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.

Comments

Re:Which comes at the cost of environmentalism.

[Jzanu]

You mean the US region that exists in the state it is exclusively due to a history of being overlooked for resource investments, both from government and business? That is greater reason to fix the infrastructure and provide greater US federal budget supplement to improve education both in schools and by establishing libraries and community education programs. One region can't hold back a country, much less the world which is the purview of the IRENA as it is modeled after the IAEA.

Re:Only w/ fetters on environmentalist-unblessed j

[Jzanu]

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.

Re:World in reverse

[Chrisq]

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.

I think you are overstate the case. Everyone sees it as good if an efficient profitable business provides employment for a large number of people, it's not about employing people for the sake of it

Re:Which comes at the cost of environmentalism.

[darthsilun]

Wait. Regulatory burdens put in place why exactly? Because without those nasty old regulatory burdens the industry destroyed the environment, shifting the real cost of that source of energy to the future , as costs to clean up the messes they made.

Costs that in many cases were born by everyone, not just the people who mined that coal, or burned it.

And then everyone said no, not any more you don't. And on top of that we place a dollar value preserving the environment.

Basically pure, unfettered capitalism all the way around is what has destroyed coal in the Appalachians.

But you want a Communist solution. You want everyone – everyone – to pitch in and make sure you have a good paying job.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee you a job. There's no Amendment for that. You want Capitalism. You live by Capitalism. You die by Capitalism. Go join the buggy whip and candle makers.

Or learn something new to make a living with.

In times of profound change the learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists. – Al Rogers

In times of drastic change, it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists. – Eric Hoffer

Re:World in reverse

[Rei]

Oil is only rarely used for power in western nations. In the US, oil really only competes for electricity market share in Hawaii (and to a much lesser extent in Alaska). And while gas is a competitor to solar and wind for baseload, it's also boosted by them for peaking. Solar and wind don't drive out coal and nuclear alone; they do so in combination with NG peakers. The amount of gas being needed depending on the strength of their grid links and the diversity of the resources (solar + wind > solar | wind; solar + wind in different geographic locations > solar + wind in the same place).

Hydro works even better in combination with solar and wind than gas. But hydro capacity is geographically limited, largely tapped out (although you can uprate existing plants, which is being done), and concerning places with new generation possibilities, most people don't want them. Batteries will eventually win, and they're starting to make inroads into the grid in specialized applications, but they don't yet compete with gas for bulk peaking needs.

** Note: this is a bit of an oversimplification. At small penetrations, solar actually reduces peaking needs, as it tends to offset daytime peak usage. But this only applies up to certain levels of market penetration.

Re:Which comes at the cost of environmentalism.

[Rei]

I'm calling BS on this one. Even Cape Wind, the most expensive wind power in the US (really more of a research project), is only 18.7 cents per kWh. And the first power it's displacing some crazy-expensive oil-fired power. Wind currently averages 2.5 cents per kWh to produce in the US. Now, that's the cost to the grid operator, not the consumer, and you have to pair it with peaking, which will add a penny or so to the cost per kWh. But it's gotten absurdly cheap. US solar contracts are now starting to come in at under 4 cents per kWh. And at low penetration, they actually reduce peaking requirements rather than raising it.

Furthermore, your claim "overall bill used to be 6 c/kw but now 9 c/kw and climbing, all due to wasteful subsidies" makes me even question whether you know what a subsidy is. If you were being hurt by a subsidy, it'd show up on your taxes, not your bill. If anything, your bill would get lower. And the $7B per year in subsidies for renewable electricity (which includes, by the way, research) equals $1.70 per month per person in the US. How does that compare to your electricity bill?

Where are you, by the way?