"Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S." So what?

Guest post by David Middleton

 

From Bloomberg

Bloomy

The number of U.S. jobs in solar energy overtook those in oil and natural gas extraction for the first time last year, helping drive a global surge in employment in the clean-energy business as fossil-fuel companies faltered.

Employment in the U.S. solar business grew 12 times faster than overall job creation, the International Renewable Energy Agency said in a report on Wednesday. About 8.1 million people worldwide had jobs in the clean energy in 2015, up from 7.7 million in 2014, according to the industry group based in Abu Dhabi.

1x-1

[…]

LINK

Why is this newsworthy?  Energy production is not a jobs program. The fact it takes more people to provide for 1% of our energy consumption than it takes to provide for 52% (67% if imported oil is included) is not a positive aspect of solar power.

The following charts are calibrated in “millions of tonnes of oil equivalent” (MTOE).  The data are from the Bloomberg article, BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2015 and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Linear
In 2014, it took 39,402 solar industry employees to produce 1 MTOE of energy. It only took 166 oil and gas industry employees to produce 1 MTOE.

What’s that? You can’t see the Oil & Gas bar on the chart? I can fix that.

Log
Logarithmic scale.

 

Solar

I am using 2014 because that is the most recent year for which I had comprehensive data. It was also the peak employment year for the oil and gas industry (~200,000 employees vs ~165,000 solar employees).  Since 2014, U.S. oil & gas employment has declined; however our total oil & gas production continued to climb…

main
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26352

The fact that the United States leads the world in oil & gas production is a bit more significant than the fact that the typical solar industry worker is less than 1% as productive as the typical oil & gas employee.

Data Sources

BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2015

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Bloomberg

0 0 vote
Article Rating
210 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mrmethane
May 26, 2016 6:19 am

Pretty sad, when the green jobs are not “sustainable” without subsidies from ratepayers and taxpayers. The ultimate make-work program.

Reply to  mrmethane
May 26, 2016 6:31 am

More “make-work” is adding bureaucrats to taxpayers’ payroll to administrate the collapse.

RH
Reply to  mrmethane
May 26, 2016 7:25 am

200,000 more US citizens essentially working for The State. We’re inching ever closer to the socialist utopian dream.

David A
Reply to  RH
May 26, 2016 8:31 am

CAGW = the “Broken Window Fallacy” writ large.

Editor
Reply to  RH
May 26, 2016 3:19 pm

http://www.speroforum.com/a/18796/Spain-Every-green-job-destroys-22-jobs#.V0dze9QmKrU
Spain: Every ‘green’ job destroys 2.2 jobs
While some U.S. politicians point to Spain as a model for how government subsidies can create “green jobs,” a new study documents that every renewable job created by the Spanish government destroyed an average of 2.2 other jobs. Also, each “green” megawatt installed in Spain destroyed 5.39 jobs in non-energy sectors, the study found.”
That was then (2009). Where is Spain’s economy now? Is that where the US is heading if it keeps on destroying jobs by rushing headlong into expensive unreliable energy?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  mrmethane
May 26, 2016 8:37 am

Sustainable energy IS THE job-creation scheme of all times!

george e. smith
Reply to  mrmethane
May 26, 2016 11:13 am

I’m only interested in three metrics of free clean green renewable energy business versus old tired obsolete oil drilling business; i.e. the ratio of new to old.
Those metrics are :
1/ business percent of US GNP
2/ Business tax payments to US Treasury.
3/ Industry employee tax payments to US treasury.
So tell us HOW MUCH MORE is free clean green renewable energy business contributing to US economy, that old tired oil drilling industries.
G

george e. smith
Reply to  mrmethane
May 26, 2016 11:19 am

Higher efficiency and productivity creates MORE wealth and FEWER jobs, than does lower efficiency and productivity.
We need less people working to provide energy, rather than more.
G

MarkW
Reply to  george e. smith
May 26, 2016 11:39 am

Higher efficiciency, that is, enabling workers to create more stuff in an 8 hour shift is what has created the middle class and was the source for all of the wage increases over the last few hundred years.
It had nothing to do with government.
It had nothing to do with unions.
It was private companies investing in the latest in tools for their workers.

Auto
Reply to  george e. smith
May 26, 2016 2:14 pm

Mark W
Yes. Spot on.
Tools – and Training, etc.
But – absolutely – private companies investing.
Auto

Tom O
Reply to  george e. smith
May 27, 2016 11:55 am

MarkW, won’t disagree when you say “private companies.” Government may have affected things, unions may have as well, but what has killed the golden goose and middle class is private corporations, where the only thing that matters is the profit return to stock holders. Private companies viewed their workers as assets that produced wealth, thus they took care of them. Private corporations view their workers as cogs in a machine, and can easily be replaced or removed until the machine breaks. Then you declare bankruptcy and either stick the people that supplied you or got support from the government, but one thing was certain, the big stock holders got out without losing much of anything.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  mrmethane
May 26, 2016 11:58 am

Never mind that. The fact is we need to employ more people per unit output of “green energy” than we do for conventional energy. How the hell is that progress?

nigelf
Reply to  Keitho
May 26, 2016 4:37 pm

Put 50,000 people on bicycle treadmills to generate electricity if you want to spike the numbers that much. Just don’t expect the people to be able to afford the price per kilowatt hour once all the costs come in…

Reply to  mrmethane
May 26, 2016 12:48 pm

John Christy : If it’s not economically sustainable , it’s not sustainable .

george e. smith
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
May 27, 2016 8:43 am

Doesn’t have much of anything to do with economics. Government can fix economics with the stroke of a pen.
It’s a technological (science & engineering) problem. You have to consume LESS already available energy, in a process that makes MORE additional energy available. (Using nothing but the raw material resources in their current natural state).
G

Reply to  mrmethane
May 29, 2016 7:00 am

Absolutely correct. Besides being sustainable the oil and gas industry provides several orders of magnitude more energy per worker than the “green mafia” does.

Marcus
May 26, 2016 6:20 am

..Obviously it takes more people (at a higher cost), to produce “Green Energy” !! ….I wonder what the energy created per person is ?

David A
Reply to  Marcus
May 26, 2016 8:37 am

Good question Marcus, I also wonder what the renewable taxes paid after subsides is for each unit of useful energy generated, minus the additional cost to conventional energy (appropriately charged to renewables) to ramp up and down at the whim of nature and sporadic renewables politically designated guarantee of first right to sell ALL that they produce. (despite far higher costs)

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  Marcus
May 26, 2016 8:38 am

” ….I wonder what the energy created per person is ? “.
Yep. Someone needs to calculate how much energy all those solar workers would generate if we simply strapped each of them to a bicycle/generator set 8 hours a day.

Bruce
Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
May 26, 2016 9:06 am

If we hired the solar workers to run all day in human sized hamster wheels powering generators, would they produce more energy?

Peter Sable
Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
May 26, 2016 9:41 am

humans that are in shape (which if they aren’t now, would be soon) can produce ~100W continuous for 8 hours at a time. So 200,000 humans / 3 * 100 watts/human = 6.7MW continuous output. Even solar has some advantage…
What you really want is Energy Returned on Energy Invested. Really good writeup on this at JC’s blog: https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/23/is-much-of-our-effort-to-combat-global-warming-actually-making-things-worse/
In particular this picture:comment image

hanelyp
Reply to  Marcus
May 26, 2016 9:39 am

If I haven’t goofed in my calculations …
TOE => 4.20E+010 J
MTOE => 4.20E+016 J
Employee / MTOE => 39402
Energy/employee => 1065935739302.57
hours work / year => 2000
seconds work / year => 7200000
Power / employee => 148046.63 W/worker
So a couple orders of magnitude more power than running a hamster wheel, but still WAY short of oil.

May 26, 2016 6:33 am

It seems to me the ultimate form of recycling, which lacks wealth creation.

May 26, 2016 6:43 am

Yet another welfare/subsidy mining operation. Having to go to a diferrent scale on the productivity graph is revealing.

jsuther2013
May 26, 2016 6:46 am

kilowatts per job, or jobs per megawatt tells the story. If the consistent energy income is not there to support the jobs, then profit is down and as mrmethane said, the ‘jobs are not sustainable’.

May 26, 2016 6:49 am

No mention of the wages involved. No surprise. The “green jobs” pay half what oil and gas did, but, hey, a job’s a job, right? And what’s wrong with earning $14 an hour instead of $30? You can still pay your mortgage and maybe even buy food.

TA
Reply to  Reality check
May 26, 2016 9:26 am

Yeah, as long as your solar company doesn’t go bankrupt.

Mickey Reno
May 26, 2016 6:51 am

The fossil fuel “industry” is not faltering, in the sense that free markets are dictating natural, economic outcomes. It is being attacked by unnecessary regulation and disadvantaged by subsidies going to far less efficient forms of energy. This is costing millions of jobs in any job sector that depends of fuel, electricity, heating oil. Economic illiteracy is the headline here.

Pamela Gray
May 26, 2016 7:00 am

Let’s remove subsidized jobs from both sides then compare.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 26, 2016 8:39 am

Define “subsidized jobs”. If you mean “tax breaks”, you can just shut the door on virtually every US industry. Farming is one of the heaviest subsidized industries out there. Shall we shut down farming? Actually, I’m fine with removing subsidized jobs from both sides as it will immediately destroy the economy, push the US into chaos and then things will sort out. Since people are so totally math illiterate and don’t care about economic reality, I figure just toss the whole thing in the blender and let Nature or whatever sort it out. This slow, agonizing death from illiteracy and emotional appeals is depressing and shows no sign of reversing. So toss them all out. Get it over with fast.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Reality check
May 26, 2016 11:40 am

Reality Check: Tax breaks are deferred taxes; subsidies are lost (wasted) taxes.

george e. smith
Reply to  Reality check
May 27, 2016 8:52 am

Subsidies are money that comes OUT of the federal treasury. They are not money that doesn’t go into the federal treasury.
The largest “shareholder” in the oil and gas petrochemicals industry is the US federal treasury.
G

David A
Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 26, 2016 8:53 am

Since oil and gas pay large NET taxes after “subsides” (tax and business deductions common to many industries and industry specific to allow equitable US competition in foreign markets) and green energy true subsidies likely exceed any taxes, then, as you know, doing this will show a very large benefit of fossil fuel production. Do not forget to include the taxes paid to the Fed and state for every gallon of gas sold.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  David A
May 26, 2016 9:55 am

” … oil and gas pay large NET taxes after “subsides” …
Indeed, yet this is rarely/never mentioned when the Oil/Gas subsides are referenced. I found it quite revealing when President Obama said that he wanted to remove the Oil/Gas subsidy because that money could be better spent elsewhere. Why wouldn’t the first thing be to apply that subsidy amount as an offset to gas taxes at the pump?

MarkW
Reply to  David A
May 26, 2016 11:45 am

The only “subsidy” that has ever been identified is the depletion allowance. Which is similar in affect to the depreciation allowance that every other business uses.
That is, as they land/leases that they bought become less valuable as the oil/gas/whatever is taken from it, they can deduct this drop from their income.
In reality though, neither depreciation nor depletion are subsidies, they actually increase the total taxes that a company has to pay.
Absent these allowances, a company would be able to expense 100% of the cost of attaining building/equipment/leases etc. in the year in which they were purchased. Instead they are only permitted to subtract a fixed percentage per year over a set number of years.
Since, as everyone knows, money now is more valuable than money sometime in the future, the companies are losing money when they are forced to deduct these costs over time.
Yes, I am quite aware that there are sound actuarial reasons for doing it this way and I don’t feel like debating those at this time. I’m just pointing out that these “deductions” actually cost the companies money. They are NOT subsidies.

MarkW
Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 26, 2016 9:43 am

There are no subsidies on the oil and gas side. Unless you are one of those people who consider any tax rate less than 100% a subsidy.

george e. smith
Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 27, 2016 8:48 am

What if one side doesn’t have any subsidized jobs; then what are you going to do ??
G

george e. smith
Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 27, 2016 9:30 am

Watching the clouds of obfuscation surrounding the explanations offered here for “subsides” (what the hell are sibsides); indicates the problem in dealing with the low information people.
It’s very simple: Every morning, I shave with my 50 cent twin blade Schick razor. And every morning I toss a penny into a jar in the bathroom. In about seven weeks time, I take that jar and I go and buy a new twin blade Schick razor that is sharp.
If the government steals my jar of pennies, then I can’t shave, so I get fired from my job.
So then I can’t pay any taxes, because I have no source of revenue. I’m quite happy to pay taxes (If I had the money) so that the government can buy bullets, and bombs, and feed the soldiers, so they can stop some other Cretan from stealing my pennies.
That’s about all there is to it. My penny jar is NOT a subsidy.
Think about what a hell of a pickle I would be in if my Schick twin blade shaver evolved like happens in the semi-conductor computer chip industry.
If I save up my 50 pennies over seven weeks and then go to Target, to buy a new sharp one; what I discover, is that the engineers have been busy, and my twin blade 50 cent razor has now blossomed into a new whizz bang five blade razor that will cost me five dollars instead of 50 cents.
So unless I put away more than a penny a day for my new razors, I would have to go to my boss or some other rich guy, and ask him if he wants to invest $4.50 in my new five blade razor, so I can continue to go on shaving; now even closer than before, and keep my job, so I can design all kinds of wonderful useful things for my boss to sell.
The semi-conductor industry is an example of an industry, where depreciation is totally inadequate to the task of maintaining the business. You need to have very large profitability, and you need to lure even further investment from moneyed investors seeking a piece of your profitability, or else you go out of business due to obsolescence.
The motto of Silicon Valley is:
” If it works; it’s obsolete ! ”
G

arthur4563
May 26, 2016 7:02 am

Generally speaking, one doesn’t want an energy system that requires large numbers of employees. Elon
Musk’s bright idea for the most efficient battery factory will employ practically no one. Factory efficiency is almost entirely due to lack of any need for employee payroll. Anyone who thinks that , with the new advanced nuclear coming online in the early2020’s, that solar and wind will still be viable, is just plain dumb.

MarkW
Reply to  arthur4563
May 26, 2016 9:45 am

I read a report yesterday that even the Chinese are replacing 10’s of thousands of employees with robots.

Tom in Indy
May 26, 2016 7:03 am

Looks like another hockey stick forming in solar employment. Perfect example regulatory burden combined with a tax/subsidy effect. Tax/regulate and you get less. Subsidize and you get more. Central planning at it’s finest – National control of industry, social issues and speech.

Samuel C Cogar
May 26, 2016 7:12 am

The number of U.S. jobs in solar energy overtook those in oil and natural gas extraction for the first time last year,

So what, all of those solar energy jobs produced nothing of a “net value increase” in/for the US economy.
On the contrary, all of those solar energy jobs are directly responsible for a dastardly “net value decrease” in/for the US economy.
Increases in solar energy jobs are directly akin to increases in government employment jobs.
They are an extreme cost burden on the taxpaying public and they produce nothing of value.
When the cost of labor exceeds the retail value of the product produced …… then automation will reduce the amount of labor needed to produce the goods, …… like so in the US, to wit:

In 1914 at the peak there were 180,000 anthracite miners; by 1970 only 6,000 remained.
Employment in bituminous peaked at 705,000 men in 1923, falling to 140,000 by 1970 and 70,000 in 2003.

From 885,000 miners before automation …… to 76,000 miners after automation with production quantities increasing all the while.

Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 7:14 am

Have these numbers been replicated by anyone, like science requires ?

Reply to  Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 8:41 am

Is this a scientific theory? I thought we were talking economics here.

David A
Reply to  Sun Spot
May 26, 2016 8:55 am

which numbers?

Robert Ballard
May 26, 2016 7:14 am

It is amazing that efficiency in the use of human energy and intelligence is ignored in this “forced” transition to solar. This on top of solar being a poor substitute.

Luke
May 26, 2016 7:15 am

Solar and wind are now competitive with fossil fuels when producing energy. The bottom line is the cost to the consumer. If renewables produce more jobs than fossil fuels and they are still competitive, I say it is a win-win situation.

Jim G1
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 7:25 am

Looks like a huge waste of time, manpower and resources with little benefit in terms of “product” produced and one must include tax dollars wasted in the “cost to consumers”.

Luke
Reply to  Jim G1
May 26, 2016 7:38 am

By competitive I mean the cost of producing a megawatt of electricity from renewables is similar to fossil fuels.
From Fortune
The Bloomberg report says that the average cost of electricity generated by wind farms (on land, not offshore) throughout the world dropped to $83 per megawatt hour in the second half of this year. At the same time, electricity generated by solar panel farms fell to $122 per megawatt hour.
In comparison, the cost of electricity from coal and natural gas actually rose in the second half of this year. Coal-based electricity cost $75 per megawatt hour (up from $66 per megawatt hour) in North and South America, while natural gas-based electricity cost $82 in North and South America (up from $76 per megawatt hour).
http://fortune.com/2015/10/06/wind-cheap-coal-gas/

Luke
Reply to  Jim G1
May 26, 2016 7:45 am

If renewable produce the product at the same cost and produce more jobs, I say that is a win-win. Where is all the money associated with producing electricity with fossil fuels going if it isn’t going into jobs? The alternatives I can see are: 1. the CEO is walking off with obscene amounts of money, 2. the money is being stashed in offshore accounts, 3. it is being invested into other industries. Only the latter may benefit society.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Jim G1
May 26, 2016 8:14 am

Luke, where indeed? You are omitting two additional options, which are both true and change the question around entirely.
4: Wind and solar are economical due to a number of unfair structural advantages. Wind and solar have extreme subsidies and favorable regulations, while oil, gas, and coal experience punitive taxes and restrictions.
5: The wind and solar cost omits the increased transmission costs due to their distributed production and increased costs due to storage and lost grid efficiency due to rapid cycling.
So the answer is that the data is incomplete. It is half-accounting. The claim that they somehow hire so many more people while providing the same service at the same price should have clued you in on the fact that they were omitting other important facts.
Jumping to the conclusion “they are evil people funneling away money” says more about you than them.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Jim G1
May 26, 2016 8:18 am

Luke,
Did you read that article which you linked?
It puts a lie to the renewable price competitiveness meme with one sentence.
“Carbon policies in the U.K. and Germany make the cost of electricity from wind significantly cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels.”
Why do you always promote the fashionable ideas put forth by the likes of Bloomberg and Soros?
You are wrong with every post you make here, either logically, or factually.
You definitely fit the profile of a paid spokesman. There is no other way that you could be so wrong, so consistently.

sciguy54
Reply to  Jim G1
May 26, 2016 8:18 am

Luke quoted Forbes:
“Coal-based electricity cost $75 per megawatt hour (up from $66 per megawatt hour) in North and South America, while natural gas-based electricity cost $82 in North and South America (up from $76 per megawatt hour).”
Luke, you and Forbes are suffering from poor accounting skills. The reason that the cost to generate from coal and gas has increased in the face of diminishing fuel costs is that they have been forced to intermittently fill in for irregular wind and solar power delivery. With proper accounting these costs should be placed where they belong: into the wind and solar accounts not the coal and gas accounts. But if those cost were properly charged then the cost of wind and solar would “necessarily skyrocket”. Certain regulators will not allow utilities to properly treat the cost consequences of intermittent supply, which also includes a more expensive and fragile grid. It’s a scam.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Jim G1
May 26, 2016 8:31 am

Hi Luke, how you doing?
Lets see,, to answer you question on the difference in where the money goes between renewables and “fossil fuels” you have to first establish the “cost of goods sold” (COGS) for each type . Also factor in all the Taxes Federal State and local. Also factor in taxes of equipment owned. do both pay equally? This determines the profit margin. Next how do they fund their enterprises. For renewables it tends to be grants, Government backed loans and cost transfers to costumers For fossil fuels it is stock sales and profits. Note, all fossil fuel companies make dividend payments.This were the profits tend to go. You know 401Ks, Public and Private Pension plans. Renewables miss loan payments and file bankruptcies.
Pick your business model and invest in it.
michael

RWturner
Reply to  Jim G1
May 26, 2016 9:18 am

Luke, if you actually believe your drivel, please do what others say and put your money where your mouth is. Have fun with those “competitive” investments.

CamCam^2
Reply to  Jim G1
May 26, 2016 8:30 pm

RWturner I do put my money where my mouth is. I own an electric car and I have installed solar panels that cover all of my electricity usage.
[All? .mod]

Richard G
Reply to  Jim G1
May 26, 2016 11:20 pm

Luke, the money from hydrocarbon based energy goes to taxation and regulatory costs, which wind and solar get a free pass on.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Jim G1
May 27, 2016 6:07 am

Luke,
it appears to me that you have averted your eyes and your mind to the FACT that …..renewable electrical generators REQUIRE constantly operating fossil fuel electrical generators as “back-up” ……… whereas fossil fuel electrical generators do not REQUIRE constantly operating (HA, HA) renewable electrical generators as “back-up”.
So, best you add the co$t$ for operating those “back-up” fossil fuel electrical generators to the co$t of renewable generated electricity.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim G1
May 27, 2016 10:30 am

Cam: You may be (though I doubt it) be covering all of your electric usage from solar panels, however you only paid about 10% the cost of buying and installing those panels.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim G1
May 27, 2016 10:31 am

PS: If you drive more than a couple of miles a day, it is physically impossible for a roof mounted system to both power your house and recharge your car.

Robert Ballard
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 7:31 am

Luke, please define what you mean by “competitive”.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Robert Ballard
May 26, 2016 8:26 am

He means after the “green” energy subsidies, and after punishing fossil fuels (especially coal).
GreenEconomics™ 101.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert Ballard
May 26, 2016 9:49 am

Green Math:
1 + 1 = Shut up and stop questioning me you denier.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert Ballard
May 26, 2016 9:50 am

Green Math:
1 + 1 = Shut up and stop questioning me you d#nier.

accordionsrule
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 8:27 am

No. The bottom line is not cost to the consumer.
The bottom line is reliability.

E. Martin
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 8:30 am

If wind and solar are really so cheap, why are Denmark and Germany’s electricity cost about 3 times as much as oours

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 8:33 am

pssst sciguy54
Fortune, not Forbes… and they were reporting on a Bloomberg “study”, which instantly trigger working BS detectors.

benben
Reply to  David Middleton
May 26, 2016 8:54 am

Well, at least we agree that the LCOE is competitive. That is a very major step for a skeptic 😉
Also, why is the capacity factor so relevant? You’d indeed need more nameplate generation capacity, but so what? If wind turbines are so cheap you can afford to build 3 MW worth for every MW of coal, what do you care? Also, it should be pointed out that capacity factor is partially a design feature. If you would just stick a 1MW turbine on a massive wind turbine that would normally do 7MW, the capacity factor would be very high (80%?), but you’d still have less energy overall and the LCOE would be higher.
Finally, storage. Yes, you are totally correct. But lets at least advance the discussion to the point that we agree that for a marginal addition, the LCOE of wind is competitive and we can discuss storage for true large scale deployment.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 26, 2016 9:54 am

benben:
May you end up living in a field full of wind turbines. Southern Alberta used to be beautiful to ride a horse across the prairie and listen to the wind. Now all you hear is “thump, thump thump”. The rolling hills look like porcupines that would make Quixote excited and provide a lifetime of tilting. I get sad as I watch the urban environmentalists destroy a Rural Alberta that they don’t even see as they roar by in their mini-vans with their kids playing X-Box in the back while they rush to their next stop without any idea of what they have done to the countryside while staring straight ahead on the ribbon of asphalt guided by cars with lane control so they don’t even have to turn their brains on. In reality, the urbanites by and large, don’t care about the countryside as long as they get their power, water, sewer and roads so they can put money in the bank while giving lip service to the environment. Most of them live in an urban bubble and have no idea of what the green machine is doing in the country side. But it has been like that for centuries so nothing new here. Well a little bit new – subsidy farming is carried out both in the urban and rural environment. Farmers and ranchers do get decent income from having their land despoiled with turbines, roads, power lines, substations and transmission lines from the badlands to the cities.
But who benefits the most?
Not the public.
Who has seen the wind?
Ah well. Some of us will soon just be dust blowing across the prairie. You, beben, can live with what you have built. A Mad Max future.
For evening reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Has-Seen-Wind-Mitchell/dp/0771061110

Reg Nelson
Reply to  David Middleton
May 26, 2016 12:52 pm

Levelized Costs are fairy tale numbers, just like Tesla’s Non-GAAP income numbers.
And the Fortune article compares world green numbers with coal/gas prices in North and South America. Talk about “cherry picking”! What do coal and gas prices in Chile have to do with the same in the US?

benben
Reply to  David Middleton
May 26, 2016 2:27 pm

Wayne Delbeke, you have a point of course. But according to your own arguement you should then also take an honest look at the environmental destruction caused by drilling, oil spills, oil sands etc etc. And they are massive (and incredibly well documented). But then the real point here is probably: you don’t live in any of these third world countries that are absolutely being destroyed by fossil fuels. And what you don’t see, you don’t care about?
Obviously the vast majority of the population on this planet has decided that they rather have wind turbines than oil sands. Or, perhaps its a vast and massive conspiracy by a small group of evil overlords. Your choice!
David, I understand that. Contrary to what many believe here I have a degree in chemical engineering and took plenty of courses on energy systems, renewable energy etc etc. at the electrical engineering and aeronautical engineering depts. I know my stuff. Either I did not explain properly how capacity factor and nameplate capacity interact, or you just don’t want to know… Anyway, no time to write a massive wall of text. My apologies!

Reply to  benben
May 26, 2016 2:35 pm

benben is as clueless as any other eco-alarmist:
…take an honest look at the environmental destruction caused by drilling, oil spills, oil sands etc etc.
Like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, where you can’t find any evidence now of that ‘disaster’? Or any of the other ‘disasters’ that left no trace a few years later?
benben refuses to ever consider any cost/benefit analysis. Because he would have to conclude that fossil fuesl are worth the occasional accident. But benben demands that everything must be perfect, to fit his fantasy of a perfect green world.
These hypocrites get so tedious. They all use their share of fossil fuels, while demanding that poor countries must do without what they have. That’s benben and his eco-contingent. Always pontificating; always telling others how they should live their lives — but with no skin in the game themselves. Hypocrites all.

commieBob
Reply to  David Middleton
May 26, 2016 2:53 pm

Wayne Delbeke says: May 26, 2016 at 9:54 am
Southern Alberta used to be beautiful to ride a horse across the prairie and listen to the wind.

Can the kids still go out and blast gophers?

benben
Reply to  David Middleton
May 26, 2016 7:32 pm

No… that way to simplistic, and wrong: imagine a 7MW, 400 feet high wind turbine with massive rotors. They usually have a somewhat higher capacity factor than the average because they are higher and the wind up there is more consistent. So lets say 35% capacity factor. Sometimes it will produce at 100% of capacity, but not very often because it takes A LOT OF WIND to drive a 7MW turbine. Usually it will run at 50%, or 20% or whatever. Averaging to 35% of what could be achieved if there was maximum wind all the time.
Now imagine the same wind turbine, just with a 1 MW generator on it. All those times the 7MW generator would be anywhere between 15-100% capacity, this 1MW generator would be steady at 100%. Obviously it would be not utilizing a lot of energy, because it will max out at 1MW while the other design would max out at 7MW, but purely in terms of capacity factor, it would reach 100% much, much more often. hence a much higher capacity factor.
This by the way is an actual design consideration which is one of the factors why average capacity factors in the US are different than in Europe. Related to how the energy content of wind increases non-linearly with linearly increasing wind speeds.
Cheers,
Ben

Reply to  David Middleton
May 26, 2016 7:48 pm

David Middleton replies to benben:
This proves that you are clueless about capacity factor…
Benben couldn’t even define the troposphere. But he’s going to lecture a professional petroleum geologist on energy??
Get a clue, benben. You’re way out of your league.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  David Middleton
May 26, 2016 8:30 pm

“benben May 26, 2016 at 7:32 pm”
That has to qualify as one of the dumbest posts of the week.

benben
Reply to  David Middleton
May 27, 2016 6:56 am

how exactly is that dumb? It’s just an exaggerated example of one of the trade-offs in turbine design. Just to show that David’s statement that capacity factor and turbine design are not related, which is patently not true.
I find it pretty weird how everyone here is so full of their own math/engineering/etc skills, but is completely incapable of stepping outside their own prejudices and just think about a technical aspect (namely, the effect of turbine design choices on capacity factor, LCOE, etc).
Has nothing to do with political preferences, AGW skepticism or whatever else floats your boat.

benben
Reply to  David Middleton
May 27, 2016 9:49 am

did you even read what I wrote?
Definition: “The ratio of the net electricity generated, for the time considered, to the energy that could have been generated at continuous full-power operation during the same period.”
Clearly, if there is a day with X amount of wind that would cause the 1MW generator running at max capacity while the 7MW generator would produce, say 2MW of actual power, the capacity factor of that 1MW design would be higher, even though it would produce less energy overall for a given amount of time.
This is such a bizarre discussion. What exactly do you not understand? Perhaps you are missing out on the fact that larger turbine blades will produce more power at the with the same amount of wind (the point being here that you would run the 1MW design with the larger turbine blades that are normally matched with larger generators), or you are not aware of the fact small wind turbines max out at higher wind speeds?
Anyway, clearly you guys are not interested in wind turbines so I can’t expect you to know the finer points of turbine design. My apologies for overestimating your interest in the subject matter!
Cheers,
Ben

Reply to  David Middleton
May 27, 2016 10:35 am

benben says:
I find it pretty weird how everyone here is so full of their own math/engineering/etc skills, but is completely incapable of stepping outside their own prejudices
That’s pure projection from ‘benben’ (and you use a very fitting and juvenile name there, kid).
Instead of learning something from Dave Middleton — an engineer specializing in energy production, and with decades of real world experience — benben (heh) argues from ignorance and inexperience. Sorry benben (ha-ha!), you’re still a young, wet behind the ears know-nothing, with no real world experience. You should just read the comments here, instead of commenting and displaying your lack of knowledge.
Speaking of “definitions”, benben (*snort*) displayed his ignorance of the of the troposphere’s definition. He tried to wing it, and got smacked down by about a half dozen other commenters.
See, benben? In your case it’s better to just read the comments without trying to post your own misinformation. That way you’re not publicly embarrassed.

benben
Reply to  David Middleton
May 27, 2016 2:02 pm

heh, thanks DB for that running commentary. It’s quite entertaining. You should try your hand at narrating a basketball match 😉

Reply to  benben
May 27, 2016 2:22 pm

And ^that^ is the extent of benben’s argument. Could it be more lame?

Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 8:44 am

Math illiteracy runs rampant.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Reality check
May 26, 2016 8:58 am

It has to, if you want to sell folks like Luke their propaganda.

David A
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:02 am

Luke says, “Solar and wind are now competitive with fossil fuels when producing energy.”
============================
Not on earth Luke. Solar and wind are many times the cost of conventional, and significantly raise the cost of ALL energy production, are incredibly labor intensive per unit of energy produced, as this post demonstrates, do almost nothing to stop any global mean Temperature rise, provide zero of the massive benefits of increased CO2, and hundreds of billions of tax payers dollars have already been tossed into the trash after alternative energy bankruptcies which were heavily subsidized by tax payers.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  David A
May 26, 2016 10:44 am

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Unfortunately, there is way too much of this type of misinformation out there being drummed into the minds of the masses who aren’t paying attention to the scam and are therefore doing nothing to put a stop to it.

Luke
Reply to  David A
May 26, 2016 10:55 am

Wind and solar are competitive without subsidies.
http://fortune.com/2015/10/06/wind-cheap-coal-gas/

Harry Passfield
Reply to  David A
May 26, 2016 11:49 am

Luke:

Wind and solar are competitive without subsidies

Bwahaha…and, because humour is subsidised: hahahahaha!

Reply to  David A
May 26, 2016 2:46 pm

Luke’s link above is nonsense. It never mentions the immense taxpayer subsidies funneled into windmill energy.
Clean coal energy costs about 6¢ to 9¢ per kWh in many places. Wind energy always costs more — plus, there is currently more than a 25¢ taxpayer subsidy added on, and those subsidies will increase year over year in many places, to more than 50¢ per kWh.
All Luke is doing is parroting the misinformation that the eco-crowd emits. The fact is that windmill energy is always far more expensive than any fossil fuel energy. But it takes intelligence and skepticism to understand that. Luke lacks both.

MarkW
Reply to  David A
May 27, 2016 10:34 am

Luke also pretends that the mandates to buy “renewable” electricity at preferential prices don’t exist.

Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:30 am

Ah – good point Luke. I wondered where all the squeegee kids at intersections went. Gainfully employed now wiping dust off solar panels. Which reminds me, gotta go clean my solar fencers. Thanks.

MarkW
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:47 am

That’s only true because someone else pays for 90% of the cost of solar/wind.
Not to mention the fact that the government has to require utilities to buy solar/wind.
If what you say were actually true (for once), there would be no need of subsidies and mandated purchases.

RHS
May 26, 2016 7:31 am

And they don’t pay squat either in comparison.

betapug
May 26, 2016 7:31 am

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
“So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, it’ll bankrupt them.” http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/obama-to-crush-middle-class-new-program-will-force-energy-prices-to-necessarily-skyrocket-video/
Halfway there.

David L. Hagen
May 26, 2016 7:33 am

Solar will become much more competitive after we eliminate >95% of solar labor/MWe.

Mark from the Midwest
May 26, 2016 7:37 am

All jobs are not created equal, and the stats are number of employees, not total payrolls. Someone working in an assembly plant for solar panels is making about $15 an hour. A rig hand on a well site, or a welder on a pipeline, is making $35-40 an hour. Heavy equipment operators at open pit mines make 80K a year.

Luke
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
May 26, 2016 7:47 am

Even if your estimates are correct, that still does not account for the huge disparity in the number of jobs. Where is the rest of the money going” Offshore accounts? CEO bonuses? How many people does that help?

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 8:13 am

Luke, arguing with you is really pointless, since you don’t seem to comprehend anything that’s being said in these comments.

Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 8:17 am

If you don’t like it, buy shares. Then all that extra money you claim is being skimmed goes to you.
Stop your whining… You are the source of your own misery.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 8:40 am

Even if the numbers were real, which they aren’t (see prior post), why couldn’t it be equipment costs? Taxes? Overhead? Everything else? It’s not like they are public companies with routinely audited books … Oh wait, they are. Why don’t you look for yourself if you are so curious as to what they are spending money on? Insinuating that they could charge much less but don’t for sinister reasons just doesn’t make sense.
Then I object to your premise that it would be a bad thing, even if you were right. How about I posit this: IF the numbers were right and they were able to make such huge volumes of cash on their production, that would be nothing but benefit. It’s the Luddite fallacy. Doing more with less work is bad for people whose jobs are no longer necessary. However, in the long run, it benefits society that we spend less on energy. As for those people who made all those billions? The money won’t sit in a McDuck style money bin, but will go into investments, making more money and supporting more businesses with more jobs. So, with your way you get energy, but with big oil, you have energy + more stuff. Everyone wins.
Furthermore, even it was somehow happening and we decided we should do something, then the best idea would be to get better competition out there to reduce the amount they could charge for electricity. Keeping an inefficient competitor around would only SUPPORT the price, as the oil companies could charge one penny less per kWh than wind no matter how cheap their production costs.
I have work to do, so I can’t afford to spend any more time on this, but you really need to rethink how you are approaching these problems.

benben
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 8:46 am

Other ben, I think the perils of having a society with a mega-rich oil funded elite is pretty clear to anyone who has looked at… well, basically any oil-producing country outside of Norway.
As I wrote below, the main message of this news is that renewables are not a job-killing thing, but rather that moving from fossil to renewables will be a net + for number of jobs. You agree that unemployment is bad, right?
You can still be skeptical about all the other things and have long and entertaining discussions on how you want your society and economy to look like. It’s just that the ‘green policies kill jobs’ thing has been falsified and should no longer be used.

David A
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:16 am

Luke asks, “Where is the rest of the money going”
======================================
You mean the real profits made by oil and gas.
Much is reinvested in additional production and a surprising amount goes to the retirement portfolio of millions.
BTW Luke you should be asking what the Government does with their fossil fuel profits. (The government makes more off of gasoline at the pump then the oil industry makes from oil)

mikewaite
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:17 am

Luke , you do not appear to have allowed for the fact that perhaps a significant amount of the money made by conventional power generators flows to the US treasury in the form of company taxation – which helps to pay for a lot of food stamps . In the case of some green ventures the flow is in the opposite direction judging from some comments above .

jaypan
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:18 am

The CEO of bancrupt German Solarworld lives in a castle and drives Ferraris. Just to answer your question where the money goes.

MarkW
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:54 am

There goes benben with the patented socialist drivel about the evils of rich people.

hot air
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 11:55 am

“Even if your estimates are correct, that still does not account for the huge disparity in the number of jobs. Where is the rest of the money going” Offshore accounts? CEO bonuses? How many people does that help?”
Translation:
I’m so much smarter than those clowns, but those evil and greedy CEO’s somehow got really good paying jobs. They can’t possibly be worth so much more than me so we need to take their money until they are equal, no, below my income level.
Then there is the idea that the money goes into a hole, never to be seen again. Or that a bunch of power hungry politicians can better determine where it should go than the person that was smart enough to earn it in the first place.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 2:24 pm

Other Ben. Yes. More employment for the same job is bad. Spending more for the same product is bad. Jobs created in this way harm everyone else in the system.
You can argue other benefits or negatives, but this isn’t even economics. This is the definition of efficiency. Sorry, but I know you know better. Don’t lecture me on being closed minded on something like this when you are supporting a nonsensical position.

Llanite
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 4:50 pm

If you’re truly interested, the money you seem to think of as ill-gotten gains goes to buying capital equipment. For example: building a deep water facility in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling the wells, laying the pipeline across the ocean floor will require a planning team of about 50 people and a few hundred construction staff. The cost of steel, transport, and material will be $2-4 Billion. It will provide energy for about 30 years.
If you want a real answer to your questions the answers can easily be found if you actually *read* a few annual reports or 10-Ks. It will become clear to you that these businesses have optimized technology and work processes and safety to a really amazing extent.
You should thank them for bringing a product that touches every single thing you do every day. Otherwise good luck with your world view, I hope it works out…

Bill Webb
Reply to  Luke
May 29, 2016 6:08 pm

Do a NPV (Net Present Value) calculation adding in all cost attributable to solar and wind, then, juxtapose that with conventional fuels. Wind and solar are massively more expensive —- 4x as costly. And, that is before you consider any battery backup which would make it 8x more expensive without subsidy. Additionally, subsidies always contract the economy. But, that is another point. And, don’t forget to add the externalities to the marketplace of battery recycling. There is a reason every solar/wind projection uses IRR (Internal Rate of Return) in lieu of NPV even after omitting parts of true cost calculation. There are 5 situations where IRR gives false estimates of real cost. It is what is used in every software presentation package for Solar and Wind, that, I have ever seen.

Trebla
May 26, 2016 7:42 am

Luke: Energy density 101: Energy density of solar is 0.0000015 Joules per cubic meter. Energy density of oil is 45,000,000,000 Joules per cubic meter. In other words, oil is 3 X 10^16 more energy dense than solar. In physics, energy is the ability to do work. I wouldn’t try running a modern economy on solar. You won’t get a whole lot of work done. Just do a thought experiment. Imagine you want to fly to London, and you have the choice of going solar (Solar Impulse 2) at 40 mph with you as the only pilot/passenger because that’s all solar can do) or flying a 747 at 550 mph with 400 other travellers and a crew of 8. Your choice.

Luke
Reply to  Trebla
May 26, 2016 7:49 am

Your argument applies to using fuels for transportation, not producing electricity for a grid. I agree that fossil fuels have higher energy density but that is irrelevant to my argument.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:09 am

Unfortunately, factoring density out of your argument renders it incoherent with reality.

benben
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:31 am

This is so strange. What luke says is exactly true. For transportation density is extremely important. For wind, you need enough surface area. And there are plenty of studies that show that there is plenty of surface area with good wind resources.
And lets not forget that there are plenty of countries in europe with very high levels of wind energy and no problems with grid stability, and a very high level of public approval for renewables (~90%). All important facts, no?

MarkW
Reply to  Luke
May 26, 2016 9:57 am

I love the way the trolls try to pretend that reality and physics 101 are no longer relevant.
A small country has a high renewables factor, yet is tied into a larger country with a very low renewable factor.
If benben ever told the whole truth, his brain would explode.

Reply to  Luke
May 27, 2016 10:45 am

benben says:
What luke says is exactly true.
That’s another indication that benben has no more understanding of the real world than Luke does.
The whole argument is about energy density. Fossil fuels have it; windmills don’t. Case closed.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Trebla
May 26, 2016 3:12 pm

When instruments of solar and wind power can produce enough power in their usable lifetime to reproduce themselves, they will be one step closer to being competitive. That is the reason that low density harvesting of energy is not a self-sustaining industry.
Yes, solar powers my horse fences adequately, but cattle ignore the solar-charged fence and push right through. One replacement battery costs me as much as 5 years of electricity on a plug-in charger (my battery lasted 5 years).
The best usage I’ve seen so far are small scale devices powered by wind and solar, such as road signs and bridge lane-closure traffic lights, although I noticed that spare units must be kept on-site and switched out as needed. These extra equipment and labor costs are only offsetting hiring an electrical contractor to connect conventional signals to the roadside power lines, but I’ll bet they qualify as “green”.

May 26, 2016 7:43 am

If we get rid of farm tractors, back hoes, graders, etc., just think how many more people we could employ on farms and construction projects — just like the 1880s.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bob Cherba (@rbcherba)
May 26, 2016 8:04 am

Don’t forget how many hoses and oxen that takes, and how small those populations have become. The value of these animals would be greater than humans to the oligarchy.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
May 26, 2016 8:05 am

Sorry, should be “horses”.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  Bob Cherba (@rbcherba)
May 26, 2016 8:56 am

Bob Cherba – And therein lies the ultimate utopia for the current mindset – the elimination of the continuing benefits of the Industrial Revolution (machines doing the work previously accomplished by animals and humans). Somehow, a large section of the younger generations in America and Europe have concluded going back to this world is the best thing for humanity. I’ll leave it to the rest of y’all to give input as to how we have arrived at this strange worldview!
MCR

Bob Boder
Reply to  Michael C. Roberts
May 26, 2016 9:49 am

Socialist brainwashing in our school.

Bruce P
May 26, 2016 7:54 am

A green job may be sorting trash at a recycling center or driving a bus. As usual, it’s an invalid headline written to obfuscate reality. It’s also not comparing energy generating employment.

Bruce
Reply to  Bruce P
May 26, 2016 9:16 am

Why shouldn’t a bus driver be counted as an oil job? Buses run on petroleum products. That trash being sorted at a recycling center was all made and marketed and collected and transported on petroleum products also. Without oil there wouldn’t be any bus passengers, buses, recycling centers, etc.

Walter Sobchak
May 26, 2016 8:08 am

Think of the solar energy employees as welfare mothers. That is what they are.

May 26, 2016 8:08 am

Success.
The parasites now outnumber their hosts.
The subsidy suckers, outnumber the taxpayers who labor to supply them.
Another genuine government investment .

May 26, 2016 8:13 am

Quick math: So for solar to replace Oil and Gas, ‘they’ would only need 47 million more employees (1188MTOE x 39402 employees/MTEO). That is more than the entire population of Canada.
This all makes Obama’s plan for a ‘new green economy’ now seem so sinister. His green economy translates into subsidized, taxpayer funded, jobs.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
May 26, 2016 11:29 am

I keep hearing Margaret Thatcher’s quote in my head – “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

MarkW
Reply to  AGW is not Science
May 26, 2016 11:47 am

Other People’s Money or OPM. Pronounced opium.

May 26, 2016 8:16 am

Leave it to liberals to think that having high costs for energy (lots of jobs) is a good thing.
Bwahahahahahhahaha!

beng135
May 26, 2016 8:17 am

Green jobs that are subsidized by public loot. Irrelevant.

RWturner
May 26, 2016 8:27 am

They have compared the entire solar energy industry to just upstream petroleum jobs. A more fair comparison would be oil and gas extraction jobs to solar panel installers: ~200,000 workers (amid a downturn) compared to ~120,000 workers (amid huge government incentive and subsidization)
The upstream AND downstream petroleum industry directly employs about 800,000 people, with about another 900,000 in retail.
And like the article says, what society gets from each of these job sectors is strikingly contrasted. 63% of the nations energy VS 0.43%comment image

benben
May 26, 2016 8:41 am

Well, this surely puts to pasture the tired old ‘renewables are killing jobs’ argument. Now the skeptics are reduced to ‘renewables create many more jobs, but they don’t count’ which, I’m sure everyone agrees, doesn’t sound half as swanky.
And as much as I would love to believe that renewables are a mean, green job creating machine, this data comparison doesn’t really pass the ‘does it smell like BS?’ test. It’s virtually impossible that you’d need ~39,000 more workers per equivalent unit for renewable energy. The labour costs would be incredibly enormous. Anthony must have made a couple of order of magnitude mistakes somewhere.
And finally, the level of disbelief here at WUWT is really quite a sight to behold. So renewables can produce grid level electricity at prices competitive or even lower than fossil fuels (as witnessed by all the current non-subsidized low price records being set for utility scale renewables all across the world), all the while producing more local jobs. And that is a bad thing? As opposed to funneling huge amount of oil money to the middle east oil sheikhs, or, in the US, the extremely rich oil-elite?
Cheers,
Ben

Reply to  benben
May 26, 2016 8:54 am

benbenben sez:
Well, this surely puts to pasture the tired old ‘renewables are killing jobs’ argument… Anthony must have made a couple of order of magnitude mistakes somewhere… And finally, the level of disbelief here at WUWT is really quite a sight to behold. So renewables can produce grid level electricity at prices competitive or even lower than fossil fuels (as witnessed by all the current non-subsidized low price records being set for utility scale renewables all across the world), all the while producing more local jobs.
May I deconstruct? Thank you:
First, “renewables killing jobs” is a specious argument. Give me the money and I can hire people all day long to dig 10’x10’x10′ holes in the ground, and then move the holes north every six weeks. Plenty of jobs for all! But a waste, just like ‘renewables’ jobs.
Next, since all your posts are ridden with endless mistakes and simpleton errors, you’re no one to criticize someone else. Especially our host, who graciously allows you to post here. You’re always telling other people to be polite. Look in the mirror.
Finally, when subsidies are accounted for, there is no comparison: fossil fuels are far less expensive than ‘renewables’. Yesterday someone posted a link to windmills that were receiving an extra subsidy of 25¢ per kWh — and that subsidy will increase every year, until it exceeds 50¢/kWh! In the mean time, clean coal power is being produced for 7¢ – 9¢ per kWh.
Where do you get your misinformation, benben? From your pals at Yale? You know, the same place that folded its ‘green outreach’ for lack of interest. Without more gov’t loot, they just couldn’t make it in the real world.
Same-same with ‘renewables’.

David A
Reply to  dbstealey
May 26, 2016 9:22 am

benben says, ”
Well, this surely puts to pasture the tired old ‘renewables are killing jobs’ argument.
=================================
Benben, do you wish to see economic studies that demonstrate that for every green job created, two to three jobs are destroyed? Energy is the life blood of EVERY economy.

benben
Reply to  dbstealey
May 26, 2016 9:23 am

Your replies to me have become more polite. Thank you good sir! And DB,
“Yesterday someone posted a link to windmills that were receiving an extra subsidy of 25¢ per kWh — and that subsidy will increase every year, until it exceeds 50¢/kWh!”
Honestly, I don’t even know where to start debating someone who thinks those kind of numbers are relevant on a global scale for currently built capacity. Come on skeptics of WUWT, correct your fellow skeptic?

RWturner
Reply to  dbstealey
May 26, 2016 9:45 am

I believe our mistake has been trying to talk sense with this lot, facts and reason have obviously had no effect. Instead, here is the most raw and basic illustration of how the renewable energy industry creates wealth.comment image

J
Reply to  dbstealey
May 26, 2016 9:57 am

“renewables killing jobs” is not within the energy industries.
The concern for jobs is that crazy renewable mandates and inefficient solar and wind (not base load power) will drive up energy costs (Obama told us electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket) and force industries that use lots of energy (steel, semiconductor manufacturing) to go out of business or relocate to countries with cheaper energy.

MarkW
Reply to  dbstealey
May 26, 2016 10:02 am

RWTurner, when a persons religion requires them to not understand something, you can usually count on them not understanding it.
Over and over again.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  benben
May 26, 2016 8:56 am

Ben,
How can you type with those blinders on?
Oh wait, you aren’t wearing blinders, you just “misreport” on what you see.
You can’t get anything right, yet you don’t have any trouble with spelling or sentence structure…
Let’s see… could you be fibbin’ to us to support some agenda?
Are you yet another paid propagandist showing up here?

Reply to  benben
May 26, 2016 8:57 am

benben,
What??? Do you understand economics at all? Wait, the answer’s obvious. NO. The solar industry did not replace the jobs lost to oil and gas. They co-existed. Now, solar is going to need to pick up many, many more jobs to cover oil and gas, raise wages and lose their subsidies. All of which is economically impossible without the government forcing people to double their cost of electricity. You’re in favor of that, I take it?
The ONLY time you can count renewable as “grid level” is when they are NOT attached to the grid. It’s a complete lie to say anyone attached to a grid is not using oil or gas (in most cases). Virtually no one connected to the grid is using renewables only. It’s a convenient falsehood often used by those who think magically concerning solar and wind.
The “extremely rich oil elite” consists of thousands of hard-working people providing lights and fuel to America, many of which are now unemployed. Of course, class envy and math illiteracy convince the not-to-bright that oil and gas are somehow elitist. Maybe if people could actually think and not emote, they’d understand this. Envy and laziness are just so much easier.
Cheers.

benben
Reply to  Reality check
May 26, 2016 9:28 am

with grid level I meant utility scale renewables delivered to the grid.
The ‘extremely rich oil elite’ does not consist of unemployed people. I mean, come on. It’s like you’re debating your fantasy green fanatic instead of me. I’m talking oil sheiks, Koch brothers, Vladimir Putin, et al.
And as remarked above, the LCOE of wind is comparable to fossil fuels, so clearly if you replace fossil fuels with renewables in a gradual manner (i.e. replace old fossil fuel generating capacity with renewables), then the price would not increase. Until you reach such high levels that you’d need storage, but we are not even remotely there yet so no need to worry about that for another decade at least.

Steve T
Reply to  Reality check
May 27, 2016 6:15 am

benben
“Until you reach such high levels that you’d need storage, but we are not even remotely there yet so no need to worry about that for another decade at least.”
********************************************************************************************
Finally, the truth is admitted. Renewables can only appear to exist favourably while piggy-back riding on the spare capacity in the grid. Once they reach a level where they would be missed there is a “storage” issue.
So nice to know that they are “irrelevant” in production terms. Shame that we all have to pay for these irrelevancies through our energy bills.
SteveT

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  benben
May 26, 2016 9:03 am

benben May 26, 2016 at 8:41 am
Hi. So, clever boy, how much oil do we the USA import these days from the Mid-East? Next the Brits, Australia, and Canada. Actually, who is importing Mid-Eastern oil? Come on, put up or shut up.
Next, research the Tax liabilities between the two forms of energy production. Oh, and by the way at some point the fossil fuel companies are going to realize that the subsidizes of renewables violate a whole mess of international trade agreements on subsides and dumping. It will make for some interesting court cases, once one nation realizes it can sue another due to its renewable policies.
michael

benben
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
May 26, 2016 9:34 am

And how much income inequality does your newfound oil riches cause in the US? Now you have US based oil-sheikhs. Congratulations, you win the prize!
There are already anti-dumping tax measures in place for solar panels.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
May 26, 2016 10:04 am

Wow, poor benben is still upset that people are permitted to have more money than he does.
Nobody is hurt because some people are allowed to keep the money they have earned.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
May 26, 2016 10:14 am

And here we see the true goal of the econuts. It isn’t about wealth and prosperity; it’s about dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Watermelons like benny don’t care about solving poverty or *gasp* allowing free people to freely trade amongst themselves. His ilk’s (ill’s?) goal is simple: command the world into equal misery. That’s the only fair solution.

RWturner
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
May 26, 2016 10:56 am

“And how much income inequality does your newfound oil riches cause in the US? ”
I suppose you have a point, because “I mean, come on,” in the stone age there was very little income inequality. There were still the haves and have-nots, but it was certainly less in absolute terms than in the US today. The chiefs probably had a few extra spears and all, but in general you could say that everyone had very close to the same wealth. Wow, I didn’t know sophism could be so fun.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
May 26, 2016 2:58 pm

benben answers a question with a question:
And how much income inequality does your newfound oil riches cause in the US?
That’s not an answer. But benben has no credible answers, he only has his catechism.
This has zero to do with income inequality. If benben cares so much about that, he can split his welfare check with another bum. And since benben is so jealous of oil company profits, he can buy a share or two of Exxon, and… profit!!
Also, I note that benben’s comments are often in the middle of the day, in the middle of the workweek.
He needs to get a real job.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
May 27, 2016 10:36 am

benben claims to live in Europe.
Though I do doubt that he has a real job.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
May 27, 2016 10:52 am

MarkW,
benben also claims to be at Yale. So who really knows?

jvcstone
Reply to  benben
May 26, 2016 9:58 am

actually what the top chart shows is the large number of layoffs in the oil&gas sector since the price crash, and the large numbers of layoffs in the coal fields as company after company goes bankrupt because of government hostility to coal powered electricity generation.
Anyone living in an area where oil production/exploration are top job makers knows of the boom/bust cycle that has been going on in the industry since it’s beginnings. Right now we are in a bust, and a lot of my neighbors are part of that downward slope.

Reply to  jvcstone
May 26, 2016 11:40 am

So, that’s how renewable energy caught up to fossil fuels…it didn’t.
Fossil fuel jobs were reduced until they dropped to match the renewable workforce.
Sneaky how greens do that, ain’t it?

MarkW
Reply to  benben
May 26, 2016 10:01 am

Typical socialist. Wants everyone to concentrate on the one small part of the picture that doesn’t make him look bad, and ignore the rest of reality.
Yes, jobs are being created in the solar/wind sc@m. The jobs that are being lost are in every industry that has to buy the now unaffordable electricity, or whose company had to move to a new country where the power supply was more predictable.
I see that benben is still repeating the lies about grid stability that were refuted months ago.

Bill Webb
Reply to  benben
May 29, 2016 7:54 pm

4x as costly for Solar and Wind versus Conventional power. Use NPV (Net Present Value) versus IRR (Internal Rate of Return). Calculate all costs in terms of subsidies, externalities to the “marketplace,” … …
The accounting on most solar and wind is fraudulent. You are already seeing this with Solar City, Tesla… You need at least an 8 year run with project Peter robbing project Paul to get too positive cash flow by my estimations. Then you need a little bit of luck to go along with it. Any raising of finance rates in the Lease-buy-back programs will bankrupt a project upon refinance, when, the initial investors use up the tax breaks. Initially under the Obama regime, it appears to me companies exaggerated engineering, planning, legal, supply chain… to exaggerate costs while milking the Treasury and Farm programs set aside for these boondoggles. This creates a secondary problem as projects drop in price: You need to build more and more projects of Peter robbing Paul to cover the losses as the begin to roll in from initial, more expensive, projects in which all tax breaks have been consumed. (eg. the rat has to run faster and faster on the wheel to stay solvent). O&M has been understated as is now being realized, and, margins are very thin to boot. That being said, I advocate continued research and small scale development for the day we might need these technologies.

JustAnOldGuy
May 26, 2016 8:50 am

Is it possible that each of these solar energy employees creates less energy than they consume driving to work? That would be the ultimate irony and very typical of any government sponsored enterprise.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  JustAnOldGuy
May 26, 2016 11:58 am

I’d bet that’s accurate more often than not. In particular given the propensity of wind and solar installations to be in remote areas far from population centers.
And it’s just about guaranteed to be true if you factor ALL the energy costs of wind and solar installations vs. the energy they produce over their useful life span. From mining of materials needed for their construction to manufacture of the panel/windmill components to transport of the materials and manufactured components to the site to erection of the installation to maintenance and repairs, including the fuel consumed by the fossil fuel powered vehicles that transport the people doing the repairs and maintenance to the installation sites from their places of residence. No way that the energy that is produced by such installations is close to the energy that goes into them.
The ultimate example of what occurs when governments pick the winners and losers (the ultimate losers always being the taxpayers).

Gary Pearse
May 26, 2016 8:58 am

The taxpayer who is subsidizing ‘renewables’ I guess should be added on as wind-solar part time employees too?

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 26, 2016 9:12 am

Gary Pearse May 26, 2016 at 8:58 am
The taxpayer who is subsidizing ‘renewables’ I guess should be added on as wind-solar part time employees to?
Don’t say that, or even think that. Good god man what if the government hears you. “Why yes, what a wonderful idea, now lets tax him on it and make him file IRS tax forms and pay Social Security.
michael

May 26, 2016 9:19 am

David:
Your presentation lacks clarity and presents some extremely odd pictures.
Whenever I see a straight line growth, over time, I immediately think fudge. Your presentation of the growth rate for wind and solar jobs looks like it is from some straight line growth number, not observations.
Then you present a chart that is somewhere between exponential and large multiplier. Even if you are trying to ‘show’ the oil industry employees, it is incorrect.
It would be better if you converted it to equivalent oil energy per employee.
Plus there are many hidden jobs in the eco industry. Jobs that the eco industry is very desirous of obscuring as their number would highlight glaring problems and inefficiencies. e.g. maintenance crews that are contracted in or the temporary employees who collect bird and bat carcasses before the ‘official’ counts.
The substance of your argument is correct; the sheer costs and inefficiencies of alleged renewables are untenable., even exorbitant.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 26, 2016 9:40 am

CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/12/news/economy/solar-energy-job-growth-us-economy/) shows the same figures and the figures are from the Solar Foundation. They show jobs going from 119,000 to 209,000 from 2012 to 2016. It shows virtually a straight line from 2010 to 2016.

Reply to  Reality check
May 26, 2016 10:18 am

That does not convey accuracy. A straight line employment growth rate is fallacy.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 26, 2016 4:51 pm

OK. We can lay the blame for misrepresentation of data on the Bloomberg propaganda machine.
There is no such thing as a straight line in employment figures! As soon as one sees that straight line, it means the numbers are estimated, i.e. fudged.
Every annual/decadal employment cycle shows the effects of season, workload, opportunity, worker supply and economy distress. When it shows up a straight line, especially growth, something is not accurately representative.
Your ‘short time cycle’ for oil and gas employees is not as straight as Bloomberg’s solar. Even there, that employment chart is a combination of actual reports and estimations. Any actual oil and gas company’s employment chart would show much wider swings over the course of a year.
***
The first MTOE chart has employees for the left index.
The second MTOE chart, where you ‘show’ oil and gas employees; The left index is logarithmic.
Take the level where oil and gas’s 166 employees reach.
By implication, falsely, the solar employees appear to contribute equally to the oil and gas.
Yes the chart is logarithmic, quick glances do not convey that information.
Perhaps Bloomberg does show MTOE per employee somewhere, but I don’t visit Bloomberg sites.
Here on this site:
• Solar should show that each solar employee is worth 25.38TOE. (Another number that appears too optimistic, that straight line nonsense).
• While oil and gas MTOE, each employee is worth 6,024.1TOE. Meaning that every oil and gas employee brings the world 237.37 times more energy than any solar employee.
As eco-energy installations age and expand, those numbers for solar TOE per employee will decline. There is very little if any employee effort reduction benefits to solar installation efforts. But, as equipment ages there will be a decline in energy captured and additional requirements for maintenance.

David A
May 26, 2016 9:28 am

Atheo you say, “It would be better if you converted it to equivalent oil energy per employee”
================================
I think he did n the MTOE charts…
http://extraconversion.com/energy/tonnes-of-oil-equivalent

MarkW
May 26, 2016 9:39 am

The government could hire 1 million people to dig holes, and another million people to fill them in.
And it would have the same impact on the economy.

TA
May 26, 2016 9:49 am

Ultimately, nuclear powerplants are the way to go. The radioactive wastes can be made harmless with the proper management. What’s not to like?
Government-promoted Renewables are more trouble than they are worth, and a huge waste of taxpayer money. They are a diversion from forming a realistic, nation-wide electric power plan.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  TA
May 26, 2016 12:39 pm

Yup. The U.S. should be building molten salt reactors in mass numbers. And conducting scientific research into cold fusion. Those represent real solutions (MSRs) and real possibilities (CF) to meet future energy needs. “Renewables” are just a stupid government boondoggle.

May 26, 2016 9:50 am

Luke asks, ‘Where is all the money associated with producing electricity with fossil fuels going if it isn’t going into jobs? ‘
I suggest he does an online Economics 101, which will begin with the factors of production: land, labor and capital.
He will learn that modern industrial economies are more capital intensive than traditional economies. The study of microeconomics may be reserved for Economics 102, but his professor may present outlines of specific sectors, such as energy. She will explain that the energy sector is very capital intensive relative to the economy as a whole. As a consequence, value added per worker is high and so are skill levels, wages and salaries.
Since renewable energy adds so little to the economy, it will probably not be part of the course. But he can ask his question. The professor will probably mention the cash flow for the capital employed in producing power (depreciation, interest on bonds, taxes, dividends). If she does not, then he can find the information in the Value Line Investment Survey, which periodically does sector reviews.
The generation of jobs in subsidized industries is a favorite topic for many economists. If included in his course he will learn how subsidies distort the economy by promoting patterns of production different from what would arise if consumer preferences had determined what is produced.
In effect, a regime of subsidies is a top-down approach to determining production rather than a bottom up approach by which consumers determine production. This top-down approach is better than the old Soviet approach, which used production quotas. But when applied to the energy sector, it nevertheless represents a great departure in the way the US economy works. This is because energy drives the whole economy.
Certain promoters of top-down control of the energy sector both in the UN and the US are quite open about the objective, which is to reduce drastically the standard of living in developed countries by de-industrialization through raising the energy prices. In effect, these modern Luddites and Pol Pots claim that they will preserve the natural world by dismantling modern industrial civilization. Democracy may have to suppressed to achieve this.
Which explains their opposition to fracking and the efforts to hobble this activity by regulation.
Because natural gas has only one atom of carbon to four atoms of hydrogen, natural gas is our best route to a low-carbon economy. And it is the biggest challenge to the political elitists who believe they know what is best for consumers.
Natural gas is now so cheap and plentiful and so low in carbon that the climate scare loses its force. There is now no reason to suppress natural gas consumption or to favor renewables over natural gas.
What is needed is more focus on the carbon footprints of solar, wind and bio-fuels.For a start, wind and solar take lots of energy to manufacture, build and operate. Bio-fuels use lots of energy to produce and transport.
All three renewable fuels use lots of land, labor and capital compared with the energy they produce.
Neither science nor economics supports wind,solar or bio-fuels. Politics has trumped science and economics. We are about to see if the American people will allow the economy to continue to degrade or whether they will play their Trump card.

gnomish
Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
May 26, 2016 1:28 pm

“What is needed is more focus on the carbon footprints of solar, wind and bio-fuels.”
i disagree completely – but go ahead- the result will be cap and trade just like in Australia.
that’s right, carbon based life form- your breath will be taxed no matter who says what and you will pay because you have no concept of anything but obedience and you will perform the religious ritual of the voter and ‘pray’ for hope and change every time the morlocks sound the siren.
like the farmers in iowa do their corn and bean rotation, you will do your whine and vote – but never will you stop paying the tithe. and so who cares what you think? your job is to pay. the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is you will pay and complain, rinse, repeat.
and it will be the same as it ever was – but you will keep doing your bit to keep the death spiral going.

Resourceguy
May 26, 2016 9:54 am

In related news, the gender card in clean energy is on display, probably with your money.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/su-cwi052616.php

n.n
May 26, 2016 9:59 am

The word “clean”, “renewable”, etc. should be in quotes. It’s not clean or environmentally friendly from recovery to reclamation. The drivers are renewable, not the technology. It is a good source of local, intermittent energy production; and a good source of regional, intermittent, low-density energy production. The marketing hype and people’s need to believe in a harmonious existence exceeds the reality. Their faith is misplaced.

n.n
May 26, 2016 10:04 am

As for actual job (i.e. production, productivity) creation, it’s better for people than expansion of the public and private welfare industry, when it is based on a real and sustainable premise.

Resourceguy
May 26, 2016 10:08 am

The next target of cost reduction in solar PV is balance of system costs (BOS) from installation time and construction manpower needs, at least in utility scale projects that make sense. Hyping solar employment is really hyping unproductive rooftop solar with major tax credits as a percent of total project cost. Tax credit mining is a big business that does not take “no” for an answer, as seen in the whining by NRDC and Solar City in Nevada.

Tsk Tsk
May 26, 2016 10:20 am

And here we have the prime case demonstrating that the Left is really just filled with economic creationists. Greed energy (no typo) will always be labor intensive as this shows, which means that it will always be expensive. It simply cannot match the productivity of truly viable sources of energy. The only way it can compete is by declaring its competitors witches.
https://youtu.be/X2xlQaimsGg?t=208

usurbrain
May 26, 2016 10:39 am

Why do you think it has always been pushed as a “Jobs Program?”

May 26, 2016 11:29 am

Shows the losses in the energy sector with lower oil prices.

Resourceguy
May 26, 2016 11:43 am

How long do the crews stay on the hot job sites? Is there a workers’ comp provision for green heat strokes?

Snarling Dolphin
May 26, 2016 12:17 pm

So it now takes more people to produce less energy. This is progress? Sadly if you’re a democrat, or a socialist, or a democratic socialist, the answer is probably yes. And, as if this weren’t already a stellar enough achievement all on its own, the intermittent and unreliable energy that is produced is expensive to boot and problematic to manage! Thank you sir, may I have another?

Physics Major
May 26, 2016 2:40 pm

A politician goes to an engineer and tells him that he needs a large ditch dug. The engineer tells him that he can do the job with one person with a backhoe or it will take 30 people with shovels or 300 people using spoons.
The politician will pick the third option because it creates more jobs.

MarkW
Reply to  Physics Major
May 27, 2016 10:39 am

There’s an old story about Alan Greenspan visiting China. He saw a ditch being dug by hundreds of men using shovels.
He commented that the same job could be done in less time with a backhoe.
The foreman responded that doing it this way employed more people.
Greenspan responded that they could employ even more people if they replaced the shovels with spoons.

Lil Fella from OZ
May 26, 2016 3:03 pm

I never thought I would see the day that socialism would become part of USA.

May 26, 2016 6:25 pm

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

In Oklahoma, we know what the energy sector means. We also innately know how efficient the oil and gas industry is. Our state booms and busts with each cycle of oil prices. We whine when gasoline prices are high, but we all prosper then. We all rejoice when gasoline prices go down, but then we start noticing the pinch most everywhere else.
Wind and solar don’t help, but plenty of politicians and interests groups make the case anyway. Solar just isn’t up to the challenge of large scale power production. It never will be. It is, needing only more time to mature, useful, and it will be significant in specialized applications. Wind, however, is just a waste. It is good for lonely pumping stations. That is about it.
We must continue with coal, and we must embrace nuclear. It isn’t our only hope; it is the only possibility. It is the only thing that keeps our children alive long enough to know their own great grandchildren.

crosspatch
May 26, 2016 7:34 pm

Yes, oil patch jobs dipped in 2015 because the price of oil dropped below the profitability of drilling but now at $50/barrel the numbers are coming back up. A family member who had been out of work for months in the western US oil patch was just recently called back to work.

Patrick MJD
May 26, 2016 9:22 pm

Australian scientists recently produced the worlds most efficient solar generating device.
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/05/australian-researchers-develop-the-worlds-most-efficient-solar-panels/
What isn’t mentioned in the article is the cost right now for one of these. From memory in a TV newscast it was over AU$3500. Of course in the newscast the presenter stated that costs would come down.

toneekay
May 27, 2016 3:47 am

So from an opportunity cost vantage point, 99% of the working day in the solar energy industry generates nothing. It’s an unemployment support scheme.

Johann Wundersamer
May 27, 2016 3:49 am

After all, of the 1000 jähriges Reich there’s already 70 years done.

Johann Wundersamer
May 27, 2016 4:37 am
michael borcherding
May 27, 2016 6:40 am

I am a farmer and I have a great idea. Let’s hire 100,000 people to pick corn by hand. Think of the diesel fuel we would save and all the employment created! Using more green inefficient energy will lower our standard of living, but it is all worth it so we can keep the oceans from rising maybe a mm or 2. I better stop or the DOJ will be after me.

Adrian O
May 27, 2016 9:44 am

I always found it bizarre that having to hire 100 times more people to produce the same amount of energy is a point of pride, rather than a concern.

MarkW
Reply to  Adrian O
May 27, 2016 10:43 am

Pretty much the same people also believe that by forcing people to pay more for products that are made here, vs somewhere else, will improve the economy.
What they fail to realize is that everyone who is now paying more, now has less money to spend on other things.
Additionally, such a move makes all of our exports more expensive.

Kaiser Derden
May 27, 2016 12:36 pm

I’m pretty certain there are more shovel operators employed than backhoe operators …

DredNicolson
May 27, 2016 8:40 pm

It’s the equivalent of hiring a hundred farmhands to milk one cow. 😐

b fagan
May 28, 2016 12:52 am

I’m just wondering, as a skeptic who checks on things, if David Middleton is the David Middleton of Twin Butte Energy, Ltd. from Alberta Canada who shows up in top results of a simple search.
http://www.twinbutteenergy.com/management.html
There were no credentials provided, so I was worried that an employment article that didn’t even mention all the jobs in wind energy might be biased – since this guy just focuses on the more-costly solar, while wind energy is booming in the Plains States – and jobs are there and in the manufacturing sites around the country..
http://www.bls.gov/green/wind_energy/

b fagan
Reply to  David Middleton
May 29, 2016 11:20 am

I like paying less, too, though I spend far less for electricity than for data plans. I’m buying my electricity from a wind-power source and paying $0.099 per kWh here in Chicago. So wind is cheap.
And while gas prices dropped here in the US due to fracking, solar prices have continued to drop worldwide, as the solar cell technologies continue being improved constantly, economics of scale are working, and as deployment prices drop, too.
Drop to the point where big projects for utility-scale solar are coming in under 10 cents/kWh. Like 3 cents in Dubai, without subsidy. Like 7 cents, including 2 cent Federal subsidy, in Austin Texas.
http://vae.ahk.de/marktinformationen/detail/artikel/dubai-shatters-solar-price-records-worldwide/?cHash=fbec3c5401ed4e8aef0c29d24724fc7c
I’d pay more for my electricity, because the add-on costs of coal are very expensive. Natural gas is inexpensive, but it sure was difficult supplying enough in the Northeast during that very cold winter a couple years ago, and the price of electricity from gas peaker plants is very high, too.
And you ignore the need to reduce greenhouse emissions.
But your point about “if you can build a pipeline, natural gas works” is equally correct for utility-scale renewables. HVDC transmission lines connecting the three US grids, and connecting population centers with remote generation will do much to smooth the small-scale fluctuations of individual wind farms or locally cloudy solar farms.
Aggregated renewables will also help the utilities wean themselves from a lot of those natural gas peaker plants by smoothing peak demand, or by shifting western midday solar towards the east during their evening peak.
And of course, rooftop or distribution-level solar helps to keep power on while transmission lines are down – local resilience gets a lot more focus after Sandy.

Luke
May 28, 2016 12:17 pm

I wouldn’t expect a snarky comment from a moderator (see below). Yes, I produce more than 100% of my electricity needs with my solar panels.
RWturner I do put my money where my mouth is. I own an electric car and I have installed solar panels that cover all of my electricity usage.
[All? .mod]
[“see below”? Right now point your comment is the last one. -another mod]

Luke
Reply to  Luke
May 28, 2016 1:06 pm

The previous moderators comment is embedded in my comment. Is says [All? .mod].

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Luke
May 28, 2016 11:48 pm

“Luke May 28, 2016 at 12:17 pm
RWturner I do put my money where my mouth is. I own an electric car and I have installed solar panels that cover all of my electricity usage.”
Even the telecoms etc and web servers across the internet as well? You must have one hell of a system installed to produce more than you need.

%d bloggers like this: