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.
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.
Consider cost for efficiency in generation vs loss in transmission. Greater capital costs for equipment require state subsidy more than smaller ones, and it doesn't take much to understand that a PV solar panel array for a residence or pylon for a factory are more competitive.
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
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).
Right, it's called investment. A solar panel lasts for 30+ years. A lump of coal lasts about 5 minutes.
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."
I see what you mean. Hydro-Quebec hires 0.2% of that workforce while having 2% of the world capacity which would make them ~10 times more efficient than average.
Granted, it is hydro power but nothing comes really "free" or at no environmental costs. Heck, you may very need oil to produce solar panels.
http://news.nationalgeographic...
https://www.quora.com/How-much...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.ren21.net/wp-conten...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
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.
I thinik you got it a little bit backwards. With renewables - at least some of them - we're trying to employ as many people as we can because those people are mostly a function of growth and not a function of production. Solar PV, e.g., shifts most labor expenditure into manufacturing and installation. So it's not "let's employ as many people as possible for a fixed amount of energy generated", but rather "let's employ as many people as possible to increase the amount of energy generated as quickly as possible". When it comes to "operational efficiency", solar already beats coal, for example (at least if EIA statistics about operational costs are to be believed).
Ezekiel 23:20
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?
Pyramids generate tourism, renewable power plants generate electricity. US is not interested in tourism so it doesn't need to build pyramids. It does, however, consume inordinate amounts of electricity so power plants are preferable.
Ezekiel 23:20
This issue is quite exaggerated in many articles. Even so, the inputs decrease steadily for a unit of output, so even it it were a problem (it isn't already), it would eventually cease to be one anyway.
Ezekiel 23:20
Reality is precisely the opposite. Transmission losses are very low (under 10% on average), but small batch installation costs on rooftop arrays kill the economics relative to large installations, which are installed in bulk with dramatically lower labour per unit nameplate capacity. Associated hardware (such as inverters) and grid links are also much cheaper per unit power at large scales. Even panels can be purchased and imported significantly cheaper when bought in bulk and all delivered to the same location. And as for subsidies, while both residential and commercial get the same ITC, residential installs also tend to be subject to a lot of state benefits as well.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
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.
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.
The "it pollutes to make solar panels" argument is ridiculous. Of course it pollutes to make anything. But the amount of embodied pollution utterly pales in comparison to the amount of power that gets generated at no extra emissions while sitting out in the sun for decades on end.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
Also, there's a huge difference in terms of workforce employed to run generating infrastructure, versus workforce employed to build generating infrastructure. Solar and wind are undergoing huge scaleups at present. Hydro, not so much.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
Remember the CPUs? Now, there is talks about new kind of computing because anything has its limits.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Of course it has. But when it comes to PV, we're somewhere around Pentium 4 right now.
Ezekiel 23:20
The U.S. travel and tourism industry generated nearly $1.6 trillion in economic output in 2015, supporting 7.6 million U.S. jobs.
Just another day in Paradise
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.
That doesn't contradict the general lack of interest, especially of the current administration.
Ezekiel 23:20
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?
We didn't subsidize the purchase of CPUs.
Well, so we don't need government subsidies, tax breaks, or other market interference then: renewables will succeed on their own when prices have come down enough.
Right, it's called investment. A solar panel lasts for 30+ years. A lump of coal lasts about 5 minutes.
A new nuclear plant lasts 80 to 100 years. Windmills last about 25 years, but by that time even the generator has typically been replaced at least once, the blades replaced multiple times. Solar lasts longer in lower insolation/irradiance areas, degrades faster where it is higher. Claims made for long solar panel life are typically based on panels that are in less sunny areas.
$1.6T and 7.6M employees say you're wrong.
Just another day in Paradise
And just to pile onto my own comment, who the fuck do you think stays in Trump's hotels and casinos? The current administration makes a shit ton of cash from tourism, so you're an idiot if you think they don't care.
Just another day in Paradise
And coal kills..
Hydro? It would be nice if we harnessed tides.
...or the high dollar.
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.
...or the high dollar.
A high dollar wouldn't cost a $10B drop in tourism.
http://time.com/money/4687114/trump-slump-foreign-tourism-us-immigration-travel/
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.
The cost of running and maintaining a nuclear plant are a lot higher than a windfarm. Nuclear is not the answer.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And once again, renewables had little to do with coal's decline. That was natural gas. The only "assault" on the Appalachians is the march of time. Coal is dying, and no amount of grand promises from the guy currently sitting in the White House will reverse that.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No nuclear plant can just run without maintenance, and it would be insane to want to. The economics have never been favorable to nuclear fusion, and has always required a pretty significant subsidy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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."
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
Let's think about this a bit. As the employer and as a customer, employing fewer people is better than employing lots of people, all other things being equal. Of course, all things are almost never equal: it's difficult to maintain the same run rate with fewer people. But as the employer or the customer, jobs are a cost to be reduced.
As a society, we want to use our most limited resource, people's time and energy, on things which make them happy, healthy, and fulfilled. If installing solar panels makes people happy, or gives them the means to do things which make them happy, well that's wonderful. But as long as the employee is doing the thing which (all things considered) makes them happy, I don't really care what industry that's in.
Of course, that "all things considered" covers a lot of ground. It's a value judgement. I enjoy writing software. My wife valued raising our kids. Hipsters enjoy ordering deconstructed avocado toast for brunch and only work to support their habit. Solar installers probably get a kick out of knowing they're trying to improve the environment. It takes all types and that's a good thing.
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.
And once again, renewables had little to do with coal's decline
Aside from being pushed along with overzealous environmentalism. What may seem nice in Aspen or Davos definitely does not fly in Appalachia.
But if you want to insist that environmentalists are pure as the driven snow, persist in your strong delusion. They are the ones that are trying to kill coal for being too unfriendly to them.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Coal wasn't killed by environmentalists, it was killed by natural gas. Coal mining regions around the Western world have seen labor declines for years, and while I'm sure environmental regulations play a part (as they should, coal is just plain fucking to mine and burn, it's a dirty fuel from beginning to end). Even where coal is still being mined, it's increasingly automated, so any kind of recovery in coal isn't going to deliver the jobs from that region which you seem to care so very much about.
Sometimes, you just have to sit the buggy whip factory employees down and explain to them "It's over". Coal is never coming back. Natural gas is killing it, and renewables will be the death blow, if it doesn't die long before they dominate. It would be better to encourage all those miners sitting around waiting for the jobs to come back to seek job retraining, and yes, maybe they will have to move. This is like bitching because the Klondike can't support thousands of prospectors anymore.
And really, do you give even the tiniest shit about coal miners?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, that says that the tourists are stubborn. That's a different observation from the one that US tries hard to be inimical to them.
Ezekiel 23:20
More than a hundred of countries have greater economic dependency on tourism than the US. Those that are at the top are much more dependent on tourism, and therefore logically more interested in keeping it.
Ezekiel 23:20
Stubborn, really? I'd argue that you're the one being stubborn, arguing against facts put in that refute your point.
Just another day in Paradise
What facts refute my point? The US is provably not one of the tourism-dependent countries. It's not one of the tourism-averse countries either, but it's hardly dependent on tourism to the extent that would make it one of the US government's chief concerns.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
Or, alternatives have become too costly ;-)))
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Why would the alternatives become more costly? Technology makes the discovery and extraction of fossil fuels cheaper and easier, just like it does for alternative energy sources.
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.