Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 101 to 150:
-
tder2012 at 04:04 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Since its OK to wait for synchronous condensers, grid forming inertia, flywheels and batteries to be available at the scale required, is it OK for reactor companies that claim to be fast breeder reactors or be able to use spent nuclear fuel to wait for them as well? Such as Oklo, Copenhagen Atomics, Terrapower, ARC Nuclear Energy, Moltex, Newcleo, etc. Also see on youtube "The integral fast reactor", why did Clinton and Kerry cancel this reactor in 1994 when it was ready to be commercialized? Grave error. Kerry regrets this and is now pro nuclear.
-
michael sweet at 03:55 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder:
reactor question replied to on the nuclear thread
-
michael sweet at 03:54 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012:
You posted:
"As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia. One in Russia came on line in 1980."
on the renewable energy thread.
From Wikipedia:
Japan: one breeder reactor at Monju "The reactor has been inoperative for most of the time since it was originally built. It was last operated in 2010[1] and is now closed." Calling this a production reactor is false.
China: one breeder reactor at Xiapu. Too small for a production reactor. Primarily used to generate plutonium for weapons.
India: one breeder reactor in Tami Nadu. Under construction since 2004. Apparently fuel was loaded in 2024 but no news since.
Russia: Two reactors 600 MWe and 800 MWe. 800 MWe plant started construction in 1983 and completed in 2016. Currently used to burn plutonium. Plans for a 1200 MWe reactor have apparently been drawn up but they are not building since it would not be economic.
I will let other readers decide if this record is of a technology ready to build or if it needs more work. There are no approved breeder reactor plans in the USA or Western Europe.
-
tder2012 at 03:38 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Like I stated previously, I don't read Jacobson and haven't for years, no point. He gets debunked and stops with the scientific debate and then takes it to court and loses that as well. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/ Bryer works closely with Jacobson, so I don't bother with him either.
UNIPCC states nuclear is 14 grams CO2 emitted lifetime, UNECE states 6 and Jacobson states 171 because of emissions from burning caused by nuclear war. These differences are indeed significant, considering the Paris climate targets are for electricity grids to be <100grams CO2 emitted/kwh, averaged on an annual basis.
-
tder2012 at 03:16 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia. One in Russia came on line in 1980.
-
tder2012 at 03:15 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Of course Lazard thinks Lazard's LCOE is best, they should be very confident in their own work, but, as I highlighted from the 2024 Lazard report, Lazard acknowledges there are many omissions.
-
michael sweet at 02:55 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
I see that Lazard considers LCOE as the best way to compare different costs of energy. The quote you have seems to be a boiler plate discussion of the limitations of LCOE. All methods of evaluation have limitations, Lazard thinks LCOE is the best one. Utilities have to do more in depth evaluations of their current and future generation supplies so they have to consider additional data.
-
michael sweet at 02:21 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
tder2012,
Your claim of 4 billion years of uranium requires breeder reactors not currently designed, reprocessing the waste to recover materials that can be used again (a known arms problem), and recovering uranium from seawater. The development of these processes would take longer than we have time for in the current climate crisis. According to your linked blog post, current supplies of uranium using current reactor designs would only last 6 years. Abbott 2012 addresses these claims. In general, peer reviewed papers are considered a better source than blog posts.
In general, processes that have not been developed yet are not considered good options for solving large problems rapidly.
If you read Jacobson, his primary objection to nuclear reactors is the long time it takes to build them. These emissions are not considered by UNIPCC or UNECE. The emissions from a nuclear war are trivial (although the human loss is tremendous).
-
tder2012 at 02:13 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Feel free to address one claim at a time. My point in showing the 2016 post is simply this is at least how long I am familiar with Jacobson's work. Address only this point them from Lazard's 2024 LCOE+ report. Page 8 from https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf
"Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional
factors, among others, may include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA; economic policy, transmission queue reform, network upgrades and other
transmission matters, congestion, curtailment or other integration-related costs; permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with
various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis is intended to represent a snapshot in time and utilizes a wide, but
not exhaustive, sample set of Industry data. As such, we recognize and acknowledge the likelihood of results outside of our ranges. Therefore, this analysis is not a forecasting
tool and should not be used as such, given the complexities of our evolving Industry, grid and resource needs. Except as illustratively sensitized herein, this analysis does not
consider the intermittent nature of selected renewables energy technologies or the related grid impacts of incremental renewable energy deployment. This analysis also does not
address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distributed generation
solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., airborne pollutants,
greenhouse gases, etc." -
michael sweet at 01:58 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
It is not pratical to address many claims made at once (Gish Gallops). If you want to discuss renewables or nuclear there are OP's at SkS for that. Please address only one or two claims at once so that they can be resolved before moviing on to additional claims.
Citing a blog post from 2016 when wind, solar and batteries were way more expensive than they currently are while saying you will not consider current scientific studies makes for a difficult discussion at SkiS.
-
tder2012 at 01:50 AM on 8 May 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Are we short of uranium? "Nuclear fuel will last us for 4 billion years". Fast breeder reactors are in production in China, India, Japan and Russia. One of the ones in Russia came on line in 1980. Lifecycle CO2 emissions, according to the UNIPCC are 14 grams CO2 per kilowatt-hour. UNECE states they are about 6. Jacobson states they are 171, he includes "the emissions from the burning of cities resulting from nuclear weapons explosions” and some say Nate Hagens is a pessimist.
-
tder2012 at 01:41 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I don't read Jacobson. He gets debunked and stops with the scientific debate and then takes it to court and loses that as well. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/ Bryer works closely with Jacobson, so I don't bother with him either. I have read their material over the years, for example, here is one on my blog from 2016 that my friend wrote https://tditpinawa.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/tim-maloneys-analysis-and-critique-of-100-wws-for-usa/. I believe science debates should stick to science debates. There are nine grids today that have achieved <100 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt hour, averaged on an annual basis that service at least 5 million people. They are Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and then there is Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France and Brazil. They have achieved this with either mostly hydro, mostly nuclear or mostly a combination of the two. "Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda. It has been known for years that the last 10-20% of renewable energy will be the most expensive." You can state your opinions about propaganda all you like, how about showing the evidence in the real world, not just in Jacobson's spreadsheets, about the last 10-20% being the most expensive. Lazard didn't make changes, instead they are open about their limitations, as I quoted in a previous comment. Will Lazard scrap their limitations and instead do a complete study, as opposed to just points in time. I don't care so much about % of renewable energy, I care about CO2 emissions. Once Texas and Spain have achieved <100grams/CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, then we'll talk. Texas is 292 and Spain is close at 112, but they are planning to shut down nuclear so their emissions are likely to rise, just like everywhere else that shuts down nuclear. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/12mo/monthly Jacobson is a big proponent of Germany, but 345 for the last 12 months, their energy system is really struggling and due to high prices, their industrial and manufacturing are slowing down. "Let’s dive into one of the most ambitious (and chaotic) energy transitions in the world" Amory Lovins was awarded the German Order of Merit in 2016 for his influence on the German "Energiewende", maybe they jumped the gun a bit with this award.
-
michael sweet at 01:11 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
There is a thread for nuclear energy on this site. Please post any comments on nuclear on that thread. If you read some of the previous comments you might find answers to some of your questions. I recommend Abbott 2012 (linked in the OP of the thread).
-
michael sweet at 00:57 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
tder2012:
You need to find a more reliable source of information. In post 2 you claim:
"Electricity generators need to provide ancillary services such as black starts and synchronous inertia. Wind and solar are not capable of doing these on their own. BESS can do fast frequency response, but cannot assist with synchronous inertia."
Solar systems and batteries can be used for black starts already and can be used for synchronous inertia with proper inverters. In the past they have not been built with such inverters because they were not needed. As more wind and solar are implemented capable inverters will be deployed. It is deliberately misleading to claim that renewable energy cannot do something that was not needed in the past but where currently available inverters are capable of providing that service. The cost will be trivial.
It appears to me that your references completely leave out the cost of existing hydro. Hydro provides a significant source of on demand electricity and is the most flexible energy. Looking at the cost of 100% solar alone without taking into account existing hydro does not give an accurate idea of complete system costs.
Both Spain and Texas generate way more than 30% renewable energy. Many other countries generate as much as 100% renewable energy. Claiming that is not possible in your post 2 when it is already widely done is beyond misleading. It has been widely documented that Texas would have had blackouts in the past two summers without renewable energy.
Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda. It has been known for years that the last 10-20% of renewable energy will be the most expensive. My link at post 1 of this thread documents how renewables save large amounts of money for the first 80% of generation and addresses the last 20%. It also demonstrates that fossil fuel interests lie and pay think tanks to produce "papers" that are simply false. Perhaps you would be interested in reading it.
We will see if LFSCOE is considered useful by anyone besides fossil fuel interests. The paper you linked was published in 2022 and Lazard has not implemented their analysis. Presumably Lazards experts would have made changes if they thought LFSCOE was a more accurate measure. I note that your link also claimed nuclear provides four times the financial benefits of renewables. It did not discuss the fact there is not enough uranium to generate a significant amount of power world wide.
I suggest you read Bryer et al 2022 and the references theirin for more accurate information. These papers actually calculate the full system costs of completely renewable systems. For example, Jacobson et al 2022 details all the solar panels, wind generators, batteries and other needed materials to generate 100% renewable energy. Jacobson does not find the cheapest route to 100% renewables since he does not use any thermal sources (like waste incineration). Since he considers all sources of renewable energy he does not grossly overestimate the cost of the last 20% of energy (although that is the most expensive energy).
I note that wind and solar compliment each other in 100% systems and result in much lower costs that wind or solar only. LFSCOE costs of solar only or wind only do not reflect 100% renewable system costs. Thermal baseload like nuclear do not compliment renewables and result in higher system costs.
-
tder2012 at 00:29 AM on 8 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I feel we are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency and therefore, I feel all options should be on the table, should be considered. I have reviewed Fourth Transition and am not nearly ready to rule it out, I have been in direct communications with them. You are entitled to your opinion about them being a grift. After several discussions and readings, I have not yet formed an opinion on that. How do you feel about nuclear power? I don't see much support for nuclear power on this site. "Nuclear Energy Unveiled: Debunking Myths and Revealing Facts"
-
tder2012 at 23:26 PM on 7 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2025
I find LCOE, as Lazard is open and transparent about, leaves out too many factors to be of much use to me. I have read and researched on this topic extensively. Lazard state it is prices at a moment in time, which is of no value, IMHO. Modern electricity grids need to produce 1. 24x7x365, 2. needs dispatchable generators and 3. generators that provide ancillary services and now a fourth should be added, low GHG emissions and air pollution. Lazard does not account for any of these, LFSCOE at least accounts for the first three. I often see Lazard quoted, but when it is done, it is seemingly done without accounting for the limitations that Lazard openly acknowledges. The originl LFSCOE paper is here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4028640
-
Eclectic at 18:20 PM on 7 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2025
Tder2012 @2 :
If you type LCOE into the search box at top-left of page, then you can select one of the related threads, which would allow you to contribute to discussion of that type of topic. (There probably are several such threads).
The SkepticalScience [SkS] website favors that system, to avoid having absolutely every every climate-related topic being endlessly repeated on every thread ~ to the detriment of readers who are trying to discover & focus on particular aspects. It is a sensible system.
Regarding LCOE ; LFSCOE ; and all the other methods of assessment ~ you are quite right in implying that every such method is grossly deficient in making an overall yardstick of usefulness. And each method is open to abuse by "interested" players/propagandists.
-
tder2012 at 14:01 PM on 7 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2025
I asked the following of Dr. Romm when he posted this on his LinkedIn, he never responded to me, perhaps you could? He quotes WoodMac's LCOE
"Hi Dr. Romm. I asked the following question on Woodmac' LinkedIn page from 5 months ago https://www.linkedin.com/posts/wood-mackenzie_our-five-regional-levelised-cost-of-electricity-activity-7258040109122338816-hJN0/
Do you publish your LCOE assumptions, if any? I ask because I see Lazard's, but I am unable to locate Woodmac's LCOE assumptions. Lazard's assumptions are outlined at the bottom of page 8 here https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, Dr. Romm"
Here are the limitations of Lazard's LCOE, which they openly acknowledge:
"Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, may include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA; economic policy, transmission queue reform, network upgrades and other transmission matters, congestion, curtailment or other integration-related costs; permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis is intended to represent a snapshot in time and utilizes a wide, but not exhaustive, sample set of Industry data. As such, we recognize and acknowledge the likelihood of results outside of our ranges. Therefore, this analysis is not a forecasting tool and should not be used as such, given the complexities of our evolving Industry, grid and resource needs. Except as illustratively sensitized herein, this analysis does not consider the intermittent nature of selected renewables energy technologies or the related grid impacts of incremental renewable energy deployment. This analysis also does not address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distributed generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases, etc."
Instead of using LCOE, we should be using Dr. Robert Idel's work at Rice University, Levelized Full System Cost of Electricity Move over, LCOE. LFSCOE is the new metric in town
-
Eclectic at 11:45 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
[ My apologies, Moderator ~
if you have time, please correct my typo in @6 :
"FOUTH TRANSITION LTD"
. . . should read "FOURTH TRANSITION LTD".
I would not wish keen investors to send money to the wrong LTD . ]
-
Eclectic at 11:35 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 @4 :-
At risk of being a Cassandra, please allow me to say that your last two references ( 'About' and 'The Energy Seneca' both themselves linking to FOUTH TRANSITION LTD )
. . . are wordy but quite nebulous in actual content.
We Cassandras smell a grift.
Please keep your money in your wallet.
-
Eclectic at 10:37 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder202 @4 :-
Thank you for the video titled: "Net Zero and Other Delusions" by Nate Hagens.
In essence, he says that Net Zero [of fossil carbon emissions] cannot happen by 2050. I suspect that every realist would agree that such a target ~ in only 25 years' time ~ is completely impracticable, with today's politics & today's technology. (But is half a loaf not better than none?)
Perhaps possible by 2070 or 2080? That would require cheap & durable solar panels plus cheap & durable storage batteries. Even the pre-2050 invention of practical & economic Boron-Proton fusion generation of electricity . . . would take decades to roll out for worldwide usage.
Big advances in solar/battery manufacture are a very much better "Bayesian bet" (as Hagens would say).
And yet now is the time to roll up metaphorical sleeves and get to work on the future problems.
# So the question remains: Why is Nate Hagens such a hopeless pessimist? Is he the sort of pessimist who will refuse to plant a sapling for a shade-tree (while bemoaning today's lack of sufficient shade)??
.
btw, tder2012, if you have any influence with Nate Hagens ~ please ask him to shorten his 20-minute video down to about one-third the length (which would not degrade his message! ). There is an old ecclesiastical saying: "An excellent sermon should need less than 10 minutes to best deliver its message."
-
tder2012 at 09:07 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I agree, when will wind, solar and batteries be ready to be deployed and be able to readily supply their share of critical and required services such as synchronous inertia is completely unknown, therefore extremely risky to go down this path, considering we are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency. I am curious why you would ask about my assessments of future developments, as I am not an expert and predictions are difficult, especially about the future. However, I will share some links, one by Nate Hagens youtube channel Net Zero and Other Delusions: What Can't, Won't and Might Happen and from Fourth Energy Transition, About and The Energy Seneca.
-
Eclectic at 08:29 AM on 7 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Dick van der Wateren @ 273 / 274 :-
Your third reference (the Nature paper) leads off by saying: "The Antarctic landscape is one of the most stable environments on Earth ... [for] approximately 14 million years"
Which is what you would rather expect, seeing that the Antarctic ice-sheet is simply a super-colossal block of ice. The 14 million year period is not an intuitive matter ~ but the task of finding a slight variation of temperature (probably less than 1 degree) occurring at some stage during recent millennia . . . would be a daunting and ultimately pointless task.
I ran into a "blockage" seeking your earlier references, and will therefore fall back on my old memories of a study of coastal temperatures on a portion of (eastern) South America. That study was (IIRC) rather unimpressive in validity ~ especially since it covered only a tiny part of the planet. Can you supply a detailed discussion of those earlier papers you mentioned?
-
Eclectic at 08:03 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Tder2012 @2 :-
You ask: "When can we expect for BESS [battery storage] to make a meaningful contribution, for example, at least 1% of global electricity consumption?"
It won't happen by next year [2026]. Probably it will take decades ~ since it will require a much greater level of advance in battery technology & production economics.
Asking when it will happen, is a bit like asking the Wright Brothers when their amazing new-fangled flying machine would result in 1% of the world's population using aviation for routine transport.
But what are your own assessments of future developments?
-
tder2012 at 02:29 AM on 7 May 2025Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
I've heard flywheels, synchronous condensers and grid forming inverters could be solutions, but I don't know how much we would need, how much they would cost, etc. for the critical service on the grid of synchronous inertia, see this post. Do you know the quantities and costs? This professional power engineer recommends to not exceed 30% of wind, solar and batteries for electricity generation on a grid https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cristian-paduraru-p-e-3434b23a_impact-of-ibrs-over-cct-study-by-gridx-activity-7324915294445936640-lx_r
Electricity grids must operate reliably 24x7x365 for modern societies to function. Electricity generators need to provide ancillary services such as black starts and synchronous inertia. Wind and solar are not capable of doing these on their own. BESS can do fast frequency response, but cannot assist with synchronous inertia. In 2021, Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported they expect BESS to provide 1 terawatt-hour of electricity generation globally by the year 2030 at a cost of $262 billion over this nine year period. The Volta Foundation reported that in 2024, BESS generated 0.363 terawatt-hours globally. In 2024, 30,000 terawatt-hours were consumed globally.BESS contributed 0.00121% of global electricity consumption in 2024. When can we expect for BESS to make a meaningful contribution, for example, at least 1% of global electricity consumption?
Moderator Response:[PS] Links activated. Please learn how to do this yourself using the link tool in the comment editor. Our software does not automatically create links.
-
Dick van der Wateren at 21:29 PM on 6 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Another paper by some of the same authors shows evidence of MCA warming in Antarctica. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018219303190.
A more problematice paper stating evidence of Antarctic medieval warming appeared in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02259-4. It has already been picked up by denialists.
So, where does that leave us? Are there any good recent reports of the global temperature distribution during the MWP?
Moderator Response:[PS] Links activated. Please learn how to do this yourself using the link tool in the comment editor. Our software does not automatically create links.
-
GwsB at 21:00 PM on 6 May 2025Visualizing daily global temperature - part 2
The top picture showing the increase in the daily temperatures over the days of the year from 1940 up to 2025 is formidable. Spring and autumn have become part of summer, and now winter seems on the point of being squeezed out. The impact of this illustration may be due to one's intuitive feeling that temperature is essentially a day to day experience. Here we are presented with a direct link to this experience, and how it has changed over the past 85 years.
Second thoughts: In the tropics one cannot speak of summer and winter. On the equator the sun will cast no shadow on the 21st of March and of September. So when is winter, when summer?
-
Dick van der Wateren at 20:53 PM on 6 May 2025Medieval Warm Period was warmer
There appears to be evidence of higher temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America. See Lüning et al. (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618218308322 Would this disprove the view of this SkS piece that the Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon?
Moderator Response:[PS] Links activated. Please learn how to do this yourself using the link tool in the comment editor. Our software does not automatically create links.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:33 AM on 6 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
There is another economic consideration regarding the pros and cons of the transition from unsustainable harmful fossil fuel energy systems to more renewable, more sustainable, systems. Note that to be sustainable the renewable systems need to be understandably less harmful than the system they are replacing.
The ‘costs’ should not govern the decision making. The costs of the diversity of ways to achieve the transition would matter when choosing the corrective actions. But the transition has to happen to limit the costs of the harm done. The transition does not have to be ‘more profitable or less expensive’. Doing things less harmfully and more sustainably are likely to be more expensive or harder work than developed less sustainable activities.
It is important to understand that, depending on the perspective of interest:
- the transition will be costly compared to not transitioning or transitioning slower (a narrow short-term view of parts of the system)
- and slower transitioning will be costly compared to more rapid transition (a holistic view of the future of the total system).
Another way of saying this is that a system that is already in motion may need correction to develop more sustainable, improved, conditions. Learning about harms being done and risks of harm is the only way to develop helpful corrections. But making corrections in ways that minimize disruptions to the developed system may be so slow that significant harmful results will be produced before the system is significantly corrected to be more sustainable.
An example of this understanding would be a large ship that requires a course correction to avoid an increasingly harmful situation. By the time the harmful situation the ship is headed towards is well understood the required course correction may cause some things on the ship to move around and potentially be damaged (costs of the correction). Delaying the course correction, because of a desire to avoid disruptive costs, will likely develop the need for more disruptive, more costly, course correction. And too much delay in the course correction, or a correction that is too gradual, can result in serious damage to the total system.
The desire to limit harm to elements in an operating system can delay correction to the point of creating a situation where even the most disruptive possible correction will not avoid damage to the overall system.
Trying to protect elements of the developed system can result in a failure to avoid future harmful circumstance that damage the overall system.
Elements within the system will have had their ‘disruptions’ limited ... to the detriment of all parts of the system.
Very harmful leadership action would be ‘protecting developed undeniably harmful interests’ by undoing corrective harm reduction and avoidance actions.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:24 AM on 5 May 2025Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2025
This week I read a few news items that were related to the problem presented in this week’s introduction regarding Silencing Science Tracker. Only one of them, White House dismisses authors of major climate report, from NPR, by Rebecca Hersher, Apr 29, 2025, was directly related to climate science (I submitted it to SkS and it is shared in 2025 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18). The others are not about climate science, nor are they regarding ‘Research Reporting’. But I think they supplement the point about the escalation of efforts in the US by the Trump Republicans to silence science.
Scientists reel as turmoil roils National Science Foundation – NPR includes the following:
Eliminating so much of this agency's budget would be "a crisis, just a catastrophe for U.S. science," says Sudip Parikh, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the largest scientific societies in the world.
He's optimistic that Congress wouldn't go along with it, but the budgetary process would likely take months.
Meanwhile, the uncertainty would leave scientists fretting over how to support their labs and the students and early-career researchers who work there.
"That's created this paralysis that I think is hurting us already," says Parikh, who says that when he talks to scientists, he's starting to hear them express an interest in having an "exit plan from these jobs."
Medical journals hit with threatening letters from Justice Department – NPR includes the following quote:
"It's pretty unprecedented," says J.T. Morris, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group. He says the First Amendment protects medical journals.
"Who knows? We've seen this administration take all sorts of action that doesn't have a legal basis and it hasn't stopped them," Morris says. And so there's always a concern that the federal government and its officials like Ed Martin will step outside and abuse their authority and try to use the legal process and abuse the court system into compelling scientific journals and medical professionals and anybody else they disagree with into silence."
Trump says he's ending federal funding for NPR and PBS. They say he can't – NPR includes the following:
President Trump issued an executive order late Thursday directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board of directors to "cease federal funding for NPR and PBS," the nation's primary public broadcasters, claiming ideological bias.
"Neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens," the order says. "The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding."
It is not clear that the president has the authority to make such orders to CPB under the law.
PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger called it a "blatantly unlawful Executive Order, issued in the middle of the night."
A common theme is the Trump Republican claims of bias (against them). It is becoming increasingly certain that ‘learning’ is biased against the interests of the Trump Republican misleading marketing machinery.
The Trump Republicans are attempting to restrict ‘research and reporting funding’, especially if it contradicts ‘their interests’. That will not produce lasting improvements. Increased awareness and improved understanding is not achieved by ‘restricting the pursuit of learning’. Lasting improvements are actually achieved by people being ‘more woke’.
Some people undeniably try to keep other people from learning. People who are less aware and misunderstand things are the basis for the popularity of unjustified beliefs supporting and excusing undeserved perceptions of superiority. Less awareness and more misunderstanding is ‘never a good thing for any group’, regardless of how beneficial it can be for people who are perceived to be the ‘winners – leaders’.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:17 AM on 5 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
One follow-up to my comment #12, talking about costs. Economic theory includes the concept of opportunity cost. This is a hidden cost, that will not show up on the accounting statements. To quote the Wikipedia link I gave,
The opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone where, given limited resources, a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives.
The "cost" need not be financial, but it is easiest to illustrate using a financial example. If I decide to invest $1000 in a GIC that returns 2% for a year, simple accounting says "great! I'm up $200 by the end of the year!" But if I also had an opportunity to put $1000 into a bond that returned 4%, that investment would have returned $400 at the end of the year. Making the choice to buy the GIC has cost me $200.
The choice between capital costs and labour costs, discussed in several comments here, is an obvious example where "opportunity cost" is relevant. Eclectic's comment 9 and nigelj's comment 10 touch on more intangible costs at a society level. From a society viewpoint, there are "opportunity costs" involved in choices to follow one path or another (e.g., renewables vs. fossil fuels).
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:58 PM on 4 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
Eric @ 14:
Any offshore project involves different, and often more difficult, conditions and operation.
One major Canadian oil field is the offshore Hibernia field, east of Newfoundland. Considerable difficulties from the beginning, including exploration, drilling, and production. During drilling, a semi-submersible rig named the Ocean Ranger was lost during a storm in 1982, with 84 lives lost. The oil field came into production in 1997. The Hibernia production platforms are serviced by helicopters. Mechanical failure on one flight in 2007 resulted in the loss of 17 lives.
Even the "benign" offshore environment of the Gulf of Mexico has its issues. They have figured out how to deal with hurricanes, but the Deepwater Horizon oil spill demonstrated the difficulties of dealing with problems in an offshore environment.
You don't even have to go offshore to get more difficult working environments. I spent several years working in the area of permafrost and pipeline design in the north. The Trans-Alaska oil pipline was a much more difficult planning, construction, and operating task than pipelines in more hospitable environments. For natural gas, there have been a couple of proposals for pipelines to bring the Beaufort Sea gas reserves to the south: the Alaska Highway route, and the Mackenzie Valley route. Neither has been constructed, in large part because of the expense and technical difficulties. (I worked on both of these. I don't think that explains why they failed, though.)
To try to get back to the OP, which deals with job creation in a very general sense, it is clear that different projects, in different working environments, will have different work skills and requirements at all stages of exploration, planning, design, construction, and operation. Just counting "jobs" is a very simplified view of things. The devil is in the details. Once more, the myth that is being rebutted is the "wind and solar destroy far more jobs than they ever create" argument. The OP does that.
One can then argue about the quality of jobs, etc. But positions taken in that argument will probably depend on whose ox gets gored.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 09:42 AM on 4 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
Bob, thanks for your reply in #11. I agree automation can boil down to increasing capital expenditures to reduce labor costs. Automation might be coming down in cost but certainly not cheap yet.
I also agree with your point about installation versus O&M. Some renewables have very low O&M cost since the fuel is free and the equipment (e.g. photovoltaic) has no mechanical wear. But I believe any time we do things offshore, the O&M costs such as wear and tear will increase along with labor costs.
-
Patricio Martinez B. at 02:11 AM on 4 May 2025John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
[Snip]
Dentro del contexto de la evolución de la Tierra, como parte del fenómeno natural que representa su cambio, muchos efectos son propios de ella y de ese cambio que acompasa la naturalidad de los hechos propios de la madre tierra.
El cambio climático que se cita en este artículo es parte de ese proceso evolutivo, efecto sobre el cual los seres humanos no podemos tomar control, al igual que intentar predecir un temblor o terremoto. Que la falta de sensatez humana en alguna medida ha sido cómplice de acelerar el fenómeno es quizá una hipótesis sujeta a evaluación. Y aún siendo así, seguimos necios fomentando guerras o conflictos de diversa naturaleza que restringe la capacidad de buscar alternativas para detener este proceso.
¿Por qué no detenemos esto? La respuesta es sencilla, grandes corporaciones militares, grupos de poder empecinados en destruir a poblaciones enteras, NO PUEDEN PERDER EL PRIVILEGIO QUE ECONOMICAMENTE TODO ESTO LES GENERA.
Deben seguir manteniendo la CULTURA DEL MIEDO lo que somete al ser humano y lo convierte en títere de sus mezquinos intereses. Cualquier país que de una respuesta diferente a la que ellos dictan se considera negacionista, tal cual el Dr. Clauser. Aún cuando sus investigaciones, por algo es premio nobel de física, podrían demostrar que este tiene razón, deben ser censuradas, evitar que sean públicas y en algún modo desprestigiarlo para que esto no transcurra.
Quienes defienden el cambio climático reciben una remuneración elevada que no puede ser alterada por la VERDAD y debe mantenerse la MENTIRA de sus afirmaciones, sus privilegios no son sujetos de atentado. No importa lo que debe hacerse, quien tenga que sufrir las consecuencias, que países deban extinguirse, han generado una cultura, como lo mencioné, sujeta a la voluntad de personas que tienen la mayor cantidad de riqueza almacenada en sus alforjas.
Un mundo apagado, que pierde el dinamismo de la vida, que cree sin fundamento lo que se le diga, esclavizado a las tecnologías de las masas, producto de una Ingeniería Social colectiva, es un mundo que no aportará al futuro y es donde ha ganado la soberbia, el orgullo y la falta de dignidad de grupos de poder hegemónico cuya agenda 2030 y sus ODS están en marcha y van "muy bien".
Moderator Response:[BL] As your first, post, you have managed to break several rules in the Comments Policy. Your comment is a political rant, including accusations of deception and inflammatory tone. And it has little (if anything) to do with the subject of the post - John Clauser's misundestandings of climate science.
All this assuming that Google Translate has given a reasonable translation of your post.
Please read the Comments Policy before commenting again.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:57 AM on 4 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
Eclectic @ 9:
You mention "overall cost". The phrase that comes to mind is "that person knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing". The economic system that looks solely at the $ involved, misses out on the value of what is "good" for the community. The environment often gets the short straw on this.
This is particularly true when a small portion of the economy (e.g., energy production) finds a way to avoid the costs of something internally (i.e., "we don't have to pay for it"), but the costs still exist externally (increasing weaher disasters, polluted water, etc.). Externalities are a well-known part of economic theory. Privatized profit, and socialized costs.
A trivial example of the weakness of economic accounting involves two people that car-pool to work. Person A drives one week, and person B drives the other week.
- Initially, no money changes hands.
- They decide it makes sense to pay each other for the times the other person drives. At the end of the year, Person A has paid person B for 26 weeks of driving. And Person B has paid person A for 26 weeks of driving. (Neither take vacation.)
- Being good citizens, they report this income on their taxes, and deduct the costs they paid to the other person as expenses. It balances out, so neither pays additional tax.
- ...but now the GDP accounting system has "new" economic activity - 52 weeks of someone being paid to drive someone else to work. GDP has risen. The economy is growing!
- ...but the new Grand Economy has not produced any additional value that wasn't already there when the two people just car-pooled without exchanging $.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:28 AM on 4 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
David-acct @ 8:
You say "Under every economic theory, labor is a cost...". I'd disagree with nigelj @ 10 and say that you are only half-right. As I pointed out in comment 2 (which nigelj mentions in #10), every financial or economic transaction has two sides. One will consider labour to be a cost, and the other will consider that transaction to be a financial gain. To the worker, their labour is a product that they are selling, not buying.
I challenge you to point to the post and wording that you have characterized as a "...claim that Jobs / labor is not a cost..." or ..."to justify increased labor as a reduction in costs...".
With your extensive accounting background, I am sure that you are familiar with Double-entry bookkeeping. To those that are not familiar with it, the Wikipedia entry I link to says this:
The double-entry system has two equal and corresponding sides, known as debit and credit; this is based on the fundamental accounting principle that for every debit, there must be an equal and opposite credit. A transaction in double-entry bookkeeping always affects at least two accounts, always includes at least one debit and one credit, and always has total debits and total credits that are equal.
This double-entry principle can be applied on the level of a single corporate (or home budget) level, but it applies even more when you look at basic economics and the economy as a whole. For every employer, there will be one or more employees. For every purchaser of a good or service, where the transaction is a cost, there will be a seller, where the same transaction is income.
You (David-acct) also state "...labor is a cost , just the same as capital is a cost." And then you completely ignore capital costs when you state "...higher labor costs and/or higher number of jobs per units of production are classic signs of less economic efficiency, not greater efficiency." This is wrong. Higher labour costs would be associated with less labour efficiency". Just as higher capital costs would be associated with less capital efficiency. Economic efficiency requires looking at both labour and capital costs.
Please don't counter what you call "superficial understanding" with your own superficial explanation.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:39 AM on 4 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
Eric @ 7:
Your clarification makes sense, although I would argue that automation and capital costs go hand in hand. Any system that provides tools and equipment that reduce labour input will have costs associated with that equipment. That applies at the simple level - replacing a hand drill or screwdriver with a powered one - or at a more complex level - replacing several factory workers with a robotic assembly line. "Automation" is a rather loose term (and IG used the term in his post from 2021, which he alluded to in his first post here.)
When it comes to "job creation", you correctly allude to (without explicitly stating it) the duality of jobs constructing or installing the system vs. jobs required to keep it running. Labour in building a nuclear plant or wind turbines, or installing solar panels on a roof, will be considered "capital costs". Keeping it running will fall under "operations and maintenance".
Large up-front capital costs are typically amortized over a period of time. Most easily illustrated if you had to take out a loan to get the money, and pay it off over a number of years. But even if you have all the money on hand at the start, accounting rules (either what your accountant suggests, or what the tax system allows) will dictate that the cost be spread out over time. This will often be related to how quickly that asset depreciates (e.g., the electric drill wears out, or the nuclear power plant ceases to work without a major rebuild).
If most of the "created jobs" are "temporary" jobs related to manufacturing or construction, then you need to keep making more in order to provide long-term employment. One prominent local politician once promised to create 800,000 jobs in his job-creation plans. It turns out that he was counting 100,000 "new" jobs that would last for 8 years as "800,000 jobs". Or maybe he was thinking those 100,000 jobs created in year one only lasted one year, and he'd create 100,000 more new jobs last would last one year in year two, etc. If so, taking credit for creating 800,000 jobs over 8 years while ignoring the 700,000 people that lost their jobs after one year seems a little rich. Details matter.
-
nigelj at 07:25 AM on 3 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
David-acct
"A) Under every economic theory, labor is a cost , just the same as capital is a cost. "
Correct. Good to be reminded of basic accounting, not my area of expertise that's for sure.
"Attempts to claim that Jobs / labor is not a cost is simply inane."
Nobody here has claimed that jobs are not a cost. BL said "Jobs are not a "cost" to the people that do the work. It is a source of income, which allows them to purchase goods and services. Like food, housing, clothing, etc." Emphasis mine.
"While the op is whether more jobs are gained than lost, the more important question is whether total costs are increased or decreased. "
Total costs of wind and solar power seem to be decreased compared to coal fired power. Wind power and solar power appear to now be cheaper than coal power using the Lazard Energy Analysis. Total costs using such analysis are a function of capital +labour + running costs. Although renewables have higher labour costs than coal and possibly higher capital costs they have a big advantage in low running costs that gives them an edge.
But such an analysis is narrow. There are the other costs to consider such as health and stability of society that Eclectic mentions Eclectic is right that renewables job creation while reducing efficiency in certain cases by requiring more labour than the alternatives, can add other benefits. The health costs of renewables are considerably lower than with burning coal with its nasty particulate emissions. Studies attest to this. Then there are the environmental costs of renewables are considerably lower overall than coal because it reduces the global warming problem. Add all this into the equation and total costs of renewables are considerably less than costs of burning coal. I know there are other minor factors and renewables do have some downsides but renewables look very cost effective in the wider sense of the term.
-
Eclectic at 22:59 PM on 2 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
David-acct @8 :
You are in a narrow sense perfectly correct, in stating that :-
"... higher labor costs and/or higher number of jobs per units of production are classic signs of less economic efficiency, not greater efficiency.
While the op is whether more jobs are gained than lost, the more important question is whether total costs are increased or decreased." [unquote]
Nevertheless, you make a circular argument.
The weasel word is cost. Cost in dollars is one thing, and yet overall cost is another. More importantly, overall cost (long term cost) is best measured by the health & stability of society ~ the Common Good (as per Adam Smith).
While I would not advocate for a return to the un-mechanized Age of Adam Smith, where (by necessity) more than half the village went out to bring in the annual harvest ~ still, the harvest work was in one sense a "good" for the village community, in fostering mutual respect & comradeship / healthy feeling of togetherness. # Despite any "economic" or dollar-cost inefficiency.
One danger nowadays, is the rapid movement towards even greater dollar-cost efficiency, through the use of Artificial Intelligence. Less cost, but more unemployment. But how to find a healthy societal balance?
( For myself, I would prefer to pay the extra dollars, to have real flesh-and-blood actors in a movie or advertisement; and real human actors reading the voice-overs in other productions of podcasts & documentaries, etc. Wouldn't you? ~Or would you prefer an AI-generated Prince Hamlet image ? )
Anecdote : the AI "readers" can be anodyne and/or irritating . . . and yet sometimes sourly amusing in their bloopers. # My recent favorite was an AI repeatedly reading the text of the religious "St. Catherine" as "Street Catherine". (It seems there is no soul or ghost in the machine ! )
-
David-acct at 11:56 AM on 2 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.
I am an accountant working in a manufacturing environment. Electric generation is one of many manufacturing processes. I also have a minor in economics.
Several points that others have touched on, yet those who have have commented have shown a superficial understanding which should be clarified, (my apologies for any appearance of negativity to other commentators.)
A) Under every economic theory, labor is a cost , just the same as capital is a cost. Attempts to claim that Jobs / labor is not a cost is simply inane. Further attempts to justify increased labor as a reduction in costs is not relevant. B) With rare exceptions and then only for short term periods, higher labor costs and/or higher number of jobs per units of production are classic signs of less economic efficiency, not greater efficiency.
While the op is whether more jobs are gained than lost, the more important question is whether total costs are increased or decreased.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 09:49 AM on 2 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
Bob, I was trying to simplify IG's point to reinforce my point which is something I have previously commented on. In a nutshell: productivity matters in energy production.
Your second example (pulling cable) is an example of productivity maximization that you figured out. Installing and connecting offshore wind is a complex endeavour that has to be timed (choreographed) to avoid men waiting for other men to do something or traveling around to different locations. Storms can completely interrupt work. Dangerous procedures cannot be rushed in any way. These are all drags on productivity.
The capital costs that you refer to are independent of automation that I now regret bringing up. My point was that offshore wind is extremely labor intensive, but that will be inevitably alleviated by automation. I agree capital costs are rather high too but we can't lower labor costs by spending more on capital.
You can argue that extra employment has large societal benefits in the case of solar because the upfront employment pays off over many years with very reduced labor. I don't believe that's true for offshore wind from what I read.
I'm sorry I started the argument about automation which led to the issue of even income distribution as an argument for offshore wind.
-
Ivy leafed toadflax at 07:19 AM on 2 May 2025We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
This article is missing some important information, as stated the Maunder minima occurred during the LIA, so could not be its cause, however any earlier solar minima would weaken your reasoning, the earliest for this period was the Oort minima 1040-80, this was followed by the longer Wolf minima 1280-1350 which was preceeded by the large Samalar eruption 1257, these events would surely have had a cooling effect, next was the century long Sporer minima which also coincided with the 1452 Kuwae eruption, and then we get to the Maunder mimima 1645-1715. It does seem strange that you failed to mention the earlier events, perhaps you didn't think they were important, but they are! From the start of the Wolf minima to the end of the Dalton minima there are 540 years, of which 270 are during solar minima! We know solar cycles exist, Suess, Halstatt, Bray, Eddy.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:58 PM on 1 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
Eric @ 3:
You think that IG's main point is "the fewer jobs, the better"?
- He certainly buried that lede in a lot of verbiage.
- He's wrong (as are you).
Let's take his example of a crew of workers with shovels divided into two groups - one group digging holes, the other group filling them back in. Maybe the previous week there were three groups of workers. Some efficiency expert (let's call him "Elon") decided that was too many workers, so they fired one of the three groups. That group turned out to be the group that was responsible for planting the trees in the holes before they got filled back in. No, they haven't made the process "more efficient" - they have destroyed it.
Granted, IG did word things later in his comment "...if we could get the same amount of wind power with less work...", but that completely ignores the capital costs, as I pointed out in comment 2.
Let's take another example. I recently had some electrical work done, by an independent contractor who worked alone. Yes, he could have pulled the cable by himself, by repeatedly walking back and forth between the basement and the garage, but I was able to help him. That made the job go much, much faster, even though it now meant that there were two people working on the job. More people actually reduced the labour input in total, because it eliminated the "useless" work of walking back and forth between the basement and the garage,
The point is that trivial, simplistic views of "job counts" and "labour costs" are pretty much going to steer you wrong if you are not careful. Especially when they ignore other costs (e.g. capital). Maintenance has been mentioned. Some companies (and governments) consider that to be an optional activity. Easy to cut when money is tight. We'll make things "more efficient"! Until lack of maintenance leads to equipment failures - or roads falling apart, or bridges collapsing - which ends up costing much more in the long run. Short term gain for long term pain.
You (Eric) say that "...raising other expenses has very limited applicability currently". Wind turbines and solar panels don't make themselves, and they cost money. You mention robotics. They don't make themselves. Even if they eventually do, there are still materials needed, and those will cost money - even if they, too, are mined and refined using robotics.
As OPOF points out, this blog post is a rebuttal to the "wind and solar destroy far more jobs than they create" myth. The myth makers introduced the metric. They need to live or die on that hill.
You can then start to argue about the quality of the jobs. You can then start to argue about the general economic and society impacts of different approaches. Which is better: everyone has a job with a moderate income, or 10% of the people have an extremely high-paying job and 90% have nothing? Does your answer to that depend on whether or not you are part of the 10%?
If automation is the solution, are you familiar with how automation has affected the people and communities that have lost jobs in the coal industry? You might want to read the SkS repost of "How to sell solar in coal country" from a year-and-a-half ago.
-
nigelj at 06:35 AM on 1 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
Regarding Ignorant guys and Erics comments. The fact that it would be great if nobody had to work and everything was done by robots doesn't change the fact that creating jobs is a good thing right now. Right now we have millions of guys going through the education system all on the expectation of getting a job. If they dont they will be dependent on social welfare or charity. So anything that creates jobs is a good thing, at least in the medium term until robots are prolific. And assuming the jobs add genuine value like renewable energy.
Personally I think the idea we will eliminate all work and have literally everything done by robots is a pie in the sky fantasy, because its unlikely the world has enough resources, especially the rare earth metals for example. They are not rare but they are certainly not prolific either in a way that can actually be mined. But time will tell and it looks like the economy will do its best to automate everything. Its an unstoppable ship in that regard.
Sure I agree offshore windfarms are not ideal in various respects, but they are a response to concerns about visual impacts of onshore windfarms and land use issues so there is that bigger picture to consider. I think the concerns about onshore windfarms are over stated but its a case of trying to keep everyone happy.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:37 AM on 1 May 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
Ignorant Guy,
I am not an economist. But I have training and experience that helps me understand economic matters. I am a Professional Engineer with an MBA who has decades of experience with major construction projects.
Bob Loblaw has provided a good response to your comment @1.
I would add the following:
- The ‘objective and angle’ of the post we are commenting on is “Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?” The example ‘myth to be refuted’ is the claim that “Subsidised wind and solar destroy far more jobs that they ever ‘create’” made by the misleading marketers behind ‘Stop These Things’.
- Even with Bob’s clarifications and corrections of understanding, a generic response about ‘the merit of jobs’ is not a valid response to a claim that “...wind and solar destroy far more jobs that they ever ‘create’”
-
Eric (skeptic) at 20:07 PM on 30 April 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
IG's main point is correct: the fewer jobs per amount of energy, the better. Bob's response that reductions in labor require raising other expenses has very limited applicability currently. Perhaps it will have more applicability when robotics is applied to wind power construction and maintenance. That will be especially true when robotics is self-recycling and repairing and all electric. But by then I expect wind to be 90% obsolete, only used where there's no solar with cheap (embedded or intrinsic or standalone) energy storage.
The offshore wind industry in the US (via captured government enablers) brags about jobs: www.boem.gov/boem-announces-environmental-review-proposed-VA-wind-energy-facility-offshore At a generous 45% capacity factor that's 118 million MWh / year. At $100,000 / year for each job that's $67 per MWh. With just labor (no capital expense) the energy produced costs twice as much as solar or wind on land.
Offshore wind jobs are dangerous and grueling jobs. That's why I set a conservative $100k loaded cost per year. Women need not apply apart from a handful of strong women. The fatality rate will be similar, if not higher, than fishing: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5958543/ This study found fatality rates in fishing fleets during 2010–2014 ranging from 21 to 147 deaths per 100,000 FTEs, many times higher than the rate for all US workers.
The labor productivity will be low due to many factors: remoteness of work, storm delays, coordination delays where workers will have nothing to do. The numbers given in my first link may have originated here: www2.nrel.gov/wind/offshore-workforce in which case a portion of the jobs are on land, less dangerous, more productive or co-productive.
But my point stands: offshore wind as a jobs program is ludicrous. I am fighting against offshore wind here in Virginia as much as I possibly can, since as a co-owner of Old Dominion (because of where I reside) I will pay for it.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:20 AM on 30 April 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
IG @ 1:
You got "flamed"? And you expect to get "flamed" again?
No, you didn't get "flamed". You had people disagree with you. And you did not respond to any of their criticisms. Here is the comment you made four years ago (on another wind and solar energy thread).
Jobs are not a "cost" to the people that do the work. It is a source of income, which allows them to purchase goods and services. Like food, housing, clothing, etc.
Unemployed people are not an "asset" to those that are unemployed. They represent part of society that has no source of income, and cannot purchase any of the necessities of life. Unless they have savings they can dig into because they were, at some point in the past, employed. If they do not have savings, then they become a liability to society - where society either has to pay them for not working (unemployment insurance, some other form of social security payments, etc.), or has to deal with the poverty-stricken individuals that resort to crime to feed themselves or their families.
In any economic transactions, there are two sides. Money moves from one set of hands to another set of hands. Hint: banks like "debits" and dislike "credits". "Debits" are money moving from someone else's account into the bank's account. "Credits" are money moving from the bank's account into someone else's account. The bank's customer has the opposite view: credits are to the customer's favour, and debits make the customer poorer.
Reductions in labour costs usually require investments in tools, facilities, automation, etc. In Economics, these are called "capital costs". They don't come free. Businesses need to balance long-term capital costs with labour costs. Labour costs are easy to shed when business slows down. Capital costs are often called "fixed costs", because once you've paid to build a factory or buy equipment, you don't save that money by shutting the factory down. Loans still need to be paid; investors money can't go back to the investors (unless the capital items are sold). In fact, sometimes a company will continue operate a facility that is losing money because operating it loses less money than not operating it. At least the operating facility generates some revenue - even if it is not enough to cover labour+capital costs. A closed facility generates no revenue, because it produces no product to sell.
Your strawman arguments about people having jobs digging and filling holes is a red herring. There is nothing in the OP that suggests that the jobs in renewable energy will be non-productive. The fossil fuel industry is a high-capital-cost system, with relatively low ongoing labour input. That is only "efficient" if you ignore the capital costs. Renewable energy, by comparison, is low capital costs and higher labour input. That does not automagically make it economically less efficient.
-
Ignorant Guy at 17:35 PM on 29 April 2025Sabin 33 #26 - Is wind energy good or bad for jobs?
The angle here is that wind power is good because it "creates jobs".
I have to speak up on this. I have done before and I was flamed. I will try again and I expect to be flamed again.
But let me try to explain this. It will be a bit lengthy. Please bear with me.I really like wind power. Wind power is good for a lot of reasons. But that it 'creates jobs' is not one of them.
Jobs, work, is not an asset. It's a cost.
If we could get all the goods and services we wanted without any work then the goods and services would have been free. But we can't. We pay with work to get it.
Imagine that the problem for the jobless was only that they had no work to do. Then we could solve that easily by marching all the jobbless out to a field, giving each a shovel, lining everyone up on two lines, let the first line dig a hole in the ground and take a step forward, then letting the second line fill in those holes and so on until everyone has reached the edge of the field. Then everyone turns around and starts over. This is of course totally useless. But we have 'created jobs'.
So work is a cost. If the work can produce something valuable then that value can compensate for the cost. If the product is worthless then the work is just a total loss. If the product is more valuable than the work then we have made a profit. So we should not maximize the amount of work done. We should maximize the value of goods and services produced.
A number of unemployed people is not a cost. That is an asset. Unemployed people means available work force if some need should pop up that needs work to be done.
The problem for the unemployed is not that they have no work to do. The problem they see is that they are punished for being unemployed - by getting no money. I was in that situation long ago, when I was a lot younger. I was long-time unemployed and I was punished for it and I resented that. But finally I got a job and then I was continuosly employed for 38 years. But when I did have a job, more than half of the time I was supposed to produce worthless junk. (And I did.) Some work I had to do was even not only useless but harmful. It would have been better to pay me for doing nothing. I resented that too. Now I am unemployed because I have retired and have a pension. I am very much OK with that.
So, wind power is good and it takes a certain amount of work to get it. But if we could get the same amount of wind power with less work it would be better because the wind power would be cheaper. If only half the number of new jobs was needed then the labor cost would be half. That would be good. If only a tenth the number of new jobs was needed then the labor cost would be a tenth and that would be a lot better. And if I am wrong then we might just as well get some shovels and find a field.
Now, I know that I'm just an ignorant guy, a bum with absolutely no credentials. Specifically I am not an economist. But maybe there is some economist out there who can comment. -
Evan at 20:15 PM on 28 April 2025EGU2025 - Presentation about our collaborations
The work that SkS authors do and the collaborations they maintain is so important for helping people understand the truth about what is happening to our climate, why it is happening, and what we can do about it.
Thanks SkS Team!
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:25 AM on 27 April 2025Inside my quest for a climate-friendly bank
Wild @ 2:
In Firefox, I get an error message that fits your description when I follow the link to BankForGood.
When I tried a chromium-based browser, I got and error message that the connection is not private, and the "https" part of the URL in the address bar is crossed out and highlighted in red. Below the error message, the browser screen states "net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID".
It sounds like some sort of web site misconfiguration or certificate problem.
