Clean energy jobs outnumber fossil fuel jobs in most US states

"(b) put more money into building and developing tractors reducing cost of manufactured and become a world leader in exporting tractors"

That's not how it works. There has to be a need in the market for a new tractor to keep up with or exceed today's consumption. If you can produce a new tractor at a cost that justifies the means then you have demand. Without that you've got nothing much like wind and solar.

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...ation-announces-more-4-billion-private-sector i trust the obama white house archives is a sufficient source for you. Just one example of his legislation propping up the industry. Plenty of examples of companies supported by his admin that went bankrupt as well. I trust youll admit that his admin subsidized the industry more than any other admin now? Or are you going to argue the white house archives are wrong?

 

There is a huge demand for renewable energy worldwide and in those countries it is just starting. The cost has dropped significantly due to the demand worldwide.


Sahara project supplying electricity to over 1,000,000 homes


Munich

Do you want your country to manufacture old products such as those that are mass produced in China for a fraction of the cost or do you want your country to become world leaders in future technology?.

 

No, there's a huge demand for guaranteed loans and subsidies.

Again, no. The costs have not dropped significantly. You take away the guaranteed loans and subsidies, and wind and solar fall flat on their face.

 

I presume you know that the huge demand I referred to was countries other than the US which was the reason that I posted images of the solar plants in the Sahara and Munich? Do you not want to export to these countries or do you prefer your country to continue manufacturing products from the dinosaur era but find out that your products can be bought cheaper elsewhere leading to you not have any manufacturing?

And costs of the energy production via renewable energy has dropped significantly. The technology and the following efficiency of the energy production has increased by huge margins and will increase further. And also I'm talking about manufacturing renewable systems for export.

 

OH. We all choose our names, I expect some things said about the name I chose. I certainly won't get snowflakeish about it.

I haven't been selective about anything.

 

I've never denied the industry was propped up or subsidized. Ever.
I even said at one point new industries of the future will need it until the technology becomes stable and the cost to mfg come down.
It's always that way with any new technology area. Gov't puts money it to help it along at a faster pace, as for profit companies won't do it until it can become profitable. And some will never get off the ground because of the profitability factor.
It's called Research and Development of ground breaking areas.

 

Also, regarding jobs and the capability of technology to create them, there are currently about 70,000 jobs in the coal industry, and about 650,000 jobs in the alternative energy industry. Also, China is eating our lunch currently with a new expenditure of over $200 billion on alternative energy efforts.

 

The costs have dropped significantly, even without the loans and subsidies.

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/04/solar-panel-cost-trends-10-charts/
https://understandsolar.com/cost-of-solar/
http://news.energysage.com/how-much-does-the-average-solar-panel-installation-cost-in-the-u-s/

 

It doesn't show SQUAT. It doesn't reference any FACTS or tell us HOW the supposed job categories are measured, and therein lies the hoodoo. If we want to find out exactly how they crafted the lie narrative, we have to sift through mountains of undifferentiated govt data because they don't TELL US their methodology or accounting, as any REPUTABLE data compiler would, rather link to a generic govt data dump. If you learn nothing else here, learn that THAT is the reddest flag for cooked data whether it's the govt, the Sierra Club or Big Tobacco doing it. It is astounding to me how gullible people with obviously 0 private sector experience in the real economy are about accepting govt or partisan hack BS of any stripe. Actually it's not, I've read many or your and OP's posts.

The saddest thing is you think you have -evidenced- a hilariously farfetched claim with a generic graph with obviously slanted categories and nothing else. You haven't. I could make a pie graph showing that piebald bigfoots tend to attack humans more than solid colored ones and if it supported some LW claim, people like you and OP would gulp it down like baby birds from mama bird's mouth.

 

We know you are able to invent an argument against anything even if your argument is totally bogus. The fact is that any modest research, which you seem afraid to do, reveals that the coal industry is in rapid decline with about 70-75 thousand jobs currently, versus 650,000 in the alternative energy field.

 

I hate to state the obvious, BUT, all that land to supply one million people with electricity, impressive! Now wrap your heads around the size of surface area you'll need to supply a hundred, two hundred, three hundred million and counting with electricity! You have to take the photo from space!

 

You do realize labor is a cost? What percent of our energy is produced by coal, 70,000 employees, versus renewable at 650,500?

 

With constantly improving technology, much of that will be achieved directly on the roofs of homes.

 

Good question, and the answer is that any minimal research into this reveals that the levelized cost of wind energy (which takes into consideration every imaginable cost contributor) has some time ago become cheaper than the levelized cost of coal energy. And solar is now nearing that point too.

 

I'll bet you salt reactors go online long before any of that happens with solar! Think about it, the first solar panel was invented in 1883, so in a 134 years this is where we are to supply one million people with electricity, on a planet of 7.4 billion people!

Don't count your chicken bro!

 

Your math is weak dude, read it again and pay attention to the LABOR COST.

 

Solar installations are already online. Salt reactors can't beat "now".

 

Then try to answer it this time

You do realize labor is a cost? What percent of our energy is produced by coal, 70,000 employees, versus renewable at 650,500?

 

Ya that blew me away!

 

Well, first of all "dude" is that 650,000 jobs translate into more tax revenue, more demand for goods, more businesses expanding to address that demand, which in turn translates into more jobs, more tax revenue, and more demand, etc etc etc.

So that is a winning approach to boosting any economy. "Trickle-down" has been proven a resounding failure.

 

You apparently had great difficulty digesting my post. I detailed it hoping to avoid that difficulty which I anticipated. Review "levelized cost".

 

And clearly a novelty can't do much either

 

It's not one million people but one million homes. Granted, you do need large land area but the best locations for solar energy tend to be in deserts which are sparsely populated. The land needed to supply the whole of Europe with electricity (population 700M plus and industrial electricity requirements) was estimated to be the size of Wales (8000 square miles). The Sahara desert which was the land that had been suggested can fit 460 Wales while also generating an income for the countries that own that land. The export market to supply the panels and technology if this takes off is huge.

 

Oh well common sense looses once again, you can't imagine the difference in consumer cost for a product with that scale of labor. Like every greeny you only see an up side and never the entire picture.

Cheers