For a strong economy, renewables.

[Old Rocks]

Make the economy even stronger, build renewables and grid scale storage.

Green jobs now employ 10x more people than fossil fuel

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Make the economy even stronger, build renewables and grid scale storage.

Green jobs now employ 10x more people than fossil fuel

More people employed, to produce much less actual energy. That may be a good deal for those who have those jobs, but not at all a good deal for the economy as a whole.

The economy benefits more, when less cost (including labor) goes into producing more value.

 

[JGalt]

Make the economy even stronger, build renewables and grid scale storage.

Green jobs now employ 10x more people than fossil fuel

According to a pair of economic researchers in the United Kingdom, the United States green economy now employs 10 times more people than the fossil fuel industry??



Not what I'm finding. 2019 is showing a 4.9% increase in all fuels production jobs, and a 4.2% decrease in jobs for solar employment.

2019 U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER)

 

[Old Rocks]

Renewable energy jobs are booming across America, creating stable and high-wage employment for blue-collar workers in some of the country’s most fossil fuel-heavy states, just as the coal industry is poised for another downturn.

Economics are driving both sides of this equation: Building new renewable energy is cheaper than running existing coal plants and prices get cheaper every year. By 2025, almost every existing coal plant in the United States will cost more to operate than building replacement wind and solar within 35 miles of each plant.

Multiple states and utilities are setting 100% clean energy goals, creating new demand for workers to build solar panels and wind turbines. Planning for the inevitable coal-to-clean economic transition can create new economic opportunities in every corner of the country – and some forward-thinking policymakers are already heeding this lesson.

Renewable Energy Job Boom Creates Economic Opportunity As Coal Industry Slumps

 

[Old Rocks]

Bureau of Labor Statistics, the fastest growing occupation in the US is solar PV installer, with a projected growth rate of 105% from 2016 – 2026. While this fact might not be that surprising to people in the solar power industry, or those who follow it closely, to anyone else it might be startling. Before you found out that solar PV installer is at the top of the fastest growing occupations, at least in the US, what would you have guessed it to be? Know what number two is? It’s wind turbine service technician — so the top two fastest growing occupations in the country are both in renewable energy.

http://redgreenandblue.org/2019/01/27/solar-wind-tech-fastest-growing-jobs-us/

 

[Old Rocks]

This fact sheet focuses on employment in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors in the United States and around the world. According to the 2019 U.S. Energy Employment Report (USEER), 611,000 people worked in zero-emission technology industries, including renewables and nuclear in the United States. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) recorded even higher renewable energy employment in the United States at 855,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2018. Jobs in energy efficiency experienced significant growth—the sector now employs more than 3 million people in the United States. IRENA reports that, globally, the renewable energy sector employed 11 million people in 2018, 700,000 more than in 2017.

Climate adaptation and resilience stand out as rapidly emerging areas of employment as a result of climate change impacts. These sectors will be critical to track in tandem with jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the coming years. However, the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) system managed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not currently include codes to allow for the comprehensive analysis of employment in these fields. To address the lack of country-wide data, the American Society of Adaptation Professionals (ASAP) has initiated efforts to define and quantify the adaptation and resilience workforce. ASAP’s preliminary analysis found that adaptation and resilience employment is predominantly in government (40 percent), non-governmental organizations (36 percent), and the private sector (16 percent). However, ASAP reports that adaptation work is growing fastest in for-profit, private sector companies, including for-profit climate service firms as well as climate-affected firms from a variety of industries across the North American economy. Climate adaptation and resilience jobs cut across a number of different types of work, including communications and outreach, conservation and ecology, economics and finance, education, engineering and design, hazard mitigation, planning, policy, program administration, and project management. Adaptation and resilience work have been both incorporated into existing jobs and resulted in new jobs—one example being the creation of high-level Chief Resilience Officer positions in over 86 cities around the world. While it is not currently possible to report on the total number of people employed in the climate adaptation and resilience field in the United States, this is an important area of job growth to track looking forward.

Fact Sheet - Jobs in Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, and Resilience (2019) | White Papers | EESI

 

[eagle1462010]

Green growth: Employment projections in environmentally focused occupations : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...49/USEER+2019+US+Energy+Employment+Report.pdf

The first three of these sectors make up the Traditional Energy sector. Based on a comprehensive analysis of employer data collected in the fourth quarter of 2018, the 2019 USEER finds that the Traditional Energy and Energy Efficiency sectors in 2018 employed approximately 6.7 million Americans or 4.6 percent of a workforce of roughly 147 million. Employment in these sectors increased in 2018 by 2.3 percent from the previous year, adding 151,700 net new jobs, nearly 7 percent of all new jobs nationwide.2 The Fuels sector employed 1,127,600, an increase of 52,000 or 4.8 percent in 2018. • Petroleum fuels added the most jobs of any traditional energy sector, with 33,500 new positions, an increase of 5.9 percent. • Natural gas extraction increased employment by 6.8 percent, adding 17,000 jobs. • Coal mining and fuels production gained 650 jobs or 0.9 percent. • Woody biomass jumped 5.5 percent, adding more than 1,700 jobs. The Electric Power Generation sector employed 875,600 and declined by just under one percent, losing almost 8,300 jobs. Job losses in solar, nuclear and coal generation were partially offset by gains in natural gas, wind, and CHP

Solar energy firms employed 242,000 employees who spent the majority of their time on solar.3 An additional 93,000 employees spent less than half their time on solar-related work. The number of employees who spend the majority of their time on solar declined by 3.2 percent or more than 8,000 jobs in 2018. • There were an additional 111,000 workers employed at wind energy firms across the nation in 2018, an increase of 3.5 percent or 3,700 jobs. • All natural gas employment in Electric Power Generation increased by over 5,200 (4.9 percent), for almost 113,000 jobs, reflecting that gas now produces more electricity in the United States than any other fuel type.4 • Advanced/low emissions natural gas, wind, and CHP generation were the fastest growing new sources, increasing employment by more than 4,500 (7.0 percent), 3,700 (3.5 percent), and 2,000 (7.4 percent), respectively. • Coal-fired generation employment declined by more than 6,600 jobs, or 7.2 percent.

 

[DGS49]

(A) Claiming that "renewable energy" employs more people than some other form of energy generation is NOT A GOOD THING. Imagine saying that it takes twice as much manpower to build a car in England as it does in Japan. Not something for England to brag about, eh?

(2) Renewable energy is a virtue-signaling parlor game for rich Western countries, and has microscopic impact on the rest of the world, or - even if you believe the hysteria - the world's future climate. China - I read - has built enough new COAL energy infrastructure in the past two years to offset the entire world's painful cuts in CO2 output during that time. It doesn't even propose to reduce its CO2 emissions until about 2030. And don't forget, Chinese contractors are building coal-fired electric plants in Africa and elsewhere, in addition to its own domestic plants.

(iii) Embrace of nuclear power is the litmus test for seriousness about climate change. If you don't embrace Nuke, you are a dimwitted, uninformed jagg-off.

(d) Politicians "promising" 100% renewable energy decades after they are out of office? How much of a fool do you have to be to take this seriously?

V. For most of the world's population, COAL is the cheapest, easiest, most direct route to modernity available to them. But of course tofu-eating Leftists in the West don't really care if the people in rural China, India, Africa, and remote parts of South America have electricity, clean water, transportation, or - God forbid - AIR CONDITIONING. It's more important to them that they feel good about themselves for saving the fucking planet.

Carry on.

 

[DOTR]

When you deal with liberals there is always the same measure of cognitive dissonance, victory lapping, threats and warnings of doom. And the pie-in-the-sky just about to come true with free everything for everybody....well free if the government taxes the shit out of you subsidizes it while punishing profitable enterprises.

Liberals are a danger to society because they sometimes appear to be sentient. Don’t fall for it!

 

[Manonthestreet]

I delivered wire to a small solar farm and found that was another job Americans wont do....

 

[eagle1462010]

Op...........what is the REAL COST per kwh of solar now..........because that is all that matters in the end.

And please don't go to the nifty not taking into consideration the cost of installation, and grid costs propaganda of the industry.

 

[DOTR]

They should proclaim food stamps to be a job then they can brag that food stamps are booming with 45 million people employed at receiving a handout and consuming food.

 

[Old Rocks]

(A) Claiming that "renewable energy" employs more people than some other form of energy generation is NOT A GOOD THING. Imagine saying that it takes twice as much manpower to build a car in England as it does in Japan. Not something for England to brag about, eh?

(2) Renewable energy is a virtue-signaling parlor game for rich Western countries, and has microscopic impact on the rest of the world, or - even if you believe the hysteria - the world's future climate. China - I read - has built enough new COAL energy infrastructure in the past two years to offset the entire world's painful cuts in CO2 output during that time. It doesn't even propose to reduce its CO2 emissions until about 2030. And don't forget, Chinese contractors are building coal-fired electric plants in Africa and elsewhere, in addition to its own domestic plants.

(iii) Embrace of nuclear power is the litmus test for seriousness about climate change. If you don't embrace Nuke, you are a dimwitted, uninformed jagg-off.

(d) Politicians "promising" 100% renewable energy decades after they are out of office? How much of a fool do you have to be to take this seriously?

V. For most of the world's population, COAL is the cheapest, easiest, most direct route to modernity available to them. But of course tofu-eating Leftists in the West don't really care if the people in rural China, India, Africa, and remote parts of South America have electricity, clean water, transportation, or - God forbid - AIR CONDITIONING. It's more important to them that they feel good about themselves for saving the fucking planet.

Carry on.

Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 12.0) shows a continued decline in the cost of generating electricity from alternative energy technologies, especially utility-scale solar and wind. In some scenarios, alternative energy costs have decreased to the point that they are now at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation.

Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018

Would you like to share more misinformation with us? Nuclear is way expensive. Coal requires railroad and a lot of other infrastructure, most of which is detrimental to the environment. Solar is very scalable, from powering a cell phone to a gigawatt power station. Solar is far more efficient, because it can be placed where the power is needed. Wind is presently cheapest, however, as the high efficiency solar is developed, that will change. The combination of solar and wind, with grid scale storage is capable of delivering 100% of the energy that we need.

 

[Old Rocks]

Op...........what is the REAL COST per kwh of solar now..........because that is all that matters in the end.

And please don't go to the nifty not taking into consideration the cost of installation, and grid costs propaganda of the industry.

Perhaps is you were a little less lazy, you would have looked it up;

Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018

Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 12.0) shows a continued decline in the cost of generating electricity from alternative energy technologies, especially utility-scale solar and wind. In some scenarios, alternative energy costs have decreased to the point that they are now at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation.

 

[eagle1462010]

(A) Claiming that "renewable energy" employs more people than some other form of energy generation is NOT A GOOD THING. Imagine saying that it takes twice as much manpower to build a car in England as it does in Japan. Not something for England to brag about, eh?

(2) Renewable energy is a virtue-signaling parlor game for rich Western countries, and has microscopic impact on the rest of the world, or - even if you believe the hysteria - the world's future climate. China - I read - has built enough new COAL energy infrastructure in the past two years to offset the entire world's painful cuts in CO2 output during that time. It doesn't even propose to reduce its CO2 emissions until about 2030. And don't forget, Chinese contractors are building coal-fired electric plants in Africa and elsewhere, in addition to its own domestic plants.

(iii) Embrace of nuclear power is the litmus test for seriousness about climate change. If you don't embrace Nuke, you are a dimwitted, uninformed jagg-off.

(d) Politicians "promising" 100% renewable energy decades after they are out of office? How much of a fool do you have to be to take this seriously?

V. For most of the world's population, COAL is the cheapest, easiest, most direct route to modernity available to them. But of course tofu-eating Leftists in the West don't really care if the people in rural China, India, Africa, and remote parts of South America have electricity, clean water, transportation, or - God forbid - AIR CONDITIONING. It's more important to them that they feel good about themselves for saving the fucking planet.

Carry on.

Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 12.0) shows a continued decline in the cost of generating electricity from alternative energy technologies, especially utility-scale solar and wind. In some scenarios, alternative energy costs have decreased to the point that they are now at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation.

Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018

Would you like to share more misinformation with us? Nuclear is way expensive. Coal requires railroad and a lot of other infrastructure, most of which is detrimental to the environment. Solar is very scalable, from powering a cell phone to a gigawatt power station. Solar is far more efficient, because it can be placed where the power is needed. Wind is presently cheapest, however, as the high efficiency solar is developed, that will change. The combination of solar and wind, with grid scale storage is capable of delivering 100% of the energy that we need.

Cost per kwh including the installation and buying of the system is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.

What is that cost.........

 

[eagle1462010]

Solar Energy Cost Per kWh (And What Is a kWh, Anyway?)

The great thing about this number is that it’s straightforward and easy to understand. If two proposals each show you a cost per watt or kW, you are comparing apples to apples. This number represents the cost of the proposed system’s power capacity, but does not tell you about the system’s potential to produce energy.

Proposals will often also list the solar energy cost per kWh, but this number is not as straightforward. Two proposals that list this calculation are often not comparable. It is important to understand the proposed amount of kWh being produced, as well as the assumptions being used to generate those estimates. Even though “cost per kWh” is listed on both, you might be comparing apples to oranges (or you might have a mango!).

This is because the cost per kWh does not have a universal equation, and the final number can be influenced by using different calculations. How does each calculation take into account design elements like roof tilt, orientation, or shading? Does each proposal’s calculation use the same climate data to forecast for how much energy your panels will produce? Does the proposal estimate the lifetime of your system to be 20, 25, or 30 years? Each of these factors will change the final cost per kWh shown.

So why even look at kWh? For one, the cost per kWh can be informative because it allows you to compare the cost of solar to your utility costs. The solar energy cost per kWh can also help you compare two system proposals because two systems of the same kW size could produce different total kWh because of design choices. Just remember that it’s a subjective number, and feel free to ask your solar company how they calculate solar energy cost per kWh.

 

[Old Rocks]

(A) Claiming that "renewable energy" employs more people than some other form of energy generation is NOT A GOOD THING. Imagine saying that it takes twice as much manpower to build a car in England as it does in Japan. Not something for England to brag about, eh?

(2) Renewable energy is a virtue-signaling parlor game for rich Western countries, and has microscopic impact on the rest of the world, or - even if you believe the hysteria - the world's future climate. China - I read - has built enough new COAL energy infrastructure in the past two years to offset the entire world's painful cuts in CO2 output during that time. It doesn't even propose to reduce its CO2 emissions until about 2030. And don't forget, Chinese contractors are building coal-fired electric plants in Africa and elsewhere, in addition to its own domestic plants.

(iii) Embrace of nuclear power is the litmus test for seriousness about climate change. If you don't embrace Nuke, you are a dimwitted, uninformed jagg-off.

(d) Politicians "promising" 100% renewable energy decades after they are out of office? How much of a fool do you have to be to take this seriously?

V. For most of the world's population, COAL is the cheapest, easiest, most direct route to modernity available to them. But of course tofu-eating Leftists in the West don't really care if the people in rural China, India, Africa, and remote parts of South America have electricity, clean water, transportation, or - God forbid - AIR CONDITIONING. It's more important to them that they feel good about themselves for saving the fucking planet.

Carry on.

Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 12.0) shows a continued decline in the cost of generating electricity from alternative energy technologies, especially utility-scale solar and wind. In some scenarios, alternative energy costs have decreased to the point that they are now at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation.

Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018

Would you like to share more misinformation with us? Nuclear is way expensive. Coal requires railroad and a lot of other infrastructure, most of which is detrimental to the environment. Solar is very scalable, from powering a cell phone to a gigawatt power station. Solar is far more efficient, because it can be placed where the power is needed. Wind is presently cheapest, however, as the high efficiency solar is developed, that will change. The combination of solar and wind, with grid scale storage is capable of delivering 100% of the energy that we need.

Cost per kwh including the installation and buying of the system is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.

What is that cost.........

Again, why so lazy, all of that is available if you look for it. But, just for you information;

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

 

[eagle1462010]

(A) Claiming that "renewable energy" employs more people than some other form of energy generation is NOT A GOOD THING. Imagine saying that it takes twice as much manpower to build a car in England as it does in Japan. Not something for England to brag about, eh?

(2) Renewable energy is a virtue-signaling parlor game for rich Western countries, and has microscopic impact on the rest of the world, or - even if you believe the hysteria - the world's future climate. China - I read - has built enough new COAL energy infrastructure in the past two years to offset the entire world's painful cuts in CO2 output during that time. It doesn't even propose to reduce its CO2 emissions until about 2030. And don't forget, Chinese contractors are building coal-fired electric plants in Africa and elsewhere, in addition to its own domestic plants.

(iii) Embrace of nuclear power is the litmus test for seriousness about climate change. If you don't embrace Nuke, you are a dimwitted, uninformed jagg-off.

(d) Politicians "promising" 100% renewable energy decades after they are out of office? How much of a fool do you have to be to take this seriously?

V. For most of the world's population, COAL is the cheapest, easiest, most direct route to modernity available to them. But of course tofu-eating Leftists in the West don't really care if the people in rural China, India, Africa, and remote parts of South America have electricity, clean water, transportation, or - God forbid - AIR CONDITIONING. It's more important to them that they feel good about themselves for saving the fucking planet.

Carry on.

Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE 12.0) shows a continued decline in the cost of generating electricity from alternative energy technologies, especially utility-scale solar and wind. In some scenarios, alternative energy costs have decreased to the point that they are now at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation.

Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018

Would you like to share more misinformation with us? Nuclear is way expensive. Coal requires railroad and a lot of other infrastructure, most of which is detrimental to the environment. Solar is very scalable, from powering a cell phone to a gigawatt power station. Solar is far more efficient, because it can be placed where the power is needed. Wind is presently cheapest, however, as the high efficiency solar is developed, that will change. The combination of solar and wind, with grid scale storage is capable of delivering 100% of the energy that we need.

Cost per kwh including the installation and buying of the system is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.

What is that cost.........

Again, why so lazy, all of that is available if you look for it. But, just for you information;

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

Me and you have went round and round on this in the past.

And your use of one source to justify the cost per kwh is not being honest on the costs.

Costs include all aspects of the installing the grid......maintaining the grid........tying to the grid which changes per state...........or the battery bank costs for the grid..........

Which is NOT comparible to fossil fuels cost..........and does not account for subsidies necessary to make them cost effective.

I'm not against solar power............I'm against the bottom line cost to me the consumer for the electricity.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, you were too lazy even to look at the extensive information that Lazard provides on each of this issues. And all you do is flap yap, then say no one is providing information, when you make no attempt on your part to provide information.

 

[eagle1462010]

In other words, you were too lazy even to look at the extensive information that Lazard provides on each of this issues. And all you do is flap yap, then say no one is providing information, when you make no attempt on your part to provide information.

In other words I asked for more than one source.