Despite Donald Trump's ridiculous statements on climate change, and his systematic pandering to the coal and oil industry, the news on the environment is not as grim as we might think.
Wind and solar power are not only cheaper than coal and oil, but now provide far more jobs than fossil fuels. i.e. Capturing the ocean winds over the north Atlantic could generate enough energy to power the entire world. Today entire cities are being powered by over 60% solar and/or wind power. Even in the red state of Texas we find, if Texas were its own country, it would be #4 in the world in wind power production. In addition, Cities across America are picking up more and more of the landfill slack. Recycling centers in almost every major city are becoming more efficient and throwing a smaller percentage of bulk waste into landfills. National leaders in this area are San Francisco, CA Columbia, MO and Seattle, WA.
President Trump may want to recapture the 1950's where oil and coal were kings, but it's not going to work. Renewable energy is now too cheap, too plentiful, and creates too many jobs to turn back the hands of time. Sorry Donald, you lose again!
🙂
@mchill saidSo let us think on this one, more jobs are cheaper but they're more expensive because there are more jobs, but more jobs are cheaper, just because. After all it's the majical world of greenie economics. You acknowledge that the industry is more labor intensive, but you refuse to see that employing more people to produce less is more expensive.
Wind and solar power are not only cheaper than coal and oil, but now provide far more jobs than fossil fuels.
This one belongs in the green freak economics hall of fame beside zahlooneys:
"Where free market should come into play is when auctioning out the right to build a solar farm to the highest bidder."
mchill logic
@wajoma said"There is no free lunch and come hell or high water, we're going to make sure there never is!"
So let us think on this one, more jobs are cheaper but they're more expensive because there are more jobs, but more jobs are cheaper, just because. After all it's the majical world of greenie economics. You acknowledge that the industry is more labor intensive, but you refuse to see that employing more people to produce less is more expensive.
This one belongs in the gr ...[text shortened]... when auctioning out the right to build a solar farm to the highest bidder."[/i]
mchill logic
Wajomalogic
06 Dec 18
@divegeester saidLess use of materials?
I would be interested in some economic insight into how something like a new type of energy production that is cheaper can still provide more jobs. If wage cost go up, then how can it be cheaper?
I am sure the math works, I just don’t see it.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@divegeester saidHow about if we worry less about Wall Street profit and corporate executive pay and bonuses? Would that help the math medicine go down?
I would be interested in some economic insight into how something like a new type of energy production that is cheaper can still provide more jobs. If wage cost go up, then how can it be cheaper?
I am sure the math works, I just don’t see it.
@wolfgang59 saidMaterials are expensive because of the difficulty of producing them.
Less use of materials?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
06 Dec 18
@wolfe63 saidI'm responding to the OP claim that newer forms of energy are more cost efficient AND create more jobs (that the previous form of energy).
How about if we worry less about Wall Street profit and corporate executive pay and bonuses? Would that help the math medicine go down?
How does that work?
@suzianne saidYou see suzi when I quote someone I quote them, directly. The one time I trimmed a couple of words from a shav quote wolfgang and some other idjit jumped on it immediately (and rightfully so) there was some remorse.
"There is no free lunch and come hell or high water, we're going to make sure there never is!"
Wajomalogic
But when you or great king rat quote someone it's inevitably your dream feelings with quotes marks around them, not once or twice but over and over.
@sonhouse saidThen you blokes need to get your stories straight, mchills contention is that there are more jobs yet it costs less. You're here with it costs less and there are fewer jobs.
Maybe cheaper because they simply need less people?
I'd say more jobs and costs more. For example the cost of manufacturing and shipping one very fragile blade would make your eyes water.
Edit: And all completely reliant on fossil fuels ;^)
07 Dec 18
@wajoma saidCosts less to the end user, fool.
Then you blokes need to get your stories straight, mchills contention is that there are more jobs yet it costs less. You're here with it costs less and there are fewer jobs.
I'd say more jobs and costs more. For example the cost of manufacturing and shipping one very fragile blade would make your eyes water.
Edit: And all completely reliant on fossil fuels ;^)
Using solar means you use less electricity from the producer which travels God know how many miles to get to you, versus solar which comes from a roof-top generator (solar panels connected to storage batteries). It is (or should be, unless energy companies get their claws into it with fees) vastly less expensive than paying for energy created by turbines at the Hoover Dam or nuclear energy coming from the Palo Verde Generating Station.
Most solar units in Arizona pay for themselves many times over, over time.
There are more jobs because someone has to build and install and service the units.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
07 Dec 18
2 edits
@suzianne saidIf the energy being consumed remains the same but the cost to those users goes down then there needs to be a HUGE reduction in cost to produce in order to maintain net profit while simultaneously increasing the numbers of people employed in the process.
Costs less to the end user, fool.
Using solar means you use less electricity from the producer which travels God know how many miles to get to you, versus solar which comes from a roof-top generator (solar panels connected to storage batteries). It is (or should be, unless energy companies get their claws into it with fees) vastly less expensive than paying for energy cr ...[text shortened]... time.
There are more jobs because someone has to build and install and service the units.
If technical efficiencies in the production and transfer of energy reduce production costs but increase employee heads and costs them I’m afraid you have a business model destined for bankruptcy. You can’t have both without a revolution in the reduction of cost to produce. The model works if #employees remaims the same or reduces, which is the traditional model in technology advancement.
Sorry it doesn’t add up.
Edit: new categories are an exception - Apple’s innovation for example, creation of a new category. But energy use is pretty much a closed category. No one consumes more energy just because it is cheaper.
07 Dec 18
@divegeester saidNot immediately.
No one consumes more energy just because it is cheaper.
But if energy costs become negligible.
Then maybe ...
Everyone will have an outside hot tub.
Super magnets will provide in-house levitation.
Escalators in your home instead of stairs.
Lighting will increasingly be part of house design and art.
Warehouses will produce fresh fruit and veg all year round with banks of UV lights.
etc.
Who knows?