The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Energy => Topic started by: IsailedawayfromFR on September 07, 2018, 06:37:48 pm
-
In an April 25 New York Times article (“Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal“) reporter Nadja Popovich wrote that “Last year, the solar industry employed many more Americans [373,807] than coal [160,119], while wind power topped 100,000 jobs.†Those energy employment figures are based on a Department of Energy report (“U.S. Energy and Employment Report“) released earlier this year that provides the most complete analysis available of employment in the energy economy.
But simply reporting rather enthusiastically (see the NYT headline again) that the solar industry employs lots of Americans, more than twice as many as the number of coal miners and utility workers at electric power plants using coal, is only telling a small part of the story. Here are some important energy facts that help provide a more complete picture about how much energy is being produced in different sectors, how many workers it takes to produce a given amount of electric power, and which sectors receive the most generous taxpayer handouts.
To start, despite a huge workforce of almost 400,000 solar workers (about 20 percent of electric power payrolls in 2016), that sector produced an insignificant share, less than 1 percent, of the electric power generated in the United States last year (EIA data here). And that’s a lot of solar workers: about the same as the combined number of employees working at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company and Procter & Gamble.
(http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/EnergyWorkers.png)
http://www.aei.org/publication/inconvenient-energy-fact-it-takes-79-solar-workers-to-produce-same-amount-of-electric-power-as-one-coal-worker/ (http://www.aei.org/publication/inconvenient-energy-fact-it-takes-79-solar-workers-to-produce-same-amount-of-electric-power-as-one-coal-worker/)
-
Hurrah for inefficiencies!
-
Hurrah for inefficiencies!
Apparently you still have a job in an industry so efficient few are required.
Congratulations.
-
Then 78 end up in the unemployment line.
-
I have to question the headline (and the underlying data).
First, it wouldn't surprise me if a reporter played a little loose with the truth to get the results they want. For example, do you count railroad workers if they transport coal? How do you count them if they spend 18% of their time transporting coal, and while doing so coal is 42% of the total cargo? AFAIK, they don't sell coal at Wallymart, but they do sell solar powered battery chargers -- does that mean everyone down to the greeter is part of the "solar industry"?
And then there's marketing and sales. Where I live, it's a coin flop if I even run the heat at all in a year. Never met anyone who wanted to sell me coal (maybe it's different in the NE?). But something is going on with solar lately. I can't answer my door, answer my phone, open a web page on my phone/tablet, or drive down the block without someone trying to convince me that I can get solar panels for no money up front.
-
I have to question the headline (and the underlying data).
First, it wouldn't surprise me if a reporter played a little loose with the truth to get the results they want. For example, do you count railroad workers if they transport coal? How do you count them if they spend 18% of their time transporting coal, and while doing so coal is 42% of the total cargo? AFAIK, they don't sell coal at Wallymart, but they do sell solar powered battery chargers -- does that mean everyone down to the greeter is part of the "solar industry"?
And then there's marketing and sales. Where I live, it's a coin flop if I even run the heat at all in a year. Never met anyone who wanted to sell me coal (maybe it's different in the NE?). But something is going on with solar lately. I can't answer my door, answer my phone, open a web page on my phone/tablet, or drive down the block without someone trying to convince me that I can get solar panels for no money up front.
The article clearly only points to the workers employed in power generating plants for coal, ng or solar.
All the other things you bring up are not within that definition.
-
The article clearly only points to the workers employed in power generating plants for coal, ng or solar.
All the other things you bring up are not within that definition.
Which article? Is it one of the links in the posted article?
-
This is too funny! yogi555
-
Which article? Is it one of the links in the posted article?
Did you read the posted link?
Do you need me to repost?
-
Did you read the posted link?
Do you need me to repost?
Yes, I did read the article.
No, you don't need to repost. Seriously, don't be *. We both know what you meant by that part of your comment. There's no need to go there.
And we both know that nowhere in the article does it, and I quote, "clearly only points to the workers employed in power generating plants for coal, ng or solar."
Mod comment: no namecalling, please
-
Yes, I did read the article.
No, you don't need to repost. Seriously, don't be *. We both know what you meant by that part of your comment. There's no need to go there.
And we both know that nowhere in the article does it, and I quote, "clearly only points to the workers employed in power generating plants for coal, ng or solar."
Mod comment: no namecalling, please
Pretty clear to me that article speaks to employees of generating plants for each of the energy sources.
And you really do not want to go down the road you were going anyway, as it is fossil fuels which generate the energy to make all those solar cells, fuel transportation vehicles which get the employees to their jobs, etc.
-
Yep, kind of "Apples & Oranges"...to be fair the author would have to include in the natural gas/coal "worker count" the GE workers (steam turbines, etc.), the workers making the coal mining equipment, the workers installing the coal & nat. gas equipment, etc., etc., etc.. That said, solar would currently be unpopular/unprofitable without taxpayer subsidies. (Except in California maybe, where we are paying an average of 25 cents a kilowatt-hour due to CA govt. "green" incompetence/mismanagement).
-
Soooo, climate change activists are now pro procreation and anti-abortion? :shrug:
-
Soooo, climate change activists are now pro procreation and anti-abortion? :shrug:
Perhaps, but their thinking is closer to "make-work"/Socialism-Communism I would think.
@goodwithagun