Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/01/28/0542239/solar-energy-now-employs-more-americans-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined

Solar energy now accounts for 43% of the workers in the U.S. power-generating industry, surpassing the 22% from all workers in the coal, oil, and gas industries combined, according to new figures from the Department of Energy. Slashdot reader Lucas123 writes:
In 2016, the solar workforce in the U.S. increased by 25% to 374,000 employees, compared to 187,117 electrical generation jobs in the coal, gas and oil industries... [N]et power generation from coal sources declined by 53% between 2006 and September 2016; electricity generation from natural gas increased by 33%; and solar grew by over 5,000% -- from 508,000 megawatt hours (MWh) to just over 28 million MWh.

Solar industry created jobs at a rate 20 times faster than the national average, according to the Energy Department, while 102,000 more workers also joined the wind turbine industry last year, a 32% increase. In fact, 93% of the new power in America is now coming from solar, natural gas, and wind -- but it's building out new solar-generating capacity that's causing much of the workforce increases, according to the Energy Department. "The majority of U.S. electrical generation continues to come from fossil fuels," their report points out, adding that the latest projections show that will still be true in the year 2040.

Hmm, so coal, gas, oil represent the bulk of production, but they represent a much smaller fraction of employment than solar. If you look at it in a "jobs per KWh generated" sense, then propping up coal, oil and gas is actually a job losing strategy. Because you do that by merely stalling the introduction of solar, which is where the job growth is. Supply-side economics for fossil fuels is therefore a terrible strategy for job growth.

[redwallzyl]

https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/01/28/0542239/solar-energy-now-employs-more-americans-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined

Solar energy now accounts for 43% of the workers in the U.S. power-generating industry, surpassing the 22% from all workers in the coal, oil, and gas industries combined, according to new figures from the Department of Energy. Slashdot reader Lucas123 writes:
In 2016, the solar workforce in the U.S. increased by 25% to 374,000 employees, compared to 187,117 electrical generation jobs in the coal, gas and oil industries... [N]et power generation from coal sources declined by 53% between 2006 and September 2016; electricity generation from natural gas increased by 33%; and solar grew by over 5,000% -- from 508,000 megawatt hours (MWh) to just over 28 million MWh.

Solar industry created jobs at a rate 20 times faster than the national average, according to the Energy Department, while 102,000 more workers also joined the wind turbine industry last year, a 32% increase. In fact, 93% of the new power in America is now coming from solar, natural gas, and wind -- but it's building out new solar-generating capacity that's causing much of the workforce increases, according to the Energy Department. "The majority of U.S. electrical generation continues to come from fossil fuels," their report points out, adding that the latest projections show that will still be true in the year 2040.

Hmm, so coal, gas, oil represent the bulk of production, but they represent a much smaller fraction of employment than solar. If you look at it in a "jobs per KWh generated" sense, then propping up coal, oil and gas is actually a job losing strategy. Because you do that by merely stalling the introduction of solar, which is where the job growth is. Supply-side economics for fossil fuels is therefore a terrible strategy for job growth.

its almost like renewable are better in basically every way then fossil fuels. so much for those dam hippies destroying our jobs...

[Reelya]

its almost like renewable are better in basically every way then fossil fuels. so much for those dam hippies destroying our jobs...

Yeah, there's also the fact that fossil fuels are about burning a resource that could be used for other things. It took energy to make that in the first place, and we only collect back a fraction of that energy. Burning less fossil fuels leaves more for plastics and construction and pharmaceuticals. so you're agreeing to permanently lose a resource, for the sake of saving effort (economic cost) right now. Whereas sunlight and wind are only going to waste if you don't collect them.

[Neonivek]

Or you know...

It might have to do with Solar being unviable for a long long time... and it being viable means it can grow from basically what amounts to nothing.

So yeah... "Created jobs at a rate 20 time faster" is sort of a no brainer when that knowledge comes into view.

Same way that industrialization and the factorization of cars suddenly caused the growth of cars to skyrocket.

[Reelya]

EDITED FOR CLARITY: Yeah, it's growing from next to nothing, which explains that the sector has 20 times the jobs growth of the economy. 20 times 0.1% is still virtually nothing right? If it was really small, that logic would work.

But the fact is, right now twice as many people are employed in solar vs oil+coal+gas, and it's growing 20 times faster than the national average, while oil+coal+gas employment is falling.

[redwallzyl]

Sure, but solar is also hitting a price point competitive with coal already, and that even factors in the relatively large up-front labor costs of doing solar.

Remember, it's a tiny fraction of production, but it accounts for 43% of the jobs in the entire economic sector. Yeah, it's growing from next to nothing, but it already employs twice as many people as the other 80% of production combined.

and all of it without massive oil spills and blowing up mountains. and all that CO2. admittedly the production side has its impacts but noting on the same scale.

[wierd]

With the exception of radio nuclear decay inside the earth (arguably even this, if you want to point out that it too is starstuff), all energy on earth comes from solar fusion. This includes fossil fuels. (it is stored energy that hit the earth millions of years ago.)

There isnt a more plentiful energy source than the sun in our solar system.

If anything, the copious abundance of energy is what frightens the big energy sector of the market.

[Reelya]

If anything, the copious abundance of energy is what frightens the big energy sector of the market.

Yeah, it's hard to corner the market on sunshine and wind. And I mean it's not exactly rocket science to at least get some energy from these things wherever you are. Put your hot water tank on the roof, make it out of black plastic. It is in fact going to get pretty hot.

[redwallzyl]

With the exception of radio nuclear decay inside the earth (arguably even this, if you want to point out that it too is starstuff), all energy on earth comes from solar fusion. This includes fossil fuels. (it is stored energy that hit the earth millions of years ago.)

There isnt a more plentiful energy source than the sun in our solar system.

If anything, the copious abundance of energy is what frightens the big energy sector of the market.

we would be much better off without most of the energy sector. its too bound up in a physical commodities that can be easily monopolized.

[Helgoland]

Yeah, it's hard to corner the market on sunshine and wind.

Mr. Burns managed to in that one episode...

[wierd]

The way to corner the market on an ubiquitous resource, is to attach a source of artificial scarcity.

We know these as "patents".

EG, the race now, is in creation and consolidation of intellectual property that enables the green energy revolution, so that once more, the energy market is captured. That's how human greed works. (No, this is not really a good thing.)

[Reelya]

I think the old strategies they're doing to boost fossil fuels will in fact fail, sooner or later. Sooner wouldn't surprise me. The strategies are to prevent fuel efficiency standard from improving (force people to spend more) and to create supply (drive down price through market saturation). Some economists have lampooned this sort of policy in the past as trying to "do less with more".

But trying to gouge the consumer like that only hastens electric cars. Less fuel efficiency would reduce range of gasoline cars, and mean more time needed to refill, which promotes bigger queues. Also, less improvements in gasoline cars hurts car makers. If fuel efficiency isn't improving, it's one less reason to upgrade to the latest gasoline car.

I mean the main thing they can say about electric cars is that "where you gonna charge it?" and "how far does a charge take you?" Those two things are of course issues, but they're not insurmountable issues. You also can't fill up your gasoline car at home in the garage while you sleep using off-peak power, so depending on your usage patterns you could save the time waiting in line to fill up, while also saving money.

But there's also another possibility waiting in the wings: solar powered cars. Shove some solar panels on the roof and the car is charging itself wherever it's parked. I mean stuff like this for example:

That has a sustainable top speed of 80mph purely on sunlight. Sure it's got a battery in there, but it holds the Guinness Book Record for sustained speed powered by sunlight. So if they can improve on such a thing, it's going to be viable to have cars that charge while u drive. In another 50 years people might be amazed that you ever had to "fill up" your car, in the same way that we find things from the 1950s intolerably quaint.

[MrRoboto75]

What about the environmental impact of producing those big car batteries?

One of the big turn offs for me about hybrid cars was that the battery would inevitably go bad and fail to hold charge.  When it came to replacing it the cost would be high enough that you may as well just buy a new car.

[martinuzz]

Solar fuel cells are a thing. They need some more development, but nanowire solar fuel cells have already been developed that use solar energy to not only split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but are also capable of storing the hydrogen, while using ten thousand times less precious material.

https://www.tue.nl/en/university/news-and-press/news/17-07-2015-nanowires-give-solar-fuel-cell-efficiency-a-tenfold-boost/

(it's good that my hometown university is both working on fuel cells, as well as on solar cars)
https://solarteameindhoven.nl/
http://gas2.org/2015/07/14/dutch-solar-electric-car-is-a-net-energy-generator/

[Reelya]

Hybrids were a bad move, they were a stopgap and there were never many of them sold. So the cost to replace the battery part isn't reflective of the true cost. It's similar with any bit of kit that's rare. Spare parts are overpriced.

Also hybrids are by their nature an inefficient choice you make to try and balance competing needs. e.g. when on battery mode, you're expending energy unnecessarily to cart a fucking gasoline engine around, and those things are pretty heavy, and when on gasoline mode, you're expending energy to cart batteries around, reducing range, thus reducing the amount of time before you start to need the batteries. Both of those things impact the battery's lifespan negatively. Plus, being uncommon, they don't have the supply chain going to get a steady supply of spare parts.

However, there's no reason that a new type of battery couldn't be retrofitted to a hybrid car if someone wanted to. I mean if you totally pull all the battery-related stuff out, you still have a gasoline car anyway, and it will have an efficiency equal to the power of the engine divided by the weight of the car, which is just a normal equation for a car's cost to run. it won't have great range, but a hybrid which has lost it's battery would be fine for some people's use patterns, and will cost the same to run as any other small gasoline car.