OT: 10x more green jobs than fossil fuel jobs

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million. That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding

and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed, so others had to get the data.

Read more in NewScientist:

formatting link

See also Nature, arsTechnica and Forbes:

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

--
 Thanks, 
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill
Loading thread data ...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking inefficiency.

"China, for example, has emerged as a global climate leader" is really insane.

formatting link

formatting link

That's confusing propaganda with CO2.

"The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs. In addition to direct transfers of government money to fossil fuel companies, this includes the indirect costs of pollution, such as healthcare costs and climate change adaptation. By including these numbers, the true cost of fossil fuel use to society is reflected."

Sounds like cooking the books to me. And some people think that not taxing something 100% is a subsidy.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
jlarkin

Wrong math, most are building and installing systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively little maintenance needed during that time.

--
 Thanks, 
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill

There is a lot of inefficiency in most green energy compared to fossil fuels. This is true. BUT we have to start somewhere. Fossil fuels is not going to carry us through by itself in the long run anyway.

Things will get more efficient as time goes on. Without subsidies, too.

Then there's that global warming thing, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the world won't be able to clean up in time for the inevitable.

We can try though.

Reply to
boB

So you are saying lots of temporary green power jobs?

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

Sure, someday maybe we'll have all the green we need, but by then we'll have moved on to the next great thing, whatever that may be. Maybe food, or infrastructure, or housing, or quality of life.

--
 Thanks, 
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill

Solar power is generating some 1.6% of the US energy budget.

It's going up at 37% per year, which means that it could take 13 years to g et it to 100% of the budget.

The installation work force would rise in the same proportion, which would mean that 600 million people would be busy finishing the job in the last ye ar - and most of them would have to be imported.

A more realistic picture would probably spread out the process, but it coul d keep a lot more of the work force busy than it does now for quite while.

It's worth noting the price of solar cells has halved when the production v olume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the sam e 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the process go even faster.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

------------------

** The math works out.

However, I remember a prediction made in the 1980s that the cost of producing and building new fighter designs for the USAF was accelerating in an exponential way.

Extrapolating from the then rate, the author calculated that by the early 2000s, the entire US GDP would be consumed in order to build one plane.

** No kidding ..... 600 million - wow.

** In the famous words of John McEnroe ( whom I have always admired )

" YOU CANNOT be SERIOUS !! "

--------------------------

..... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

The reader was expected to notice that, more or less there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

The local SunNation down here, has it's employees cars spilling out into the street. Accidents are common. Unfortunatly their success is based upon subsidies from PSEG. They started crying when PSEG wanted to curb the handout, since they would have gone belly up.

Cheers

Reply to
Martin Riddle

so even more than 10x the people for a fraction of the energy.

Reply to
tabbypurr

Those jobs are fine as long as they are in an industry that do not need subsidies.

If the only interest is to just employ people and clean up statistics, sure random paper pusher jobs can be created with tax payers money, but they are not going to pay any (net) taxes. They could as well live on unemployment benefits,

Reply to
upsidedown

Solar makes sense in low latitude locations, in which the annual peak consumption is in the summer, especially in low cloudiness areas.

Even halving the panel price would make them only slightly more attractive in high latitude areas. in which the peak consumption is in the winter and/or there are lot of clouds, In these areas the annual capacity factor is going to be low and a larger number of panels is needed for the annual energy consumption,

Of course building huge power lines (with NIMBY effects:-) between low and high latitude areas would help, but panel prices would have to drop further to pay for these power lines.

Reply to
upsidedown

get it to 100% of the budget.

d mean that 600 million people would be busy finishing the job in the last year - and most of them would have to be imported.

uld keep a lot more of the work force busy than it does now for quite while .

volume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the s ame 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the proces s go even faster.

Ethanol production for gas is based on ICE auto fuel usage. With EVs rampi ng up, I guess it won't be long before the bottom of the corn market drops out unless someone gets the farm lobbies to agree to scale back ethanol pro duction.

I read an article recently that was very confusing about how there is some figure for corn/ethanol production requirements or subsidies (it was a coup le of weeks ago, so I'm not sure which) that was being based on the governm ent projection rather than the actual figures of fuel usage. Isn't it time to ditch the ethanol requirement in gasoline? That would make a lot of pe ople happy (who aren't farmers).

--
  Rick C. 

  + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

Not only installation but also maintenance. Millions of solar panel cleaners would be required, a suitable job for millions of imported unskilled workers.

Reply to
upsidedown

NT is being just as stupid as John Larkin. The people involved in building and installing the systems are a capital investment, not a running costs.

NT is probably even dimmer than John Larkin, so his failure to stop the obvious error isn't entirely surprising

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 3:51:06 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wr ote:

n volume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the same 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the proce ss go even faster.

Australia's energy half-wits are going nuts about the hydrogen economy, whe re Australia is going to use it's sunlight to electrolyse hydrogen, liquify it, and ship tankers full of it to Japan and South Korea.

Of course you need three times as much sunlight to deliver a given amount o f energy as liquid hydrogen as you'd need to charge up batteries to deliver the same amount of energy, so there isn't going to be much of a local mark et.

The proper long term solution would be intercontinental power cables.

formatting link

Basslink (between Tasmania and the Australian mainland) didn't seem to gene rate much NIMBY protest. The intercontinental equivalent would probably nee d to exploit superconductivity, which is a a way off yet, but greed may get us there surprisingly quickly.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Yes, we are doomed... DOOMED!!! How can we be corrupted by all these charlatans?

I guess we have no choice but to legislate a death penalty for working on renewable energy. That will put an end to the problem and free up energy they would have been using as well! Win-win!!!

We'll have to go back to hanging. We can't be burning them up in an electric chair.

--
  Rick C. 

  -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 1:02:02 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wro te:

:

o get it to 100% of the budget.

ld mean that 600 million people would be busy finishing the job in the last year - and most of them would have to be imported.

ould keep a lot more of the work force busy than it does now for quite whil e.

n volume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the same 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the proce ss go even faster.

Sounds to me like a good job for automation! I guess we can import the mac hines if that pleases you.

--
  Rick C. 

  -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

Biofuels are fully dispatchable. You can run it in gas turbines and diesels when unreliable sources (such as wind and solar) fail simultaneous.

No need for expensive battery backup.

Actually, install additional new turbines into existing dams. Close all turbines during the day to save water and let solar handle the day consumption. Run the saved water through turbines in the late evening and early next morning, when there is a lack of solar production.

No need for expensive battery backup.

Reply to
upsidedown

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.