Little darling
It's been a long, cold, lonely winter
Little darling
It feels like years since it's been here
--The Beatles
Proponents of solar energy tout the fact that the sector has generated lots of 'good' jobs. In 2016 employment the number of solar energy workers was estimated to be 373,807, compared to 362,118 workers in natural gas and 160,119 in coal.
But just how 'good' are solar jobs? One measure of 'goodness' is productivity, in this case defined as the amount of output (in megawatt hrs of electric power) that a worker produces. In 2016 solar workers generated 36.75 million megawatt hrs of electric power. At the same time, coal workers made 1.24 billion megawatt hrs of electricity while natural gas workers produced 1.38 billion megawatts hrs.
Clearly, both coal and nat gas workers were more productive in 2016, generating output in the billions of megawatt hrs with less workers than the solar sector employed to make output in the millions.
How much more productive were coal and nat gas workers? The productivity comparison in megawatt hrs/worker is:
coal: 7744
nat gas: 3811
solar: 98
In 2016, coal workers were 77 times more productive than solar workers, while nat gas workers were 38 times more productive than their solar counterparts.
On strictly a productivity basis, it is not clear that solar jobs are in fact 'good.' Workers in coal and nat gas appear to be far more productive than solar sector workers.
Solar proponents would surely counter that current productivity comparisons don't tell the whole story. But it is difficult to see how the 'the rest of the story' can adequately bridge the productivity chasm.
Society prospers when people are engaged in high productivity work. Unless the relatively productivity of the solar sector improves significantly (and in a hurry), then economic forces will begin prying scarce resources away from solar toward more productive uses.
Friday, May 25, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Shouldn't the costs of the resources' impact be taken into account? One of my concerns is that air quality (as well as ocean, land, etc.) are not factored into the equations many economists use. Nature is said to "abhor a vacuum" and yet one could be forgiven for thinking that most economists seem to calculate in them...
One ought not to foul one's nest, if health is of any value. Appropriate costs must be applied, else we encourage the pillaging of land and resources (ala tragedy of the commons) for short term gain.
The math seems formidable, but maybe there are suitable shortcuts like amount of time for a stream to "self-clean" or air to be filtered...
Human health and ecological health are considerable bugaboos in those calculations, I would think., and I lament that I have no idea how to come up with these constituent parts, but I do think they are important.
I practice this in the micro on my property, and encourage it in others.
My two cents, fwiw.
Post a Comment