Precisely.
Which will lead to lost of American jobs.
Nuclear still makes me somewhat nervous thou…specially after what we witnessed from Japan.
Storage is a factor in this. As is continued use of fossil fuels. Even with periodic generation solar and wind can offset fossil use during these periods.
I favor adding to the energy capabilities and don’t frame the problem as total replacement or total failure.
GND is a gov stimulus. There will be boondoggles but there will also be innovation. (Under the OP premise that this is happening whether it is a good idea or not)
Keep in mind those were fifty year old completely obsolescent reactors that should have been replaced more than a decade before the accident.
We’ve even produced reactors safe enough to power much of our naval fleet, even to put into aircraft and into space. They can be built to day with a safety margin surpassing just about any other source of generation but politically it’s a non starter.
They are both unreliable and cannot be operated profitibly without massive direct subsidization and all at a cost of potentially millions of jobs in the fossil fuels industry.
Keep in mind that it is an absolute necessity in an industrial and technological society to keep the cost of energy low or we cannot begin to compete with our foreign economic competitors globally so it creates the necessity for ever growing dependence on those subsidies to keep their industries alive.
Whether it hits us as taxpayers, consumers, or both it hurts the end user along with all those put out of work as a result.
Is this your assessment of the current feasibility or have you also concluded that solar and/or wind are fundamentally unfeasible?
On the jobs front, I see a blend of energy sources, so of the 2 million fossil fuel jobs (this include gas station employes, plastics manufacturers,… as well as direct producers) will not be totally displaced.
For example, one outcome might be that fossil fuel production remains constant and new sources of energy simply fill demand growth.
I do see that disruption in the energy industry will continue.
If we focused on geothermal it would be right up their alley.
There are upwards of 30 million jobs directly and indirectly in the fossil fuel economy and no more than 1/3 of them will remain once we switch over to green sources because of the nature of those industries.
Worse, the panels and generators will be built in China, India, Russia, and maybe S. Korea.
Worse is the issue of the toxic substances required to build and operate them and dealing with their disposal afterwards.
There’s nothing, “green” about “green energy” from solar and wind.
What we do need lots of is CO2 for healthy green plants to feed an ever growing population and to keep the water cycle moving.
We’ll have to somehow reduce the human population by several billion to ever make a wind/solar powered economy work and there are no good options for getting there.
The only thing that would be sustainable to that end is going to be tidal, hydroelectric, and nuclear power and our demand for electricity will at least triple over the next 30 to forty years as we become ever more dependent upon electronics and electric transportation.
Do you have a breakdown of the categories?
2 million is the direct employment, when you get to indirect I would think many of these jobs would still exist to service the emerging energy production. They would still need mechanics, accountants, receptionists, sales reps and would still purchase office supplies, fleet vehicles, office space…
Yes. Just Wind and solar isn’t going to power industrialized nation. Won’t even come close.
These are good points, but different that what I was asking.
Are solar and wind fundamentally unfeasible economically?
Or is that assessment a comment on the current situation and technology?
If it is the former, then GND $$$ is best directed toward that innovation. If it is the latter then GND is just a momentary economic stimulus with little benefit to our energy outlook.
I am keeping in mind that the OP is assuming we are doing GND.
It’s almost 10 million jobs directly related to fossil fuels and their direct supporting industries and roughly 3:1 on top of that for all the jobs that are supported and/or created providing the basics for them and their employees.
Without that initial 10 million the rest dry up which is why the US economy and that of every other producing nation is tied so directly to those industries.
Then it expands from there as the cost of energy climbs the rest of the economy suffers because it flat chews up people’s disposable income so even retail dries up and blows away rapidly when the cost of fuels/energy climb.
Another huge consideration is what happens to all of the related industries when oil production craters as we have everything from makeup to pharmaceuticals, to medical devices, cars, computers and everything else that is made from petroleum.
Those items are largely made from the fraction of oil that is waste byproducts from refining gas and diesel from petroleum.
Even our roads and highways are made from petroleum and coal wastes.
What happens to those items and industries when oil production is reduced by even half much less 80-90%? What happens to those related jobs?
You moved the scope from can they be economically feasible to can they power the nation.
A legitimate concern, but not one that I have brought up.
In a mixed-production energy economy is solar and/or wind fundamentally unable to be produced in an economically feasible manner?
Yes and the more dependent we become on them the less feasible they will be.
You have a baseline that much be achieved in total mega-wattage to keep an electronic/industrialized nation functioning 24/7 and no amount of wind/solar can accomplish that because they are completely dependent on weather and the rotation of the earth.
Unless you can figure out a way to beam electricity from the light side of the planet to the dark side, and from places where the wind is blowing to where it isn’t without transmission loss it just ain’t happening.
I’m being realist. Wind and solar is not going to power industrialized nation…or even advance nation.
There are libs that want to push banning fossil fuels altogether. Then there are libs that know the consequences of banning fossil fuels but support it to undermine United States competitiveness.
That is not what your linked article says.
It matches my number for direct (~2 million) and calculates ~10 million indirect. (Down from your number of ~30 million)
A glance at the tables of indirect effects I see real estate, accountants, …, etc.
So I think it is valid to discuss how many of these indirect jobs will continue to be supported even if production shifts.
The article doesn’t go into all of the jobs outside of that direct path.
Example. Oilfield workers get haircuts, buy groceries, cars, homes, pharmaceuticals, etc.
Remove the oil field you remove the workers and those jobs outside the direct support for the oilfield industry start going away as well.
Take a look at what has happened to the old coal towns, mining towns in the est, and small towns all over the oil producing states as oil patches and minerals dried up.
But does it have any place in a mixed production energy sector.
You don’t need to treat all discussion as taking place with a nemesis.
Only if they can stand alone which they can’t. The only way they survive at all is with massive direct subsidization and special tax treatment all of which are aimed and breaking the petroleum industry in favor of them replacing it.
Use it where we can.
Yes I do need to treat libs with total disdain. Forcing their agenda on American people earns it.
