Solar Energy Is the Fastest Growing Industry In the US 410
Hugh Pickens writes "According to Rhone Resch, the last three years have seen the U.S. solar industry go from a start-up to a major industry that is creating well-paying jobs and growing the economy in all 50 states, employing 93,000 Americans in 2010, a number that is expected to grow between 25,000 to 50,000 this year (PDF). In the first quarter of 2011, the solar industry installed 252 megawatts of new solar electric capacity, a 66 percent growth from the same time frame in 2010. Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source (PDF) with the capability, according to one study, of generating over 4 million jobs by 2030 with aggressive energy efficiency measures. There are now almost 3,000 megawatts of solar electric energy installed in the U.S., enough to power 600,000 homes. In the manufacturing sector, solar panel production jumped 31 percent. 'The U.S. market is expected to more than double yet again in 2011, installing enough solar for more than 400,000 homes,' writes Resch. 'Last year, the industry set the ambitious yet achievable goal of installing 10 gigawatts annually by 2015 (PDF) – enough to power 2 million more homes each and every year.'"
Re:How much (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a possibility but not a necessity. You seem to have forgotten that the difference between oil, gas and coal energy generation and wind, solar, geothermal and hydro electric is that you have to pay for inputs to oil, gas and coal. If the plant costs are comparable, then the difference in jobs/MW only needs to be less than what the plant would spend on fossil fuels (and eventually carbon taxes).
What I think it means is instead of buying tonnes of coal to burn, solar plants pay people to inspect, clean and repair the solar panels.
As for government subsidies, as I understand there are far more subsidies for coal, gas and oil than there are for solar. I've read the difference is about 10 to 1 each. So for every $1 in government subsidies for solar, coal gets $10, and natural gas gets $10 and oil gets $10.
J/MW not that odd (Score:2, Interesting)
Contrary to the above posts Jobs/MW isn't all that odd a metric, particularly if you actually read the article and not the headline.
One of the claims regarding clean/alternative energy is that, among other things, it will create jobs since the entire industry barely exists compared to where it would eventually need to be scale wise. The paper basically says, ok let's see if that's the case and count number of jobs created. Since the product of an energy plant should be MW not white papers, glossy brochures or fuzzy feelings it makes sense to use that as a measure of efficiency. One obvious metric is jobs/MW.
I'm willing to bet that if the findings had shown that solar was way behind other energy sources then many (if not most) of the people who post 'Jobs per watt, what a bullshit metric' would be posting instead about the absolute value of the metric rather than the metric itself. There'd be quite a few more posts of the 'See solar is bullshit'. We'd probably still have conservation of contrariness though because the green folks would be posting 'Jobs per watt ? What a bullshit metric' so it all works out.
Propped Up Industry (Score:1, Interesting)
The solar industry is propped up by govt tax breaks and subsidies. As soon as those expire, then the industry goes belly up.
Sustainable energy is not self-sustaining, as the markets well know.
Re:How much (Score:4, Interesting)
There's also the minor question of "are we paying for the right thing?" Subsidies/grants/investments for research into renewables is one thing--they have the potential to produce improvements in the efficiency and cost of such systems. But subsidies for production and installation of renewables (as the US gov't currently does) is absolute futility--by doing so, the government is distorting the value of those products, actually providing a disincentive for producers to make those systems more economical on their own.
Didn't we hear the same about the Shuttle? (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, the point is that these days the number of jobs is merely indicative of how much money you're wasting. In fact, given the macroeconomic situation of the US, this may do a whole lot more good than harm - but it's not because of the energy being produced, but because of the money being poured into the economy as a whole through the jobs.
Ten years down the line, however, this argument won't hold. Then it's a matter of is it economic or not. And given the actual observable progress of the technology (rather than the miracles being published every month or so), especially when it comes to the necessity of energy storage, it seems the solar industry will be blowing bubbles for a while, but stagnate well before supplying the quantities of power that the enthusiastic projections today envision.
Specifically, it will run into a brick wall some time before the point when solar peak power supply approaches power demand (which is at about 10%-20% of total power, depending on local energy storage) - it also depends on how much wind energy they have to share the grid with, as the same is true for wind power.
As for the rest, especially the copious amounts of oil and gas we're using in industrialized countries, we'll have to find other alternatives as well, instead of deluding ourselves about the capabilities of wind and solar. Mind you, they are significant. But we're lucky if we can get about one quarter or a third of all our energy needs out of them.
Re:J/MW? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know all about comparative advantage. When a country can produce more and better sugar because they have the right climate it makes sense to import it to the degree it is cost effective to do so. But if you pass a law restricting import or putting a tariff on it you do so specifically to benefit the domestic sugar producers at the expense of all sugar consumers.
Re:J/MW? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't have money, it scarcely matters what the price of goods is. You are still fucked. For virtually everybody this impecunious, having money = having a job, not selling some bonds or re-allocating your portfolio in the direction of a higher-dividend asset assortment. Given the er... not exactly small... number of people who have fallen off this particular bus(with the additional fun that periods of joblessness do wonders for one's future prospects of being re-hired...) "jobs" as something close to an end in itself does represent a net gain for a substantial number of people.
Secondly, you say that "Ideally you would want a world where you have unlimited energy that required no money (ie jobs). This is true If and Only If the gains from increased efficiency are allocated in a manner that gives you a slice of the expanding pie. If, however, the pie is expanding; but your share of it is shrinking even faster(because whatever you do is an "inefficiency", you are quickly sliding toward point #1.
Empirically, a great many people have reason to be concerned, and to have no particular room to hope that even steady encheapening of goods will allow them to do better than tread water, since labor is definitely one of the goods being encheapened. As this [investorvillage.com] cheery little J.P. Morgan report notes, in a discussion of the improvement of corporate margins: "There are a lot of moving parts in the margin equation, but as shown in the second chart, reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in margins. This trend has continued; as we have shown several times over the last two years, US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP (see EoTM April 26, 2011)."
Improvements in efficiency do you absolutely no good if somebody with more market power than you have is capturing them. This would appear to be the case. Under such conditions, the people with less market power(ie. about the bottom 95%) don't have a rational interest in efficiency; because they won't capture the gains from it. While(from the perspective of people's actual state of knowledge) the fascination with "jobs" might be largely sentimental populism, it is arguably not economically irrational. If essentially all gains from efficiency(which includes reduction in human resources costs) are being captured by people who aren't you, it is very much in your interest to demand greater inefficiency and attempt to roll back the reduction in demand for you.
Only in a society where everybody has a boat is the fact that the 'rising tide lifts all boats' a comforting one. If a substantial portion of the population is stuck in the mud, the rising tide is not a welcome development...
From Another Point of View (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't even get a permit let a lone build a nuclear or coal power plant because of EPA regulations and red tape.
You're not going to hear much sympathy from me. I've been to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, I've seen what natural water should look like. By my own first hand account, there is none of that on the East Coast.
So let's see here, after some shallow checking on Google News we have: Frack water to be dumped in Niagara Falls [niagarafallsreporter.com], the EPA has been completely ignoring Anacostia River pollution [courthousenews.com] and the dead zone in the Chesapeake is growing [washingtonpost.com]. And that's just news from the last couple of days. How can I be upset that the EPA wants to tie up companies in "red tape" when this is happening in our country? Why don't the solar companies get the same red tape? Oh, right, they don't produce a byproduct that is often dumped in nearby water [lhup.edu]. I'm sure the site of solar panel farms suffers the same environmental scrutiny that your poor "hobbled" coal and nuclear power facilities face. It's just that the byproducts and environmental effects appear to be okay for local residents.
It's like watching a race between two people running and one person get's hit by a car every third step they take and acting surprised the other runner is doing so well. It's a rigged race and the desired outcome shouldn't be a huge surprise.
The way I see it, is it's more like two people racing and one person pouring crude oil along the entire race path and then sliding on it with a sled and beating the person that's trying to run through it. Meanwhile the people who live near the race track are drinking shit in their water. Think I'm making that up? Go ask the residents of West Virginia who get to watch their entire state terraformed into slag [youtube.com]. PA's natural gas boon could result in the same thing if we don't have that evil evil evil "red tape."
Re:The race is rigged (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad solar manufacturing is heavily subsidized by the US government
Or is it? [cleantechnica.com]