto plants is not a winning strategy for saving it.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
Clean renewable energy is needed big time. And we need to get it up and running faster than we are now. Sadly Trump pulling stunts like allowing more coal pollution will slow down clean energy growth. If Trump had outlawed coal the push for clean energy production would have sped up. The second part of the issue is doubling up on the profits of clean energy by making certain that the land used by energy plants also generates other income. Surely rows of mirrors could have fish ponds running along the rows so that fish farming could add to the value of the land use. Or maybe there is some crop that could thrive between the rows of mirrors. Sweet potatoes seem to be able to grow well under many circumstances. Even a little bit of land can offer a large sweet potato crop. Even a windmill could have a large rental apartment at its base. One way or another there has to be a way to make investment in renewable power more attractive for investors.
Actually, we should appreciate Islam.
Abrahamic traditions are based on hatred and bloodshed. They encourage members to sacrifice their bodies, their possessions and even their loved ones for the "cause" (i.e., line the pockets of the high priests), not to help others. Pain and suffering is glorified (see: man nailed to a cross). Destroying your enemies grants you the highest honours. Being an asshole "might" get you killed, but usually it is others around you that suffer the consequences. The asshole might get eternal punishment in hell, a place that seems to be no different from Earth, except that physical punishment becomes moot, since, you know, you are already dead, so physical pain is meaningless. And of course, God singles out people and punishes them in absurdly harsh ways just to make a point (see: Job).
The message is clear: Worship God, or else (and even then, watch out because he might throw a tantrum). The message is, of course, shrouded in huggy-feely crap to make it more palatable to the masses. People tell you that you have to "interpret it", and not take it literally. You know, they bullshit you.
Islam got rid of all the bullshit and goes straight to the point: Kill your enemies. Women are shit. Be charitable to your neighbour (so that he can help you kill enemies and spit on women). Praise Allah.
Simple. Concise. Effective.
It is the ultimate version of the continuous refinement of a message of hate.
Natural gas made coal unprofitable, and the only debatable "outside" force is the reality of responsibility for the externalities previously socialized out to the mining communities.
For the rest of us: miners dumped toxic shit and the taxpayer had to pay to clean it up or worse, live with it - like having to buy bottled water on their own dime.
Burma shave!
The problem with your approach to the issue is that the miners are human. Specifically, they are humans that are already hurt and losing their jobs. And you are suggesting that we sue them (any attack on the industry will be taken personally), destroying whatever jobs are left.
It's called kicking a man when he's down. It hurts worse to the man, engenders sympathy from all the other humans, makes you look like the enemy, and loses your team the election.
Really, coal plants where going out. In a few years we wouldn't have many coal miners regardless of government actions. But by taking severe regulatory actions, Obama made the Democrats own the problem.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
The purpose of power generation is to generate power, not employ people. AEI claims 79x as many people are required in the solar industry to generate the same power from a coal plant. I have not dug into the numbers and am not citing the stat to bash solar, only make the point that this is not a good thing to be celebrated. We want solar power to generate tons of energy while employing very few people.
While I agree that the coal companies have much to answer for - specifically, exploiting the land and their workers - I myself cannot renege on my own responsibility in this matter. I am a consumer of electricity, and products containing steel, and the myriad other things that coal contributes to. Therefore, I (and all of society, including those who think their solar panels absolve them) share the in the responsibility.
That said, I would love for coal to have to bear the burden of its externalities - they've gotten a free ride for way too long. If that increases the cost of coal and coal-generated electricity, then fine: it'll reduce electricity consumption, further reduce coal's share of electricity generation, and hasten a less carbon-intensive economy.
Need to take care of the miners, though.
We could employ even more people in the renewable energy industry if we generated energy (renewably!) by paying people to run in human hamster wheels coupled to generators! Lots of jobs and green energy! What's not to like?
And coal kills..
Are they full time? Part time? Contract? Temp? Hellooo.... Odds are the majority are contractors and temp laborers, "disposable" labor. Just wait a couple of years then you'll see the truth behind the numbers as the millions hired suddenly get the axe.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
While coal and other environmentalist-hostile industries are assaulted by regulatory burdens. In addition, the alleged jobs in suitably-blessed energy forms do not translate well to places favored by coal - which amount to an indirect assault on the Appalachian regions.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Many failed candidates, especially Democrats, have openly showed their contempt for Appalachian regions while Trump embraced them.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
On the other hand, perhaps working with the people that do exist would be a good idea.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I'm German, you fucking idiot - go troll elsewhere.
Information from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that non-renewable energy employs 6.4 million workers to produce 84% of energy in the US. So if 9.8 million workers provide the remaining 16% renewable energy that means it takes eight times as many workers to produce the same amount of renewable energy as provided by non-renewable energy. Assuming rough parity in pay in the two energy sectors, that means that renewable energy costs roughly eight times as much as non-renewable energy.
So touting how many jobs are provided by the renewable energy business is just "spin."
Improving efficiency in energy production means generating the same amount of energy with fewer jobs. Solar provided 0.45% of the world's energy in 2015. If it needed 3 million workers to do this, then providing 100% of our energy with solar would require 667 million workers, or 8.9% of the world's population.
When India was building a dam, the chief designer toured the construction site and noticed men digging with shovels while the heavy earthmoving equipment sat unused. He asked his guide from the Indian government why they weren't using the equipment. The guide explained that this project was as much about creating jobs as it was constructing the damn. The designer replied, "Then why don't you have the workers digging with spoons? You could employ a lot more people that way."
Well, he said he was going to embrace them, but your allegation is those jobs are gone, and gone forever.
Natural gas hasn't really killed it, environmental regulation did. Remove it, tell the Sierra Club to pound the Sahara Desert into glass, and note the resurgence of coal.
Job retraining won't do worth shit, since you make the faulty assumption that the people are defective and must be made to conform to business desires - versus businesses making do with the people we have. Second, it assumes that meaningful jobs will exist for those nearing or well north of 40 or with non-standard skillsets - as employers would only take them if forced.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The subsidies given to small wildcat drillers in the oil industry are a medicine dropper of money compared to the truckloads of cash given to the solar, wind, and battery industries. Most of that money would have been better off burned to create electricity, given the endless parade of colossal failures. Stop all subsidies to solar, wind, batteries, electric cars, coal, oil, and natural gas and THEN see what happens. Wind farms would vanish in a day. EV sales would continue to be anemic. Solar would have to compete on a level playing field.
Murphy was an optimist
Only if you forget that coal use is less toxic than production of solar panels.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I remember a few years back when Ontario's prime minister Dalton McGuilty claimed that the solar sector was now responsible for providing 50,000 new jobs in the province, yet (back then) solar accounted for only 0.5% of the power generated. No wonder electricity costs have gone through the roof in Ontario! To money to cover those extra bodies on payroll has to come from *somewhere*.
So assuming those numbers are factual (they're *not*, but that was his pitch - honest!) and assuming a linear progression, if you wanted to scale that up to 5% of the power being solar (10x), you'd need half a million people. If you wanted 10% of the power being solar, you'd need a million. If you wanted a quarter of the power being solar, you'd need 2.5 million people in that industry alone, in a province of not even 14 million people (the most populous of the country), or 18% of the population.
On the other hand, perhaps working with the people that do exist would be a very good idea.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
On the other hand, working with the people that do exist would be a good idea.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
While coal and other environmentalist-hostile industries are assaulted by regulatory burdens. In addition, the alleged jobs in suitably-blessed energy forms do not translate well to places favored by coal, which can amount to an indirect assault on the Appalachian regions.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
They cannot accept coal as a power source, so they do everything to hobble it - including pushing the lie of natural gas.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.