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.
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.
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.
Not really... coal is just more expensive than natural gas.
In at least a half dozen places, coal seam fires have rendered hundreds of square miles uninhabitable. We freak out when nuclear power renders hundreds of square miles uninhabitable.
The trump administration is directly assaulting the Appalachian regions. Cutting jobs programs and their safety net. The proposed republican budget cuts the benefits, food subsidies, and state to state tax transfers which have previously benefited Appalachian regions even further AND gives the money to wealthy people (almost all to the top 0.1%- not even to the top 1%) .
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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).
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..
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
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
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?
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
Agree. That's why sustainable development goals aim to factor in externalities in the cost of goods.
In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Economists often urge governments to adopt policies that "internalize" an externality, so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them. . .Voluntary exchange is considered mutually beneficial to both parties involved, because buyers or sellers would not trade if either thought it detrimental to themselves. However, a transaction can cause additional effects on third parties. From the perspective of those affected, these effects may be negative (pollution from a factory), or positive (honey bees kept for honey that also pollinate neighboring crops). Neoclassical welfare economics asserts that, under plausible conditions, the existence of externalities will result in outcomes that are not socially optimal. Those who suffer from external costs do so involuntarily, whereas those who enjoy external benefits do so at no cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
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?
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
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?
Unfortunately, the jobs created by mostly solar are very low paying. The skillsets required to install solar panels is not exactly hard to find. Wind is a tad better with some reasonably well paying maintenance jobs and a little more expertise required for siting and construction. Nothing comes close to the number of high paying jobs in nuclear. Gas pays fairly well and has a decent employment base.
Better than nothing. Having lived in poverty once, I know that any job is better than none. Jobs might be low-paying, but if they are durable, that's one step in the right direction. It gets you one step, however short that it, towards climbing yourself out. It doesn't guarantee it (but what does?). But it gives you a fighting chance. Much better than flipping burgers where you barely learn anything (a type of I also did once, and which I'm grateful) or being stuck behind the counter at a mom-n-pop shop where you will never get a chance to climb up.
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
Oh fuck off. Natural gas killed the coal industry. It had nothing to do with the New York Times or the DNC. Jesus Christ, the Alt-right really are some of the dumbest fucking idiots the world has ever known. "Da Libewals did it!" is just a mindless mantra.
Jesus fucking christ, you halfwit, coal country is hardly the first time a major industrial region has faded, and it almost inevitably is simply a factor of some new competing technology or jurisdiction doing it better. The last thing any government should do is artificially support a fading industry. Britain spent untold amounts of money propping up industries in the 1960s and 1970s, until finally the pricetag became so high that Thatcher had to finally kill the subsidies and let those industries either fade or stand on their own.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.