[quote]
Putting solar panels on rooftops and arrays is a labor-intensive process. You need people to design and manufacture the panels. Then people to market the panels to homes, businesses, and utilities. Then people to come and install them.
It all adds up to a lot of jobs. Even though solar power still provides just a fraction of America’s electricity — about 1.3 percent — the industry now employs more than 260,000 people, according to [URL="http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national/?mc_cid=eaf6332238&mc_eid=%5BUNIQID%5D"]a new survey[/URL] from the nonprofit Solar Foundation. And it’s growing fast: Last year, the solar industry accounted for one of every 50 new jobs nationwide.
The chart below breaks it down by job type. The majority of solar jobs are in installation, with a median wage of $25.96 per hour. The residential market, which is the most labor-intensive, accounts for 41 percent of employment, the commercial market 28 percent, and the utility-scale market the rest:[/quote]
[url]http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/2/7/14533618/solar-jobs-coal[/url]
Wind is doing pretty well, too:
[url]http://hppr.org/post/wind-power-reaches-100k-job-milestone[/url]
[quote]The number of jobs supported by the wind industry has cracked the 100,000 mark, according to new data from the U.S. Department of Energy.
As Energy Central reports, the milestone means wind power now employs more workers than nuclear, natural gas, coal, or hydroelectric power plants. And one out of every four of those wind workers are employed in the state of Texas.
And wind doesn’t appear to be slowing down, either. According to an earlier DOE report, the U.S. could add almost 400,000 more wind jobs in the next thirteen years.[/quote]
The last decade has been good for alternative energy. We'll just have to hope it's reached a viable enough state to stand on its own two feet now, because the next several years will be rough for it.
On a general basis, investing in renewables provides more jobs than non-renewables.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;51795203]On a general basis, investing in renewables provides more jobs than non-renewables.[/QUOTE]
It's such a mystery why Republicans are still trying to prop up coal.
[QUOTE=IKTM;51795227]It's such a mystery why Republicans are still trying to prop up coal.[/QUOTE]
It's no great mystery, really: the fossil fuel industry funds their campaigns.
[QUOTE=IKTM;51795227]It's such a mystery why Republicans are still trying to prop up coal.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--GpETiFlaRQ/UbjVcIHXhZI/AAAAAAAABOY/VSNf3Bb7Ej8/s1600/AK263880E7_411F_43C9_82FC_6853E77D6BEA.jpg[/t]
Man, sounds like a great time to invest in some coal.
Holy cow, $25.96/hr???
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51795247]It's no great mystery, really: the fossil fuel industry funds their campaigns.[/QUOTE]
I was being sarcastic.
well clearly we have to get rid of those wind and solar subsidies so overly subsidized coal can compete and MAGA
Given how much each contributes to US energy this is nothing to be proud of. If anything it suggests they're bith very unsustainable.
[QUOTE=download;51796534]Given how much each contributes to US energy this is nothing to be proud of. If anything it suggests they're bith very unsustainable.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how physics work in your world, but both have been proven to sustainable here, and as for [I]job growth[/I], there is no such fucking animal anywhere on earth, and any politician that tells that there is, is a [B]liar[/B].
Even the fast food industry is shrinking as automation becomes the norm. No job market is static [B]and never will be[/B]. Smart folks tend to shift and change as best they can with the times, because if you don't, things like what is happening to US economy as opposed to say Finland or Sweden right now as we speak become the norm.
Contrary to republican rhetoric, there's no magic sky zombie waiting to come down and throw jobs at anyone who is on the Special List, and if there was he is waaaay fucking behind schedule.
[QUOTE=IKTM;51795227]It's such a mystery why Republicans are still trying to prop up coal.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if they'll actively try and kill off renewable energy.
This gives me hope, but Republicans will subsidize the shit out of the coal mines to keep them up and running on life support and their benefactors happy.
[QUOTE=download;51796534]Given how much each contributes to US energy this is nothing to be proud of. If anything it suggests they're bith very unsustainable.[/QUOTE]
you always make the most daft and backward conclusions in all clean or renewable energy
the technology is not as mature as coal or gas turbines that's for sure but thing is, it's that gvts are only now getting interested in them, give 'em time and they will be major contributors to the total US energy usage.
doesn't this mean Republicans will work twice as hard to limit it?
[QUOTE=27X;51796558]I'm not sure how physics work in your world, but both have been proven to sustainable here[/quote]
[Citation needed]
[quote]and as for [I]job growth[/I], there is no such fucking animal anywhere on earth, and any politician that tells that there is a [B]liar[/B].
Even the fast food industry is shrinking as automation becomes the norm. No job market is static [B]and never will be[/B]. Smart folks tend to shift and change as best they can with the times, because if you don't, things like what is happening to US economy as opposed to say Finland or Sweden right now as we speak become the norm.
Contrary to republican rhetoric, there's no magic sky zombie waiting to come down and throw jobs at anyone who is on the Special List, and if there was he is waaaay fucking behind schedule.[/QUOTE]
I'm not certain how that dribble is related to the topic at hand.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51796740]you always make the most daft and backward conclusions in all clean or renewable energy[/quote]
Why thankyou. Got anything to back that statement up?
[quote]the technology is not as mature as coal or gas turbines that's for sure but thing is, it's that gvts are only now getting interested in them, give 'em time and they will be major contributors to the total US energy usage.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly relevant. The number of people required to produce a good is generally proportional to how much a good costs. In this case solar and wind supplies about 5% of US electricity demand for the same number of employees as US coal which supply 35% of US electricity demand plus coal for steel production. It therefore will be much more expensive than coal and that cost will feed back into the production of solar panels and wind turbines making them even more expensive (unless of course they chose to buy them from China make with coal power).
This concept in found in EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) and is roughly proportional to the cost of an energy source. With an EROEI of about 6 solar for example is a terrible energy source up there with ethanol derived from foodstuffs and oil from tar sands. Wind gets an EROEI of about 15 which is also pretty baf but not as bad as solar.
Great. Just in time for the Republicans to destroy renewable energy and claim they were right all along.
People will believe them.
[QUOTE=download;51796891]Not exactly relevant. The number of people required to produce a good is generally proportional to how much a good costs. In this case solar and wind supplies about 5% of US electricity demand for the same number of employees as US coal which supply 35% of US electricity demand plus coal for steel production. It therefore will be much more expensive than coal and that cost will feed back into the production of solar panels and wind turbines making them even more expensive (unless of course they chose to buy them from China make with coal power).
This concept in found in EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) and is roughly proportional to the cost of an energy source. With an EROEI of about 6 solar for example is a terrible energy source up there with ethanol derived from foodstuffs and oil from tar sands. Wind gets an EROEI of about 15 which is also pretty baf but not as bad as solar.[/QUOTE]
if you'd bothered to read the article it explicitly states that the bulk of these jobs are in solar panel manufacture and installation (which is much more labour intensive).
the other big reason is political. solar industry can employ lots of people and enjoy government support as a consequence because politicians generally like big employers
the industry is rapidly growing and advancing as we speak, unlike coal which has been unchanged for the past century
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51797246]if you'd bothered to read the article it explicitly states that the bulk of these jobs are in solar panel manufacture and installation (which is much more labour intensive). [/QUOTE]
Again, how is that relevant? It doesn't change the fact it requires a significantly larger number of people to make energy from solar than it does coal.
And yes, I did read the article.
[editline]9th February 2017[/editline]
All you've done is said I'm wrong before reiterating what I said and saying that's right.
The chart includes people who design, build and sell solar panels. I seriously doubt Coal's numbers include those.
[QUOTE=27X;51796558]I'm not sure how physics work in your world, but both have been proven to sustainable here.[/QUOTE]
what about when it's night time? cloudy? when the wind is calm? how about when the winds are too strong and cause damage?
even if you store it, current battery technology sucks and just isn't efficient for larger volumes
I can only hope that geothermal becomes promising. Nuclear fission still creates unusable waste(although newer reactors create less of it), and nuclear fusion is still a long ways off.
[QUOTE=Ridge;51797300]The chart includes people who design, build and sell solar panels. I seriously doubt Coal's numbers include those.[/QUOTE]
Nobody needs to design and build coal, but they do mine it, and miners are accounted for.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51797415]Nobody needs to design and build coal, but they do mine it, and miners are accounted for.[/QUOTE]
"Nobody needs to design and build the sun" is basically what you just said
[QUOTE=Levelog;51797707]"Nobody needs to design and build the sun" is basically what you just said[/QUOTE]
I'm sure the engineers who plan the mines descent are counted amongst the number though, which is I believe, reflected in the numbers shown for the solar industry
I'm confused. Why are you guys against renewable energy? It seems to me that you're arguing out of principle.
[QUOTE=space1;51797358]what about when it's night time? cloudy? when the wind is calm? how about when the winds are too strong and cause damage?
even if you store it, current battery technology sucks and just isn't efficient for larger volumes
I can only hope that geothermal becomes promising. Nuclear fission still creates unusable waste(although newer reactors create less of it), and nuclear fusion is still a long ways off.[/QUOTE]
You still get solar energy on a cloudy day.. otherwise it'd be dark...
[QUOTE=download;51796891][Citation needed][/QUOTE]
download: here's a stupid claim [I]with no citation[/I] that's only tangentially related to the thread topic
27X: uh, that's a stupid claim
download: [Citation needed]
You take a big, steamy dump of a post, tell everybody else that their opinions are irrelevant when they call you out, and then stroke this [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1551920&p=51797294&viewfull=1#post51797294"]ridiculous victim complex[/URL] to complete the cringe trifecta.
People like you are the [I]worst[/I] people to debate with, honestly. How do you expect people to take you or your arguments seriously when you do this kinda shit?
[QUOTE=Furioso;51798270]download: here's a stupid claim [I]with no citation[/I] that's only tangentially related to the thread topic
27X: uh, that's a stupid claim
download: [Citation needed]
You take a big, steamy dump of a post, tell everybody else that their opinions are irrelevant when they call you out, and then stroke this [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1551920&p=51797294&viewfull=1#post51797294"]ridiculous victim complex[/URL] to complete the cringe trifecta.
People like you are the [I]worst[/I] people to debate with, honestly. How do you expect people to take you or your arguments seriously when you do this kinda shit?[/QUOTE]
Yawn. All I'm seeing here is a guy who doesn't have an argument so he's decided he's going to bitch and moan about about the person writing. If you want me to say where I got something from [i]just ask[/i].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
