How Is Wind Energy Going To Create Jobs?
July 5, 2009 by admin
Filed under Energy-Efficiency
Not including the green jobs the free market has already taken into account.
Wind energy costs 25% more than coal. In essence our energy productivity will go down by 25%.
Whenever has productivity going down created jobs?
Do not give me the foreign oil, the only time foreign oil is used in energy production is for peeker plants. Wind can not replace that.
As an engineer I like the idea of power and all kinds of power. Also as an engineer I can not see a more expensive means creating jobs.
It won’t. And people tend to forget that even if it does create jobs, it is only offsetting the other industry jobs lost as a result. (remember his intent to bankrupt coal industry?)
You said it yourself expensive,that is why it does not yet exists,but it is a given the future will be different than what the past was,there is no way around that if we are to be a progressive wave of the future,or we can sit back and do nothing and let other countries reap the benefits,while we play catch up,like in education.So government pays to start others jump in to help it go and before you know we have power I think that is a good way to spend a few tax dollars considering the price of being held hostage over oil.What is not to see?
This is an oversimplification. Coal has hidden costs that you are not accounting for, it’s not merely the cost per ton of coal and the kWh yielded. The costs of wind energy are going down and have continued to go down, making it cheaper and more affordable.
Also productivity is not linked to jobs in such a straightforward way.
More Americans are employed in Wind energy than coal. In wind it’s 85,000 to 81,000 in coal. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2…
Manufacturers produce the turbines, that requires employment of people, including engineers. It takes a large crew and many semis to transport the turbines, materials for the towers and cranes to put them up. This requires drivers, laborers, crane operators etc.. Then the wind farm must be maintained by workers. Over time the wind turbines become more and more cost effective without the emissions of a coal fired plant. Over time wind is less expensive than coal, wind is free, coal is not.
Do not forget that our GOP called the FutureGen coal plant project PORK. Congressman Tim Johnson R-IL. correctly rejected this saying that it would create 5,000 jobs in his district. As an engineer I am sure you can see the ridiculousness of this position where we argue against cleaner coal technology and wind.
Because by spending money on it now, we make the technology cheaper down the road.
By spending money on coal, we keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing.
You know, like the Republican senate wants us to do? They want 4 more years of the same.
No real new ideas at all. Except from Snow and Specter.
Some one has to know how to make and maintain them. Materials are needed which will cause ripple effects for people to get different jobs.
Don’t get me wrong I am oppositional to this spending spree, but if they are going to pass it I am glad there are a few good things in there like that.
I find it hard to believe that wind is more expensive than coal. Prove me wrong if you wish.
The source below said wind costs is 4.0 to 6.0 cents per kwh. The cost per kwh of coal is 4.4 to 5.5 cents per kwh.
Before you make these claims, have evidence.
It will create jobs. The number of jobs will be of no significance. You are correct, opportunity costs make wind power a not so attractive alternative.
Thunder B- Economics is very complicated, especially for liberals. You might want to study that link a little further before chowing down on your left foot.
sbcailf- MotherJones? Are you serious?!?
Try this: http://www.bls.gov/
You talking about atmospheric wind, or that coming from the Whitehouse? One is a force of nature, the other a farce of nature.
Yea, I know that it is not as easy a message as LOW TAXES, duh and SMALL GOVERNMENT, UH, AND UH,,,,,,, UH,,,,,, UMMMMM
YUP………. YEA TRADITIONAL VALUES BUT
JEEZE LOUISE.
Stevie Wonder can see that.
If it were cut our need for coal by 25% that would put about 25% of our coal miners out of work and that is more high paying jobs lost than created in manufacturing, installing and maintaining wind driven turbines
Manufacturing and building jobs.
Plus don’t forget GE spends ALOT of money on lobbying so spending on wind energy was inevitable.
They do not get built by themselves
More production will reduce costs
Last I looked wind was free
This is long term project……….and we are in the 21st century time to move on and must start sometime
Wind energy is already creating jobs in Michigan where I am from, wind turbine manufacturing.
They are build by Pelosi’s company to blow smoke up the middle class to hide what they are really up to.
building them…creating a larger grid reaching into the areas of best wind mill locations….the workforce to build it and maintain it
if you are an engineer, then I would expect you to want all sorts of energy and understand that coal is dirty and that oil is a political problem…..wind power, even if more expensive that coal or oil gives us flexibility and a way to keep our waters clear of mercury.,…the same can be said of ethanol…right now it’s not a lot better than oil, but in time it could be a real advantage
Well, since we now have a stylish President, we got to create jobs in style.
Wind mills don’t magically appear out of thin air. They might pay themselves back.
When those wind mills break somebodys got to clean up that mess. those blades are big and do alot of damage.
yes coal is cheaper but wind is more “green”, not choosing just pointing out a fact.
It should produce about 10 career long jobs. Thats the high estimate.
It’s not, Liberals lie.
3 million people with jobs to blow really hard to turn the turbines?
Why do neocons get so upset that there are not enough hydrocarbons in the air we breathe?
With a lot of hot air
T. BOONE PICKENS disagrees with you. ever heard of him?
There’s a simple answer and then the long winded answer I’ll give you both.
Any time a new industry is started or enhanced there will be a net job increase. That is factual dating back to when we first started requiring energy source conversion in the US like whale oil conversion to ground oil. Even though the whaling industry technically provided enough oil for burning and use in US homes, the oil industry started in Pennsylvania had a boom experience creating three times as many jobs as were lost during the same period due to whaling, and the costs to create that industry were much greater than the costs to continue whaling. However costs eventually decreased for oil and increased dramatically for whaling. As one industry replaces another, the initial costs will be greater for the newer industry because costs have not been adjusted over as long a period.
There is also a correlation to productivity. As productivity outside of the worker increases employment decreases. As it decreases employment increases. A factual example of this is the conversion from by hand industry to automation. In some cases this increased the number of employed people, but in most cases the more the system becomes automated (productivity increases) the fewer employed workers are needed. Take the auto industry. Initially the number of workers to produced auto was so high that it was nearly a 1 to 1 ratio. As the automation of the industry occurred. More autos were produced, the number of workers to produced auto decreased dramatically. Nowadays the number of workers to autos produced is miniscule. There is something to note here. As production cheapened, the desire for cheaper goods increased and the number of jobs sum total in the industry increased. However to a certain point those jobs were just ones taken from the carriage business and shodders and blacksmiths so there was a net decrease in jobs initially. On the other hand as is exemplified in helicopter forestry, as the automation decreases (they stopped clear cutting) the number of employed lumberjacks increased and in addition you also needed to employ the services of the FAA and a helicopter pilot. So in this question by representation of past examples I would always expect decreased non-worker productivity to be in line with increased employment.
As for the creation of jobs here is the brunt of it, long term, wind power does not increase the number of jobs. Heck it will probably decrease the number of jobs in two industries. Cleaner fuels will decrease healthcare visits meaning fewer nurses needed. People in the coal industry might feel a job loss although really the coal industry in terms of employment is so efficient that for every job lost there we will probably see a net increase of .2 across the board in energy production. By the time the short terms jobs as well as health care losses are met consumption of both will reach a point where the loss of short term jobs will not be that great of an impact. As it stands though, cleaner energy does not equate to longterm job gain, but it does equate to extensive short term job gain. The question really is how much. And how beneficial
According to figures released by energy experts (quoted in the deliberations for the stimulus package), wind energy companies expect to increase the use of energy from wind at an astounding rate. nearly doubling each of the next three years and then dipping till about 2020. Many plants can only produce 100 turbines a year currently, so almost all wind farms are utilizing a hundred percent of factory capacity. In order to match the needs and desires of wind production nearly one hundred factories will need to be built or refurbished. A plant build takes one to two years and creates temporary jobs. A refurbish job requires an equal number of temp construction but requires a shorter time period. Each one of those plants will employ up to 300 workers. About 3/4 of those workers will be retrained from failing industry so are not considered job creation, but 1/4 of them will be. from a very basic community planning viewpoint at a low end pay of 20,000 a year 500 new jobs equals 3 new businesses (besides the plant) in the community who will each employ up to 20 individuals. Doing the math to figure this out the higher paid tech jobs at a turbine plant will generally be at a boom rate around 40,000 a year, which means you roughly only have to have 250 employees. So each plant will probably allow one new business to be created in the commmunity as well as guarantee that others will not fail because the failing plants stay open. Then there is materials. to even fabricate the turbines and blades requires gold, copper, platinum, tantalum as well as aluminum and steel. All of those industries will see a general increase in sales. And in those industries that equates to a stop-loss, because many of those industries are belching workers into unemployment