DC: In this booming economy, Americans looking for work in a variety of industries have seen prospects improve and wages increase. To some pundits and lawmakers, however, certain sectors are far more important than others and should be bolstered even at the cost of other jobs. In response to research that find multiple jobs lost for every “green” job created, studies claiming economic benefits from renewable subsidies receive quite a bit of media attention. In light of competing claims, what are consumers and taxpayers to make of the government-supported renewables sector? The Solar Foundation’s 2017 Solar Jobs Census Report provides a useful benchmark for assessing the state of the industry, and keeping everybody informed about the results of government spending. After combing through data collected by 2,389 energy establishments, the foundation concludes that the number of solar-supported jobs contracted by 3.8 percent between 2016 and 2017.
After an increase in solar jobs by more than 20 percent between 2015 and 2016, a decline may seem surprising. Considering the policy climate, however, the turnaround makes perfect sense. Faced with the prospect of a lapse in a key federal renewable tax credit, companies and installers when on a project binge in 2015. This artificial boom meant that solar projects that would have been spread out over the next few years were moved up to 2015. This frenzy meant that, even after the tax credit was in fact renewed in December of that year, activity in the solar sector receded quite a bit. And, as renewable tax subsidies are slowly phased out through 2021, activity will likely slow down further. This extension also guarantees renewed market instability in a few years’ time, as the debate over whether or not to further extend the credit are renewed. Even if private investment can partially fill the gap left by the phase-out, skills mismatches are bound to hold back the solar industry. more
Solar already did it’s job thousands of years ago. It turned dead plants and animals into fossil fuels.
We’re just wanking. Wind, solar, geothermal etc. We need fusion. We need a WWII scale project along the lines of the Manhattan Project. Pull in the best physicists, controls and systems people, and put the effort into this it deserves.
Seems like the projections say we are thirty years from making fusion work. And the projections have been saying that for thirty years.
Time to defecate or evacuate.
From PHenry: ” It turned dead plants and animals into fossil fuels.”
I’m not so sure about that. Pretty sure there were never swamps, jungles or forests on Jupiter’s moons. But today we know some of them have oceans of liquid methane. It’d be gas, it’s just too cold for that.
Yes, fusion! Thorium reactors would be good, too. And drill, baby, drill!
It is good we will no longer waste taxes on subsidized solar and wind which will never make economic sense. If they’d made economic sense, Obama would not have had to subsidize them. …sigh. …Lady in Red
Back when I was an uneducated kollege kid, I volunteered for Sun Day. National movement to promote solar power. 1978. May 3 1978, as I recall.
I was the left coast national coordinator
No salary. No knowledge. Pipe dreams validated official office space.
Why not? If solar power was viable, then why not use it?
It was a K Street operation that was going swimmingly until the paid staff stopped getting paid. They split the next day. Mercenaries.
The event happened without them. But it revealed
to me the nature of political activism. 40 years ago
They’re in it for the dough. That’s it.
Material science will save this industry if it can be saved.
But Lazlo votes fusion as well.
Develop better larger dc powerd equipment and take it directly off the panels anda battery bank.
But there is no money in that.
A friend recently posted, upset that EPA was turning away from solar. “It employs more than any other energy sector,” he said – as if the number employed was more important than the incredibly high cost relative to the alternative sources.
solar & wind generated energy are two of the biggest scams since … uh … since ….
Global CoolingGlobal WarmingClimate Changesolar panels, are themselves, scams … they don’t store energy & cost the power companies that, by law, have to compensate for the unreliable power fluctuations (which necessarily pass the cost on to rate-payers), they deteriorate at a much faster rate than energy produced, they slaughter birds at a greater level than windmills & are manufactured in China
… on the upside they make the Oligarchy tons of $$$ & make the libtards feel good about their guilt of raping their Mother Gaia
@Lowell April 7, 2018 at 6:13 pm
> We need a WWII scale project along the lines of the Manhattan Project. Pull in the best physicists, controls and systems people, and put the effort into this it deserves.
And what’s the monetization plan? Who should expect to get Soros, or at least Gates, level rich? If you believe in any relationship between supply and demand, then how do you keep charging rent for a “problem” that’s solved?
This old game was played in the 70’s
when that idiot Carter gave the
Saudi’s/OPEC a wink to stop selling
oil to the US.
The tech is a little better now
but for individual residential
customers solar/electric power
is just as equivalently expensive
as it was back then.
If it was any good there would
be solar panels on every home.
Money talks, BS walks.
Reb – My company receives “200 MW” of wind generation. Knowing the supplied generation is unstable, we’ve also installed a 1 MW battery bank having the price tag of approximately $1 million not including labor and items. The battery installation was a joint effort too (proof it can work reliably) so who knows how much additional cost the vendor ate to get their name out there.
I ran calculations for the supplied wind generation and on average it’s only about 60 MW (Sometimes it swings up to 200, sometimes it’s zero) but my company can call it 200 MW of renewables in our “portfolio.” During the course of a month it’s not too uncommon to go three days where that wind generating station is producing nothing.
How much storage would be needed to maintain 3 days of 60 MW during the times wind is zero? Obviously 60 x 3 x 24 = 4,320 MW of storage. At 1 million per MW, that’s 4.3 billion dollars… for three days of a measly 60 megs…
And that doesn’t even take into account that those batteries would require 4.3 GW to charge from the wind generation itself when the wind was producing.
I don’t see batteries taking off unless the government takes tax money to do it since it’s ridiculously expensive. I know Australia is doing just that but I haven’t read a lot about their adventure.
My apologies for posting on this subject again but just within the last couple weeks we were informed of a company putting 100 MW of solar into service (Of course it probably averages about 25 MW if I had to guess). I don’t recall the price tag but I do recall the shocking item to me – the installation takes up 800 acres.
” I don’t recall the price tag but I do recall the shocking item to me – the installation takes up 800 acres.”
Wow. That’s a lot of real estate for such little efficiency.
Fusion in the UK; https://www.sciencealert.com/the-uk-has-just-switch-on-its-tokamak-nuclear-fusion-reactor
This is the farm I referred to above. Not the exact news item we passed around at work but it’s this facility. 800 acres. Heck yes that’s a lot of real estate.
http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/local_business/article_a72976be-2c70-11e8-9573-032eaf0fb1a4.html