OT: 10x more green jobs than fossil fuel jobs

[John Doe]

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.

Generally, more jobs is better. That doesn't hold true with energy
production. Inefficiency has a lot to do with it. Then there is all the
waste of materials, all the green junk that must be cleaned up after it
stops working.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 20:56:58 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
<always.look@message.header> wrote:

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.

Generally, more jobs is better.

Why? More jobs to do something is lower productivity.

Hire a million people to dig holes and another million to fill them.
Or 10 million, even better.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:19:42 AM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 23:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 4:56:57 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 22:28:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

You can also make methanol or ethanol and burn it somewhere else..

Thus, the bio energy is just a byproduct of making paper or pulp..

Not in my experience.

Why do you think that Finland has so high amount of receivables,
especially biomass?

The Russian's nicked all the decent agricultural land, so the Finn's have to make the best of what they've got left. My father saw the plaque in one of the paper mills in an invaded but not nicked area, commemorating the manager and the technical manager who the Russians had shot for the crime of being managers during the invasion.

I guess you are talking about East-Carelia, which has never been part
of Finland, although there are still some Finnish and Carelian
speaking population. Those stories appears to refer to Stalin's purges
in the 1930's.

I have no idea where the paper mill was, but it was in Finland.

Those stories do not apply to Finland.

The border between Finland and Soviet Russia was in the artillary
range of Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg in 1917-1939 and was an
excuse for the Soviets to start the Winter war in 1839. My father was
born close to this border and his family was evacuated just prior to
the Russian invasion.

Please note, the Red Army never overrun the main part of Finland.

There has never been a communist government in Finland, so why would
any site managers be shot.

I'm wondering whether my father misunderstood what he was being told. The incursion might have happened twenty years earlier than he though, in the Finish Civil War which followed the Russian revolution and eventually established Finland as a nation state.

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

Shooting mangers for being managers is the kind of political violence that seems to have gone on then.

My father didn't speak or read Finnish. He was better in Swedish - the Burnie paper mill bought the sixth Kamyr continuous digester (and the first in the Southern Hemisphere) and my father worked out how to run it counter-current, which Kamyr had been trying to do for years, and patented the process.

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/guides/slom/SLP0001.htm

When Johan Richter wrote a company history, my father got a mention and the signed copy of the history he sent to my father with a generous personal message is now in the Melbourne University technology archive, along with most of my father's papers.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:42:14 AM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 22:28:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 3:45:16 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 1:34:05 AM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:31:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 10:48:07 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 22:41:53 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
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".

Biofuels are fully dispatchable. You can run it in gas turbines and
diesels when unreliable sources (such as wind and solar) fail
simultaneous.

No need for expensive battery backup.

Biofuels capture about 0.1% of the energy in the incoming sunlight..

Biomass is a fine way for long time energy storage, no problem storing
for a few months (summer to winter) or even store for decades. It has
made it possible for people to live at high latitudes for thousands of
years.

Traditional and low technology works. This is a virtue. It also uses a lot more land area per kilowatt hour collected. This isn't.

There is a lot of trees in the taiga region (Scandinavia, Russia,
Siberia, Alaska and Canada). with huge annual growth. Better burn it
in a power plant than letting it burn in uncontrolled forest fires.


Solar cells capture about 25%.

That makes biofuels a lot more expensive than even the most extravagant battery back-up.

Countries with a lot of forest industry also have a high renewable
percentage. When trees are delivered to the paper or pulp factory,
only part of the biomass is used for the end product, the rest is
burned in the recovery boiler, which is used to power the factory as
the excess is sold to the free market.

While I was growing up, my father was research manager at the local paper mill. They did burn waste wood on site - mainly bark because the timber got turned into chips before it went into the continuous digester to have it's lignin removed (which also eventually got burnt in the soda-recovery process) and emerged as paper pulp.

The mill as a whole wasn't self-sufficient in energy.

<snip>

The mill I was talking about was a fine-paper mill, not a newsprint mill - the existence of a soda-recovery plant would have made this obvious to even the moderately expert.

You claimed that the forest industry is not energy self sustained.

I didn't. I pointed out that the one paper mill I did known something about hadn't been. It closed down completely in 1993 - replaced by a more modern set-up, 47 km down the coat at Devonport.

I used the mechanical pulp (newspaper paper) as an example of
non-energy sustainable process. The rest is more or less energy
efficient.

Efficiency is a rather specific measure - you compare what goes in with what comes out. Self-sufficiency is rather easier to document.

Burning some of the timber that comes in to generate energy could make a paper mill self-sufficient. It might not be the best use of the timber.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 9:34:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 20:56:58 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
always.look@message.header> wrote:

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.

Generally, more jobs is better.

Why? More jobs to do something is lower productivity.

Hire a million people to dig holes and another million to fill them.
Or 10 million, even better.

The old "a million men with teaspoons" line.

More jobs to do something useful isn't necessarily lower productivity.

In this particular case the contrast is between 0.9 million people keeping an existing industry growing at a few percent per year, and 9.5 million people active in the rapidly expanding renewable energy business.

Your line "10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking
inefficiency" was fatuous.

The people aren't generating the power in either industry. Mostly they are installing new plant and maintaining existing plant.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:40:19 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:19:42 AM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 23:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 4:56:57 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 22:28:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

You can also make methanol or ethanol and burn it somewhere else.

Thus, the bio energy is just a byproduct of making paper or pulp.

Not in my experience.

Why do you think that Finland has so high amount of receivables,
especially biomass?

The Russian's nicked all the decent agricultural land, so the Finn's have to make the best of what they've got left. My father saw the plaque in one of the paper mills in an invaded but not nicked area, commemorating the manager and the technical manager who the Russians had shot for the crime of being managers during the invasion.

I guess you are talking about East-Carelia, which has never been part
of Finland, although there are still some Finnish and Carelian
speaking population. Those stories appears to refer to Stalin's purges
in the 1930's.

I have no idea where the paper mill was, but it was in Finland.

Those stories do not apply to Finland.

The border between Finland and Soviet Russia was in the artillary
range of Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg in 1917-1939 and was an
excuse for the Soviets to start the Winter war in 1839. My father was
born close to this border and his family was evacuated just prior to
the Russian invasion.

Please note, the Red Army never overrun the main part of Finland.

There has never been a communist government in Finland, so why would
any site managers be shot.

I'm wondering whether my father misunderstood what he was being told. The incursion might have happened twenty years earlier than he though, in the Finish Civil War which followed the Russian revolution and eventually established Finland as a nation state.

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

Shooting mangers for being managers is the kind of political violence that seems to have gone on then.

Yes, some paper mill managers were shot by local workers during the
Civil War.

>My father didn't speak or read Finnish. He was better in Swedish - the Burnie paper mill bought the sixth Kamyr continuous digester (and the first in the Southern Hemisphere) and my father worked out how to run it counter-current, which Kamyr had been trying to do for years, and patented the process.

A century ago, the language used by upper management at most mills was
Swedish.

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/guides/slom/SLP0001.htm

When Johan Richter wrote a company history, my father got a mention and the signed copy of the history he sent to my father with a generous personal message is now in the Melbourne University technology archive, along with most of my father's papers.

snip

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 1:41:24 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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...

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

Is it? That's not just generation, it's creation of infrastructure; you don't
judge a hydroelectric dam by the employee count of concrete manufacture,
but you DO judge 'green economy' by solar-cell manufacturing plants.

The jobs comparison is intrinsically an apples/oranges inequality, and 'to generate...power' is
NOT an obviously correct attribution. A real skeptic doesn't jump to conclusions from such
information. Be a skeptic.

"The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels
that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs.

Sounds like cooking the books to me.

Welcome to the real world. Unaccounted resource use (clean air, clean water) might
not show up on a business ledger, but these ARE limited resources, and OUGHT to
be conserved just as though they WERE on the ledger. Economics deals with allocation
of human and other resources, it does NOT reside solely in ledger enumerations.

We can correct that. Some folk are blind to this issue, but that's OK; they'll be shoved aside.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 4:57:02 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

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.

Generally, more jobs is better. That doesn't hold true with energy
production. Inefficiency has a lot to do with it. Then there is all the
waste of materials, all the green junk that must be cleaned up after it
stops working.

I'm sure that will be much worse than cleaning up the nuclear plants we will be shutting down in the coming decades.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 27/10/2019 6:09 am, Winfield Hill 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

That just tells us that green power is very expensive.

Before the advent of mechanical harvesters, there were plenty of jobs
for people doing the work by hand. Doesn't make it a good thing.

Sylvia.

 

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:45:00 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:

On 27/10/2019 6:09 am, Winfield Hill 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



That just tells us that green power is very expensive.

Before the advent of mechanical harvesters, there were plenty of jobs
for people doing the work by hand. Doesn't make it a good thing.

Sylvia.

People used to murder other people for their clothes. It's hard to
weave cloth by hand.

And people would burn down a house for the nails.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:49:19 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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


People used to murder other people for their clothes. It's hard to
weave cloth by hand.


** Two unrelated statements, the first of which is false.

Well clothed folk might be attacked in order to steal their clothing as it was valuable and could be sold for cash.

Thanks for confirming.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Phil Allison]

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

People used to murder other people for their clothes. It's hard to
weave cloth by hand.

** Two unrelated statements, the first of which is false.

Well clothed folk might be attacked in order to steal their clothing as it was valuable and could be sold for cash.

The thieves could not wear them, cos that would arouse great suspicion.


> And people would burn down a house for the nails.

** Sometimes owners would do that, so they could build another elsewhere and not have to buy new, expensive nails.

FYI to all:

John Larkin believes any damn thing he reads.

FFS don't go believing him.




...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 1:45:07 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 27/10/2019 6:09 am, Winfield Hill 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

That just tells us that green power is very expensive.

It doesn't, and it isn't.

The effort being put into installing new plant is no guide to the price of the power the new plant generates.

Before the advent of mechanical harvesters, there were plenty of jobs
for people doing the work by hand. Doesn't make it a good thing.

Sure, but that was not the point being made.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 3:24:01 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:49:19 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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


People used to murder other people for their clothes. It's hard to
weave cloth by hand.


** Two unrelated statements, the first of which is false.

Well clothed folk might be attacked in order to steal their clothing as it was valuable and could be sold for cash.

Thanks for confirming.

He didn't confirm your claim. Murdering people tended to make a mess of their clothes - less violent assault left the thieves with a more easily sold product.

You really do seem to think that anything short of aggressive disagreement constitutes "confirmation", then you get upset because we have learned to disagree with you explicitly enough for you to notice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:15:37 AM UTC-4, mako...@yahoo.com wrote:

All this fighting over how to generate electricity, surely everyone can agree that conservation is the best of all worlds. I was just trying to think in terms of conservation.



exactly..

anyone who is really concerned about their "carbon footprint" would be using a clothes line, not a dryer.

m

You mean direct conversion solar power?

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

All this fighting over how to generate electricity, surely everyone can agree that conservation is the best of all worlds. I was just trying to think in terms of conservation.

exactly..

anyone who is really concerned about their "carbon footprint" would be using a clothes line, not a dryer.

m

 

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:15:31 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

All this fighting over how to generate electricity, surely everyone can agree that conservation is the best of all worlds. I was just trying to think in terms of conservation.



exactly..

anyone who is really concerned about their "carbon footprint" would be using a clothes line, not a dryer.

m

And not flying a private plane to get a cheeseburger.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 11:23:23 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:15:31 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:



All this fighting over how to generate electricity, surely everyone can agree that conservation is the best of all worlds. I was just trying to think in terms of conservation.



exactly..

anyone who is really concerned about their "carbon footprint" would be using a clothes line, not a dryer.

m



And not flying a private plane to get a cheeseburger.

But driving 200 miles to go skiing is fine.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209