Via Slashdot 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.’
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I hope that solar energy becomes economically viable for many uses–without subsidies. One question–“is more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source” another way of saying that it is economically inefficient?
One needs to calculate jobs/(investment + subsidy) to understand whether the jobs created are a net drain or positive for the economy.
Translation: solar is more capital-intensive than any other energy source.
“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.”
Imagine for one moment that it is 1908 and Henry Ford announces to the world that he has discovered a new car manufacturing process for the model T that creates more jobs per model T produced than any other technology available.
Wouldn’t that have meant the death of the model T? If Ford had required more jobs created to produce a model T than any other car, then how would Americans been able to afford the model T? Wasn’t the secret of Ford’s success to reduce the manpower required to build the model T and thereby reduce the cost so that everyone could afford to buy a Ford model T?
It seems that by taking the other route, by requiring the most workers per megawatt produced, that solar power is pricing itself out of the market. Why not simply hire people to turn hand cranks to produce energy. That would certainly create even more jobs than solar power per megawatt.
And all power to Solar. Advances in materials have made them cheaper and better. They’re now just getting below the cost/effectiveness zone that limited their use to only high-income hobbyists. If you live in California through Florida, I can see Solar as being quite worthwhile. Of course, all the labor costs of manufacturing those in the U.S. will mean we’ll likely be purchasing Chinese solar panels, but oh well. If I had a home, and the time, I
Solar energy is certainly the green energy everyone can get behind – if only it weren’t so damned expensive.
I do not support inflated feed in tariffs though – this is a mechanism for unfair wealth distribution – and without these government subsidies solar makes no economic sense to the individual.
Maybe , as long as the goodies keep coming :
http:masterresource.org/2011/07/federally-guaranteed-loans-for-clean energy-projects-are-nonsense
The Model T was introduced on October 1, 1908. … The car was very simple to drive, and easy and cheap to repair. It was so cheap at $825 in 1908 ($20,100 today) (the price fell every year) that by the 1920s, a majority of American drivers had learned to drive on the Model T.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
Can the same be said for solar? That the technology is so cheap and simple, and the price has fallen every year and that in just over ten years after introduction, the majority of American use it to power their homes? I believe that technology already exists. It is called coal. About 3 cent a kwh to produce as compared to solar at 50 cents a kwh.
This is an absolutely frightening statement, “Solar is creating more jobs per megwatt than any other energy source”. That is saying it is the most labor intensive source of power, not a good thing to be in a developed country.
Maybe , as long as the goodies keep coming :
http://masterresource.org/2011/07/federally-guaranteed-loans-for-clean-energy-projects-are-nonsense
What is the average life of a solar panel ?
What is the cost of electricity over the life of the device, including installation, maintenance and degradation through dirt ?
How does the use of resources such as copper etc compare with power from coal ?
My feeling is that the economics of a device reflect the energy used in its contruction, including smelting of metals, labour etc . Solar panels use a lot. Is there any research on this ?
It’s a pity they don’t know that MW is power not energy. Do all these homespowered by solar only use energy during the day time?
If American consumers are forced to pay higher prices for solar electricity, as Spanish consumers have been forced to do, then the jobs are a very dangerous illusion. The Spanish experience will apply, that is, for every new job created in solar energy, between 2 and 3 jobs will be lost elsewhere because of reduced competitiveness. [Similarly if the solar energy is heavily subsidised by government.]
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
“Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.”
My link for the original paper http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf appears now not to work.
If the solar energy is truly competitive, then the jobs are genuine.
How much of that installed capacity in in those little garden lights (I have 10) that recharge the NiCd battery and run the LED? Just wondering what the breakdown is in that so-called capacity in terms of large vs small production? At still 8-10% efficiency, solar makes no economic sense for house -sized installations.
“Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source” is in part an indicator of the costs of the industry, ie., it is more labour intensive (and henxce expensive) than other forms of energy production on a per mega watt basis.
Aggressive marketing is fine, however, the story may read differently in some years time when customers realise that their investment will not pay for itself, and they may feel that the aggessive marketing was in reality mis-selling on the basis of false assurances.
That said, I wish this industry well and potentially, it is far better than wind power provided one lives in a sunny climate and not at high latitudes.
An accurate date for this study would be informative since one of the countries ‘premiere’ solar manufacturers, Evergreen Solar, decided to can its manufacturing in Mass., even after receiving a large tax break/credit and investing a lot of money in new facilities and hiring. I wonder if these stats reflect that.
ferd berple says:
July 28, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source …
———————————————————————————————————————
That’s even before economics 101. They have just stated that solar is the least efficient of any other power source. And they claim that as a point in its favour?
And when the credits are removed, I dare say it will go back the other direction. Do not get me wrong. I have a 10 KW plate solar system on my house, but even with cheap panels, things cost quite a bit if you want power 24/7. If you want to play grid tie boost when the sun is out, that is a different matter. But then you run into the old problem of what happens when the sun does not shine.
Most people I know already generate about 70Watts just sitting on their butts.
Seems like it would be more cost effective to just put the people in an array……
Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source
This is the very definition of inefficiency.
If the price were low enough, I would install panels, batteries and inverter to power my home. Same thing with solar hot water heaters. In Georgia USA, the sun beats down hard most of the year, so here it makes sense. If I lived in Minnesota, I wouldn’t even think about it.
I haven’t researched to find out how many square feet of solar panel it would take to power the AC unit on one of these 100 degree Georgia days, but it is bound to lower the electric bill a good bit. I am looking to build a house on a farm plot and so far I can’t find any published plans that include straight roof lines to maximize the southern exposure with a ~33 degree slope. For some reason all the rage these days is for wrap around roofs with lots of outcrops.
I think one of the stumbling blocks for solar is battery technology. Storing excess daytime energy for use at night is limited by the paltry storage capacity and cost of batteries.
There are a lot of issues with this article. Just a few points:
Across Europe, the solar subsidies kill much more jobs than they create due to the higher electricity cost
In Germany, 3% of electricity is now generated solar with the following consequences:
Cost for this for the consumers over the next 20 years are estimated at 100 billion dollars.
As the supply is not steady, ALL conventional power plant need to be in place, not a single plant is replaced.
Huge investments will be necessary to transport the electricity to consumers. For example, a town utility complained that it is obliged to use all its capital (millions) to invest in lines just to help a few people to make money (thousands) with subsidies.
At summer peak generation, there have already been negative electricity market values, meaning that even with as little as 3% mean power, the peak electricity cannot be sold and money has to be for consumption.
The generous German subsidies have attracted more than 50% of installations in this country in the last years. However, Chinese companies now dominate the market, and even in Germany 70% of cells installed today are now coming from China.
All that doesn’t mean, that solar is no option for the future. Particularly where consitions are much better as in the US deserts, or where air conditioning is common or particularly where solar thermal solutions are practical with heat storage overnight for 24 hours electricity generation.
Our local paper, the San Jose Merc., ran an article yesterday talking up how great it is that the new visitor’s center in Yosemite is the largest grid-connected PV installation in the U.S. national parks. The article went on to extol the claim that the installation will save the U.S.P.S. over $50,000 annually in electrical bills. All of this at a cost of only $4.4 million.
Let’s think about this for a moment. $4,400,000 divided by the $50K per year savings means that it will take only 88 years to recover the initial investment. This yields a ROI of 1.1%. I have read various numbers for the estimated life expectancy of the panels with most clustering in the 25-30 year range so they will have to be replaced twice before the initial installation cost has been recouped. Absolutely brilliant.
The bottom line is that the U.S.P.S. and, therefore we the taxpayers, would be better off continuing to buy the electricity from PG&E. Just one little hiccup with that idea. The installation was actually funded by PG&E which means that we, the PG&E customers in Northern California actually paid for this in our electrical rate. The taxpayers in the rest of the U.S. dodged a bullet on this one.
When total system install costs can be recovered in a short enough time frame to make them an attractive financial investment, then we will have a lot of solar roofs.
Until then, subsidized solar install schemes are a tasteless joke on the taxpayers.
comin up soon:
really really cheap surplus solar panels!!!
it’s just a niche market until a storage solution is found.
lolz – when they find a way to make coal from sunshine at a cheaper price than swamp ferns did, send me the line card.