Clean energy jobs outnumber fossil fuel jobs in most US states

I can guarantee to you that my neighbour's solar panels will continually provide their electricity for the next 20 years at no cost to anyone, ( other than the electricity company who buy their excess,) unlike if they relied on fossil fuels to provide their electricity.

 

You said the renewable energy industry employs 650,000 while coal employs 70,000. So what percent of the energy produced is produced by the renewable industry and the coal industry?

 

coal is fading away. gas is cheaper. renewables are cleaner. reality time.

 

Firstly, they were not my figures but numbers quoted in this thread. Secondly, you've changed the question from 'labour cost' efficiency to another meaningless question about actual energy usage. Your argument can be applied to any old technology being superseded by new technology - a really poor way of trying to convince that old technology is better - imagine if that was done by landline old timers when criticizing mobile phone advocates.

 

So you refuse to give a direct answer.

 

Your meaningless question does not deserve an answer especially after you changed the original meaningless question to which an answer was given. To illustrate your ridiculous question:
Mobile phone industry employs 650,000 employees while landline industry employs 70,000 employees just before mobile phone usage took off. So what percent of the population used landlines and what percentage used mobile phones at that time?

 

The money will be invested...stimulating something.

Should it be Coal/Oil again..or renewable energy projects?
If $3Billion per year of our tax dollars are going to something..which would you like it to go to?

A.Oil/coal
B.Renuable energy
C.Pretend Taxes will ever be lowered by selecting neither.
D.You don't care.

 

Actually, Rodb didn't provide evidence, contrary to your claim.

All he did was show overall production statistics, and only up to 2012.

After that, he showed nothing.

He also bait and switched. He went from reciting coal industry production statistics to reciting the continually declining share of coal in the energy markets after 2012.

His own post is self contradictory. First of all, overall employment in the coal industry is about what it was in the 1950's, so automation had displaced a lot of jobs.

Second, the assertion that the drop in coal industry employment after 2012 is attributable to regulations that were only just adopted is idiotic.

You don't simply go down to Home Depot, buy a natural gas plant, and turn it on.

This drop in capacity is something the industry saw coming as soon as the fracking boom took off.

Of course, putting up billboards all over West Virginia blaming the President helps when you want to convince the guy you just laid off that they didn't get displaced by cheaper and cleaner energy, when you can use his vote to get relief.

 

okay, so nat gas played a part in it. But are you really saying the EPA had nothing to do with it?

 

How do you figure it's no cost to anyone? They were given a federal rebate to purchase the panels. Where do you think that money comes from, the tooth fairy?

Plus, do you have any idea how many panels and battery banks it would take to power a home 24 hours a day, 365 days a year? There's no way they're in the profit considering it takes most owners close to 20 years to get a return on investment when full powering their home.

 

Nope, I mean what I said. The issue is when can the employee start work? The project they are to work on that is meant to stimulate might take months or years to come online, and especially today with all the environmentalism issues when it comes to infrastructure.

That is the classical Keynesian concept of how stimulus increases demand, but in practice, it rarely works that way, if ever. You are right that it is a very basic cycle, and that's the key word, basic. The reality is much more complicated, which is why so many economists are skeptical or completely reject altogether fiscal stimulus.

 

Your first paragraph can be completely negated by the fact that the coal industry is heavily subsidized and is continually subsidized over the whole of the 20 years quoted in your second paragraph.

Second paragraph: My neighbours have only two panels on the roof and over the whole year the electricity generated was enough to keep their house going. During the excess generation period they sold the excess to the electricity company and during the darker periods they bought from the electricity company.

Your second paragraph also blows your argument out of the water. You state that they would get a return after 20 years ie at the 20 year point their net outlay on electricity used to cost of supply is zero. And after that they make a profit. What would be the cost if they got their electricity from conventional sources over the 20 years? What is the cost of conventional electricity in year 21?

Solar technology pricing is reducing rapidly and in many of the countries in Europe subsidies are no longer needed. Battery technology is also improving (slow at the moment). But you carry on living in the dinosaur era with your country missing out on the huge export market

 

allow the market to determine the winner, dinosaur era energy jobs in coal and oil pay higher wages than battery and solar jobs.

 

It all depends if you want your country to become an export leader in renewable energy technology. Your country's citizens may not be in favour of using it but why not sell to the countries that do want it and the demand there is increasing. Your country needs commodities to export as much as my country - neither of our countries have a manufacturing base.

 

That's a complete fabrication on your part. I've posted the numbers in this very thread. I suggest you take a look at those numbers. They prove you wrong yet again.

There's no way in hell two panels are powering their entire home 24 hours a day unless they live in a one room shack.

You're lying yet again. Government in the UK nearly cut off the subsidies and sales plummeted.

 

Munich.

I can power my whole house with two solar panels AND have excess power? I think this statement needs to fact checked....unless these panels are ginormous!

Google says I need 18 that took 30 seconds and not sure if that includes my a.c. which Runs about 16 hours a day in the summer.

 

I have nothing against green energy, on the contrary. But I do have something against subsidies, and it worries me that they're adopting the same old corrupt model of the oil companies. Elon Musk for instance has a net worth of 4bn and has received 3bn in government subsidies. That's simply collusion.

 

I presume you realise that I used your 20 year statement to back up my claim, your statement being "it takes most owners close to 20 years to get a return on investment when full powering their home"

Your secomd sentence addressed in next post and which part of "Solar technology pricing is reducing rapidly and in many of the countries in Europe subsidies are no longer needed. Battery technology is also improving (slow at the moment). But you carry on living in the dinosaur era with your country missing out on the huge export market" is a lie? Of course sales will reduce after subsidies are removed, but they are still selling

 

Whoops! I just looked at my neighbours house and saw that they have one panel water solar heaters so yes, I was wrong, and confused with another neighbour who has 14 solar panels, It is this second neighbour who has spare electricity to sell. Having AC running at 16 hours a day is going to give a huge bill - there is not really any demand for AC where I live.

 

Yes, they're still selling, but at a nearly unsustainable level. It has left many companies who deal with solar power to hang out and dry in the UK.

 

Not nuch. The ink on the Clean Power plan barely dried.

It would havean impact.

You may also note the larger coal companies (Peabody esc) do not support Trump's anti climate agenda.

 

America can't be an export leader in renewable energy technology because other countries will no longer buy its polluting oil and gas exports.

europe is divided and its small countries could depend on clean solar and wind energy, but America is big and needs polluting energies for high wage jobs to its many people.

the world must be polluted and held behind until we no longer have supply, it is in our economic interest.

 

Time to revive this thread as the swindler-in-chief rolls back what Obama signed on to. Trump is a pandering envious old fat fool who will leave The White House in shame and with a legacy fit for a snake oil salesman.

There are or jobs and the future is with alternatives...just in case all the knuckle draggers have not realized this yet.

 

This is great news!

Now, let's get busy exploiting every form of energy we can!

 

Not just big oil here, but Putin has oil to sell, as does Saudi Arabia.