Issac Orr:
Over the past year “alternative facts” and “fake news” have become regrettable buzzwords used to dismiss any viewpoint that does not support one’s own preconceived notions.
But when it comes to renewable energy, there truly are numerous myths that perpetuate throughout the media and culture that are not supported by any fair reading of the available data.
Renewable-energy advocates often argue that we don’t need jobs in the fossil-fuels industry because solar and wind have become “engines for green and sustainable jobs.” As evidence, many groups have cited a report published by the U.S. Department of Energy that purportedly shows more people are working in the solar industry than in fossil-fuel power generation.
According to the report, 374,000 people are employed by the solar-generation industry, approximately 102,000 are employed by wind, and just 187,000 people are employed generating electricity from oil, coal, and natural gas. On its face, it seems as if wind and solar truly are the job creators and fossil fuels are dinosaurs awaiting extinction. That’s not the case.
It’s true the DOE report says approximately 374,000 people work in the solar-energy industry, but this number isn’t just full-time jobs. It includes part-time. Only about 260,000 spend at least half their time working in the solar industry.
Economists, to compare competing industries, typically estimate how many full-time equivalent jobs exist or are being created. Unfortunately, the study did not use this metric, and the report is missing citations for footnotes 32 and 33, which are supposed to support their claims about jobs in the solar industry.
Another interesting “alternative fact” about the jobs created by wind and solar power is that a large portion of these jobs are construction jobs, the same kinds of positions that were routinely denigrated by renewable-energy advocates during debates about the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines. In 2016, 36.7 percent of jobs in the solar industry and 37.2 percent of jobs in the wind industry were construction jobs.
All we can truly conclude from the report is solar creates part-time, temporary jobs that come at a massive expense to taxpayers and consumers.
Many renewable-energy advocates claim solar and wind are cost-competitive with fossil fuels, but the facts show otherwise. A study from the Brookings Institution found electricity generated from wind costs at least twice as much as coal or natural gas, and solar costs at least three times as much as conventional sources.
Windturbines are hazrerduois to birds and bats and their terribly noisie as well solar energy is still undependible since the sun dont shine for a full 24 hours and theres still cloudy,windy,rainy days and night time as well. Maybe we should seriously harness all the Hot Air that would make Al Gore,Leonardo DiCaprio,David Suzuki and those various eco-wacko groups very very useful for once
The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.
University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.
And the kill birds, in the millions, covered up by greenies.
http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html
Then there is all the subsidies for this pipedream http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/idahos-4-3-million-solar-road-generates-enough-power-to-run-one-microwave/
We need a sunset date on the government subsidy scam.
Some of my favorites of the Green boondoggles from this month are these two:
1:
Minnesota National Guard’s facility at Camp Ripley, Minnesota officials hailed the opening of a 60-acre swath of solar panels that will produce a pathetic amount of energy, during the daytime and assuming it isn’t cloudy.
Row upon row of 120,000 solar panels standing in precise military formation, the biggest solar installation at any National Guard base in the country.
The project cost an astonishing $25 million dollars.
The solar facility can provide electricity for only 1,700 homes, a ridiculously small number, at “full capacity.” But in Duluth, the best proxy for Camp Ripley, there are an average of 77 sunny days per year. Hey, that is better than one in five! http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/solar-power-an-environmental-disaster.php
Then this one:
2: Solar FREAKIN’ Roadways has been in development for 6.5 years and received a total of $4.3 million in funding to generate 90 cents worth of electricity in Idaho.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/idahos-4-3-million-solar-road-generates-enough-power-to-run-one-microwave/
I fail to get where the term “renewable energy” comes from. Does it mean that we generate electricity with wind today that was just created today? Gasoline is certainly ‘renewable’. If not those people that are stocking it to renew my gas tank is certainly going to be surprised when no one comes to buy gasoline. Tell me how you power a house by solar if the sun is not shining? I’m gonna guess that there have to be some batteries somewhere. Wonder if those batteries are all made of wind or solar power? Wonder how that works if the sun doesn’t shine for about 5 or 6 days? Want to know how many people would be employed in the solar and wind power business if there were no government subsidies. None, not a single one. Interesting that the writer of the story never mentions the cheapest form of energy, nuclear.
@Redteam: There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy, no place to put the waste its held on site. Fukushima is still a problem, most of the issues with those plants are hidden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States
http://www.nuclear-risks.org/en/hibakusha-worldwide/sequoyah-and-watts-bar.htm
With all the coal and NG we have not worth the risk.
The problem with nuclear waste isn’t scientific, it’s political.
@Jim S: A Terrorist blows up a coal plant and its oh Sh!t, but with a Nuclear plant and its where is this cloud going? Guess we cant live here any more, no rebuilding the plant or area.
There is a plasma technology solution for medical waste. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0324/Nuclear-waste-piles-up-and-it-s-costing-taxpayers-billions
@kitt: Tell you what sparky, how about you go to a Nuke plant and try to break in. Report back on what happens. Oh and Fukushima sea wall was smaller than the tidel wave, couple that with inept management and you have an issue. But still, the new nukes are far far far safer, next week I’m going on a tour of one, promises to be fun, actually going inside the reactor.
@Oblamo binLyen: What new nukes glow boy, do you know what it takes to build one in the states or even sell one? The billions of tax dollars needed and we still havent dealt with the waste?
Here it is 43 years to build https://qz.com/681753/the-united-states-newest-nuclear-power-plant-has-taken-43-years-to-build/
The last thing I would call the Japanese people is inept.
Enjoy your tour make sure to ask the guide where the spent rods are sent.