Solar Power: Lots of Jobs per KWH Is Bad, Not Good(econlib.org)
econlib.org
Solar Power: Lots of Jobs per KWH Is Bad, Not Good
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/05/solar_power_lot.html
17 comments
Plus, how much does it cost in man-hours to clean up negative external effects of traditional power plants vs solar? Need to include that as well.
Completely agreed. If we assume the lifetime of a system is ~30 years, then the amount of labor per coal worker is between 2x and 3x, not 79x. I also note they used the terminology "coal worker" which probably does not include all of the people who work in the plants themselves, nor those involved in shipping coal.
Yep. That article was spouting disingenuous nonsense in the best possible interpretation I could read into it.
I suspect (but don't know) that you can replace "article" with "site" comfortably there...
What's wrong with that site? I've been listening to the podcast hosted there, Econtalk, for the last year+.
Do they have some bias in the grander scheme of economics? The guests and topics always seem extremely varied, and the host actually asks challenging and interactive questions to the guests.
Do they have some bias in the grander scheme of economics? The guests and topics always seem extremely varied, and the host actually asks challenging and interactive questions to the guests.
No idea about the podcast, I'll give a listen though based on your comments.
My comment was on reviewing a few of the articles, the sloppiness exhibited in this one was common. I guess it's more a preaching-to-the-converted sort of area than trying to do a good job of presenting arguments.
Perhaps I didn't give it a fair shake - I'm definitely not one to enjoy watching people grinding their favorite axes, particularly if they are uncharitable to other viewpoints while simultaneously presenting their own assumptions as canon.
My comment was on reviewing a few of the articles, the sloppiness exhibited in this one was common. I guess it's more a preaching-to-the-converted sort of area than trying to do a good job of presenting arguments.
Perhaps I didn't give it a fair shake - I'm definitely not one to enjoy watching people grinding their favorite axes, particularly if they are uncharitable to other viewpoints while simultaneously presenting their own assumptions as canon.
> One can argue that distributed power generation is a benefit, as it reduces the need for increased distribution capacity
Unfortunately, that's only true if the power is generated at the time when it's needed, which isn't the case with solar. Distributed power storage could help, but in many cases it will never be enough to actually disconnect from the grid.
Unfortunately, that's only true if the power is generated at the time when it's needed, which isn't the case with solar. Distributed power storage could help, but in many cases it will never be enough to actually disconnect from the grid.
If two ways of achieving same thing cost the same then the way with more employment ahould be preferred at least until we grow out of the notion that you need excuse of work to not let someone die of hunger or lack of shelter.
Wouldn’t installing PV on people’s homes be more similar to building the power poles/ infrastructure that already exists for coal, and not just running a plant?
This chart doesn’t break down solar maintenance and solar construction.
This chart doesn’t break down solar maintenance and solar construction.
I hate to use the term but this is fake news. There is no analysis or breakdown of the numbers. Just quoting raw numbers and then drawing comparisons is misleading at best.
He needs to go back and do econ 101 again, he's conflating two different things.
If coal, gas, and solar workers all quite tomorrow, the "power" from coal and gas would go out, but most solar installations would keep on producing regardless.
ie, the majority of solar workers are building capacity, not operating the system.
If coal, gas, and solar workers all quite tomorrow, the "power" from coal and gas would go out, but most solar installations would keep on producing regardless.
ie, the majority of solar workers are building capacity, not operating the system.
Lots of jobs per kWh are only bad if you're a large energy provider looking for maximum profitability. It doesn't mean that solar power is going to be more expensive for consumers. Consumers buy a bunch of panels and pay for installation and maintenance. Given that there is enough sun around, those panels will eventually pay themselves off.
Creating those jobs is also great because it spreads the wealth way more evenly, leading to a healthier economy.
Creating those jobs is also great because it spreads the wealth way more evenly, leading to a healthier economy.
[2017]
> why do sound economic analysis when you can parrot a junk study that supports your political view?
Quoted from a comment on the OP and getting it right.
> why do sound economic analysis when you can parrot a junk study that supports your political view?
Quoted from a comment on the OP and getting it right.
Frankly more jobs is a good thing. Where I live there are many people looking for work / barely scraping by.
This is a blog post based on a slide from the American Enterprise Institute with no supporting documentation - not exactly a highly credible source.
Building out new infrastructure is more labor intensive than operating existing infrastructure, more on this story at 11.
Further, building lots of small generation systems (e.g., rooftop solar) will inherently require more labor than building a few large generation systems (e.g., traditional power plants). One can argue that distributed power generation is a benefit, as it reduces the need for increased distribution capacity.