OT: 10x more green jobs than fossil fuel jobs

[Winfield Hill]

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

Read more in NewScientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2219927-us-green-economy-has-10-times-more-jobs-than-the-fossil-fuel-industry/#ixzz63UJDwkqK

See also Nature, arsTechnica and Forbes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0329-3

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/us-green-economys-growth-dwarfs-the-fossil-fuel-industrys/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/#59e092844473


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

On 26 Oct 2019 12:09:31 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking
inefficiency.

Read more in NewScientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2219927-us-green-economy-has-10-times-more-jobs-than-the-fossil-fuel-industry/#ixzz63UJDwkqK

See also Nature, arsTechnica and Forbes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0329-3

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/us-green-economys-growth-dwarfs-the-fossil-fuel-industrys/

"China, for example, has emerged as a global climate leader" is really
insane.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China

That's confusing propaganda with CO2.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/#59e092844473

"The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels
that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs. In
addition to direct transfers of government money to fossil fuel
companies, this includes the indirect costs of pollution, such as
healthcare costs and climate change adaptation. By including these
numbers, the true cost of fossil fuel use to society is reflected."

Sounds like cooking the books to me. And some people think that not
taxing something 100% is a subsidy.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Winfield Hill]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[boB]

On 26 Oct 2019 16:06:19 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

There is a lot of inefficiency in most green energy compared to fossil
fuels. This is true. BUT we have to start somewhere. Fossil fuels is
not going to carry us through by itself in the long run anyway.

Things will get more efficient as time goes on. Without subsidies,
too.

Then there's that global warming thing, but I have a sneaking
suspicion that the world won't be able to clean up in time for the
inevitable.

We can try though.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:06:33 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.


--
Thanks,
- Win

So you are saying lots of temporary green power jobs?

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 11:47:43 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:06:33 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

So you are saying lots of temporary green power jobs?

Solar power is generating some 1.6% of the US energy budget.

It's going up at 37% per year, which means that it could take 13 years to get it to 100% of the budget.

The installation work force would rise in the same proportion, which would mean that 600 million people would be busy finishing the job in the last year - and most of them would have to be imported.

A more realistic picture would probably spread out the process, but it could keep a lot more of the work force busy than it does now for quite while.

It's worth noting the price of solar cells has halved when the production volume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the same 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the process go even faster.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

------------------------------------------

Phil Allison

Dopey Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com

wrote:

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking
inefficiency.



** The per unit cost of energy is a direct refection of providing decent incomes for ALL those involved in creating and getting it to you.

Simplistic analysis of the above data suggests that the eventual cost of fully Green electricity will be around 10 times that of fossil and nuclear power.

Plus 90 million of the US population will be employed in doing it.

Not a fucking chance.


..... Phil


We can create jobs by eliminating farm machinery and plowing with
sticks. We can weave our own cloth at home. Saw lumber by hand. Go
back to manual typewriters and carbon paper and telephone operators.

There are so many great ways to create jobs.


FYI:

** Long before Facebook and U-Tube, there were night time radio talk back hosts - like Brain Whilshire here in Sydney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wilshire


His favourite remark about dope politicians pushing loopy ideas was:

" Not fit to govern a Two-Stroke motor "


Plus on the topic of work creation:

" Might as well get everyone to take in a do each others washing "



... Phil

 

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 18:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

------------------------------------------

Dopey Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com

wrote:

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking
inefficiency.



** The per unit cost of energy is a direct refection of providing decent incomes for ALL those involved in creating and getting it to you.

Simplistic analysis of the above data suggests that the eventual cost of fully Green electricity will be around 10 times that of fossil and nuclear power.

Plus 90 million of the US population will be employed in doing it.

Not a fucking chance.



..... Phil

We can create jobs by eliminating farm machinery and plowing with
sticks. We can weave our own cloth at home. Saw lumber by hand. Go
back to manual typewriters and carbon paper and telephone operators.

There are so many great ways to create jobs.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Winfield Hill]

dcaster@krl.org wrote...

On October 26, 2019, Winfield Hill wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

So you are saying lots of temporary green power jobs?

Sure, someday maybe we'll have all the green we
need, but by then we'll have moved on to the next
great thing, whatever that may be. Maybe food,
or infrastructure, or housing, or quality of life.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Phil Allison]

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

------------------------------------------

Dopey Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>

wrote:

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking
inefficiency.

** The per unit cost of energy is a direct refection of providing decent incomes for ALL those involved in creating and getting it to you.

Simplistic analysis of the above data suggests that the eventual cost of fully Green electricity will be around 10 times that of fossil and nuclear power.

Plus 90 million of the US population will be employed in doing it.

Not a fucking chance.



...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 12:15:12 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 18:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

------------------------------------------

Dopey Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com

wrote:

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking
inefficiency.



** The per unit cost of energy is a direct refection of providing decent incomes for ALL those involved in creating and getting it to you.

Simplistic analysis of the above data suggests that the eventual cost of fully Green electricity will be around 10 times that of fossil and nuclear power.

Plus 90 million of the US population will be employed in doing it.

Not a fucking chance.

We can create jobs by eliminating farm machinery and plowing with
sticks. We can weave our own cloth at home. Saw lumber by hand. Go
back to manual typewriters and carbon paper and telephone operators.

There are so many great ways to create jobs.

John Larkin thinks that installing new generating gear requires the same number of people as keeping existing generators running.

His grasp of reality is weak.

Phil's analysis of the labour involved in fully greening US energy supplies is equally defective.

If it currently takes 9.5 million people to install enough new plant to increase US renewable energy production by 5% per year, and the renewable energy currently produces 15% of US energy, its going to need progressively more over the next 43 years to get it 100% at which point some 60 million people would be needed. That's less than 90 million.

In reality the effort - and the demand for labour - would taper off as the proportion of renewable energy generation got close to 100%, but the US is probably going to need quite a bit more energy by then.

On the other hand the process of installing renewable energy generation is likely to get less labour intensive as technology moves on.

Solar farms involve less construction than wind turbines, and it seems to be easier to get economies of scale in making solar cells than in making wind turbines.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 12:49:32 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------

Solar power is generating some 1.6% of the US energy budget.

It's going up at 37% per year, which means that it could take 13 years
to get it to 100% of the budget.


** The math works out.

However, I remember a prediction made in the 1980s that the cost of producing and building new fighter designs for the USAF was accelerating in an exponential way.

Extrapolating from the then rate, the author calculated that by the early 2000s, the entire US GDP would be consumed in order to build one plane.



The installation work force would rise in the same proportion, which would mean that 600 million people would be busy finishing the job in the last year - and most of them would have to be imported.


** No kidding .....

600 million - wow.


A more realistic picture would probably spread out the process,
but it could keep a lot more of the work force busy than it does
now for quite while.

** In the famous words of John McEnroe ( whom I have always admired )

" YOU CANNOT be SERIOUS !! "

The reader was expected to notice that, more or less there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------

Solar power is generating some 1.6% of the US energy budget.

It's going up at 37% per year, which means that it could take 13 years
to get it to 100% of the budget.

** The math works out.

However, I remember a prediction made in the 1980s that the cost of producing and building new fighter designs for the USAF was accelerating in an exponential way.

Extrapolating from the then rate, the author calculated that by the early 2000s, the entire US GDP would be consumed in order to build one plane.

The installation work force would rise in the same proportion, which would mean that 600 million people would be busy finishing the job in the last year - and most of them would have to be imported.

** No kidding .....

600 million - wow.

A more realistic picture would probably spread out the process,
but it could keep a lot more of the work force busy than it does
now for quite while.

** In the famous words of John McEnroe ( whom I have always admired )


" YOU CANNOT be SERIOUS !! "

--------------------------



...... Phil

 

On 26 Oct 2019 16:06:19 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

Those jobs are fine as long as they are in an industry that do not
need subsidies.

If the only interest is to just employ people and clean up statistics,
sure random paper pusher jobs can be created with tax payers money,
but they are not going to pay any (net) taxes. They could as well
live on unemployment benefits,

 

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 00:06:33 UTC+1, Winfield Hill wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

so even more than 10x the people for a fraction of the energy.

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman pondered aloud:

---------------------------

If it currently takes 9.5 million people to install enough new plant to increase US renewable energy production by 5% per year, and the renewable energy currently produces 15% of US energy,

** Most of that is Hydro - right ?

Been in place for tens of decades, deceitful to lump it in with the recent stuff.

its going to need progressively more over the next 43 years to get
it 100% at which point some 60 million people would be needed.
That's less than 90 million.

** Phew, I had begun to think it might be a problem.

Power bills increasing by a factor of 60 is perfectly OK

In reality the effort - and the demand for labour - would taper off as the proportion of renewable energy generation got close to 100%, but the US is probably going to need quite a bit more energy by then.

** Yep - it's going up faster than new Green expansion.


Sorry, I have to stop now - cos unlike the Red Queen, I am not able to believe six impossible things at a time, even after breakfast.



...... Phil

 

[Martin Riddle]

On 26 Oct 2019 12:09:31 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

Read more in NewScientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2219927-us-green-economy-has-10-times-more-jobs-than-the-fossil-fuel-industry/#ixzz63UJDwkqK

See also Nature, arsTechnica and Forbes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0329-3

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/us-green-economys-growth-dwarfs-the-fossil-fuel-industrys/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/#59e092844473

The local SunNation down here, has it's employees cars spilling out
into the street. Accidents are common.
Unfortunatly their success is based upon subsidies from PSEG.
They started crying when PSEG wanted to curb the handout, since they
would have gone belly up.

Cheers

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 3:14:32 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman pondered aloud:

If it currently takes 9.5 million people to install enough new plant to increase US renewable energy production by 5% per year, and the renewable energy currently produces 15% of US energy,

** Most of that is Hydro - right ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

says that 24% of that renewable energy is currently hydroelectric, 20.8% is wind, and 5.8% solar. The rest is biofuel and biomass.

We've been exploiting hydroelectric power for more than a century now, so all the big projects have been working for ages. Small scale projects are more practical than they used to be, now that they can be mostly automated, but there aren't all many of them either.

Wind is still growing, but solar is rowing faster - the unit price of solar cells halved a few years ago, and that probably going to happen again soon..

> Been in place for tens of decades, deceitful to lump it in with the recent stuff.

It doesn't involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. And it is only 24% of the US renewable generation. I don't think that there is any dishonesty there.

its going to need progressively more over the next 43 years to get
it 100% at which point some 60 million people would be needed.
That's less than 90 million.


** Phew, I had begun to think it might be a problem.

Mindless extrapolation isn't great way of finding real problems.

> Power bills increasing by a factor of 60 is perfectly OK

That won't happen - you are echoing John Larkin's idiot mistake, confusing the number of people required to put up new plant (which is capital investment) with the number required to keep it running after it has been put up (which is running costs).

In reality the effort - and the demand for labour - would taper off as the proportion of renewable energy generation got close to 100%, but the US is probably going to need quite a bit more energy by then.

** Yep - it's going up faster than new Green expansion.

It doesn't have to.

> Sorry, I have to stop now - cos unlike the Red Queen, I am not able to believe six impossible things at a time, even after breakfast.

Teasing out the reality from the mindless extrapolation does involve recognising impossible things - which does take more effort than credulously believing them, as John Larkin does.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------

** Most of that is Hydro - right ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

says that 24% of that renewable energy is currently hydroelectric, 20.8% is wind, and 5.8% solar. The rest is biofuel and biomass.

** Biofuel is not Green energy at all - merely "renewable".

Using precious, cropable land to make it means humans starving.


Don't Martians love to cheat ??


> We've been exploiting hydroelectric power for more than a century now, so all the big projects have been working for ages.

** So should not be included in your fake calcs as it cannot be significantly expanded.

its going to need progressively more over the next 43 years to get
it 100% at which point some 60 million people would be needed.
That's less than 90 million.


** Phew, I had begun to think it might be a problem.

Power bills increasing by a factor of 60 is perfectly OK

That won't happen - you are echoing John Larkin's idiot mistake, confusing the number of people required to put up new plant (which is capital investment) with the number required to keep it running after it has been put up (which is running costs).

** Your hypothetical 60M people is an absurdity.

Energy users would have to pay them with massive bills, for umpteen years.

Then make the vast majority redundant.

Crazy stuff like that ONLY happens on Mars, using Martians.

So is not the way us Earthlings will go.





...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 3:23:42 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 00:06:33 UTC+1, Winfield Hill wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

so even more than 10x the people for a fraction of the energy.

NT is being just as stupid as John Larkin. The people involved in building and installing the systems are a capital investment, not a running costs.

NT is probably even dimmer than John Larkin, so his failure to stop the obvious error isn't entirely surprising

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney