Clean Jobs, Expensive Jobs

[PixieStix]

The "green economy" is supposed to be a win-win situation, as massive subsidies for renewable energy sources and other "clean" technologies would help both the environment and the economic recovery. The facts on the ground tell a different story, though.

New study finds five real jobs lost for each ?green? job government subsidizes | Washington Examiner

Carlo Stagnaro and Luciano Lavecchia: Clean Jobs, Expensive Jobs - WSJ.com

 

[Mr. H.]

Green is the new black.

Luciano Lavecchia he's an opera singer ain't he?

 

[Big Black Dog]

This whole "green" movement is nothing but a scam. It's just like that environmental whacko bullshit only with more government emphasis. We're so interested in saving the planet, saving the economy of other nations, and saving Wall Street that we can't even save our own asses.

 

[boedicca]

Green is the new black.

Luciano Lavecchia he's an opera singer ain't he?

No. Green is the New Red.

Green jobs have driven the Spanish economy into high unemployment. The same will happen here if the government interferes with what should be free market decisions.

 

[boedicca]

This whole "green" movement is nothing but a scam. It's just like that environmental whacko bullshit only with more government emphasis. We're so interested in saving the planet, saving the economy of other nations, and saving Wall Street that we can't even save our own asses.

It's all about the Money.

Goldman Sachs is part of Al Gore's investment scam to profit from this mess.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'm yet to see a "Green" project that wasn't somehow funded with taxpayer Dollars.

 

[Mr. H.]

My bro married a German gal over 20 years ago. I remember talking a bit of politics w/her back then. She said that there's a saying over there - "green is red".

 

[PixieStix]

Green is the new black.

Luciano Lavecchia he's an opera singer ain't he?

http://www.eabcn.org/sites/all/files/people/cvs/lucianolavecchia.pdf

 

[PixieStix]

This whole "green" movement is nothing but a scam. It's just like that environmental whacko bullshit only with more government emphasis. We're so interested in saving the planet, saving the economy of other nations, and saving Wall Street that we can't even save our own asses.

It's all about the Money.

Goldman Sachs is part of Al Gore's investment scam to profit from this mess.

It is a scam of epic proportion

 

[Mr. H.]

Green is the new black.

Luciano Lavecchia he's an opera singer ain't he?

http://www.eabcn.org/sites/all/files/people/cvs/lucianolavecchia.pdf

LANGUAGE SKILLS Italian: Mother tongue.

MOTHER TONGUE.

Think about it.

 

[industry7]

So the fact that green energy solutions allow fewer people to produce more energy, which they can then sell to consumer at a lower price while simultaneously having a lower environmental impact... that's a bad thing?

Similarly if using a farming tractor with an internal combustion engine allows fewer farmers to produce more food at a lower price, this must also be a bad thing? I mean obviously it's going to leave a lot of farmers without work, so we should put a stop to it right?

Stop living in the stone age.

 

[boedicca]

But they don't. They just make energy more expensive, causing the loss of other jobs in order to support the transfer payments into the green companies.

 

[Old Rocks]

This was published in 1996. The cost of wind and solar have both came down. The costs of fossil fuels have increased. Also, not included, but now very much a player, is geo-thermal.

Nuclear and the fossil fuel industries have long recieved subsidies. Yet you people scream and yell when clean energy recieves subsidies.

Financial factors alone make the clean energy sources the sources of the future. Wind was 42% of the new generation installed in 2009.


http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/10-50_Hoffert.pdf

Levelized Electricity Cost at Busbar (¢/kWe-hr) (1996)4
Coal 4.8 -5.5
Gas 3.9 -4.4
Hydro 5.1-11.3
Biomass 5.8-11.6
Nuclear Fission 11.1-14.5
Wind (without federal production tax credit) 4.0-6.0
Wind (with federal production tax credit) 3.3-5.3

 

[industry7]

But they don't. They just make energy more expensive, causing the loss of other jobs in order to support the transfer payments into the green companies.

According to this, wind makes power too cheap, not too expensive:

Wind's latest problem: it ... makes power too cheap

Although I would argue that energy could never be too cheap.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thank you, Industry. Fascinating article. One that I will repost occasionally on other threads as the dingbats continue to post the lies concerning the economics of alternative energies.

Interesting also that First Solar is manufacturing solar cells for less than a $1 a watt. That puts solar firmly into the mix as a another competative source of electrical power.

Wind's latest problem: it ... makes power too cheap

Jerome a Paris has an interesting post at the European Tribune about the economics of wind power - Wind's latest problem: it ... makes power too cheap.

Bloomberg has a somewhat confusing article about the newest complaint about wind power, but the gist of it is that wind power is an issue for the industry because it brings their revenues down:

operators in Europe may have become their own worst enemy, reducing the total price paid for electricity in Germany, Europe’s biggest power market, by as much as 5 billion euros some years
Implicit in the article, and the headline (which focuses on lower revenues for RWE) is the worry that wind power will bring down the stock market value of the big utilities - which is what the readers of Bloomberg et al. care about.

But despite the generally negative tone of the article, it's actually a useful one, because it brings out in the open a key bit of information: wind power actually brings electricity prices down!

windmills (...) operators in Europe may have become their own worst enemy, reducing the total price paid for electricity in Germany, Europe’s biggest power market, by as much as 5 billion euros some years ...

The wind-energy boom in Europe and parts of Texas has begun to reduce bills for consumers. ...

Spanish power prices fell an annual 26 percent in the first quarter because of the surge in supplies from wind and hydroelectric production

This tidbit of information, which will hopefully begin to contradict the usual lies about the need for hefty subsidies for the wind sector, has been publicised by EWEA, the European Wind Energy Association in a report on the merit order effect (PDF). This is the name for what happens when you inject a lot of capital-intensive, low-marginal-cost supply into a marginalist price-setting market mechanism with low short term demand elasticity - or, in simpler words: when you have more wind, there is less need to pay to burn more gas to provide the requisite additional power at a given moment.

 

[mdn2000]

So the fact that green energy solutions allow fewer people to produce more energy, which they can then sell to consumer at a lower price while simultaneously having a lower environmental impact... that's a bad thing?

Similarly if using a farming tractor with an internal combustion engine allows fewer farmers to produce more food at a lower price, this must also be a bad thing? I mean obviously it's going to leave a lot of farmers without work, so we should put a stop to it right?

Stop living in the stone age.

Green energy does not create fewer jobs, it creates more, you have to drill for more oil to make more fiberglass to make more windmills, thats more jobs, further every wind farm has 100% fossil fuel backup so that creates more jobs building more fossil fuel plants. Wind farms produce a tiny amount of energy, maybe 10% of what is they claim in their propaganda so the fossil fuel plants will produce close to 100% of the energy.

Do a search on Los Angeles or better yet go read the threads on windmills, I have addressed the higher cost of green energy, Los Angeles is raising electrical rates to cover the higher cost of green energy, there is even a EPRI study posted on this site that states most of the costs of green energy must remain hidden and the public needs to be convinced of the value of green energy despite the higher costs.

Green energy has a higher impact on the environment, this has been addressed on the threads as well, it takes more materials to make a energy from wind than it does to make electricity directly from fossil fuels, more materials means it takes more energy to make those materials, green energy produces more pollution. This has been addressed, need links to the threads?

Your premise is wrong, period. It takes more people to make the same amount of electricity from a wind mill than from a CoGen plant.

There is a solar farm off the 395 freeway in California uses fossil fuel energy to pump millions of gallons of water to this solar farm, the solar farm does not produce enough energy to pump the water it needs. So yes green jobs do produce more jobs, its just that the jobs are in the fossil energy sector, in the fiberglass sector, the steel industry, the oil industry, the mining industry.

The post I just addressed is an example of how easily people are tricked by a marketing campaign.

There is no such thing as green energy, period.