My concern is that the per-worker productivity is vastly lower than what we've been used to for fossil-fuel generation.
Mind: I also think we can't get off of coal fast enough.
It'd be a fine thing if solar really did mean fewer jobs overall: having fewer people spending time and effort making intermediate products is great for the economy.
Except it does the exact opposite. The spot price of electricity in Europe and Australia has even managed to turn negative a few times thanks mostly to solar. Did coal ever do that?
The recent oil price plunge orchestrated by the Saudis was also in part recognition of this fact (as well as an attempt to punish US Shale oil producers/Iran).
Competition never drove prices up but it sure does make the dinosaurs with disrupted business models whinge very loudly in the media and lobby furiously.
P.S. Did you know that solar kills birds? Also there are unconfirmed reports that wind turbines cause health problems.
And the health concerns of wind farms seem to be more to do with being visited by people who tell you that they will make you ill, rather than just proximity. - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/15/windfarm-...
It's easy to make negative priced electricity with coal, simply shove a tonne of coal in the burner and then try to find someone to take the load before your generators / boilers blow up.
I'm not saying coal is the future, merely that arguments about negatively priced electricity are stupid, which is why companies try to focus on baseload generation because that's where most of the generating capacity needs to be.
High-intensity manufacturing processes, banked chilling or thermal storage, pumped and other forms of direct electrical storage, and electricity-to-fuel synthesis are all examples of dispatchable loads which can opportunistically take advantage of excess generating capacity.
It is a different paradigm.
In BC, 85% of our generating capacity already does both. We can match generation to load, or continue to store the kinetic energy, as long as it snows in the mountains we'll have big batteries for on demand generation or storage of electricity.
We also have some of the cheapest rates in the world.
Energy intensive industries were only built that way because it matches the output profile of electric grids pre-renewables. You usually had a coal or nuclear power station that delivered the same amount of electricity 24/7.
Energy intensive industries are already (in Germany at least) adapting to match their demand with the electricity spot price. There's nothing inherently that difficult about an aluminum smelter matching its highest production rates to when electricity is cheapest.
The aluminum industry has some weird physical constraints.
Alcoa has put out some engineering-heavy white papers on what actually happens and how the price and availability of power works in that industry. I can't find them at present but they were revelatory to me.
In brief, you can't just arbitrarily turn up or down your aluminum operation. At some point the giant molten pots of aluminum freeze up and destroy your capital equipment.
This is simply a new market reality that electricity consumers have not quite adapted to yet.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-27/molten-aluminum-lak...
... but it didn't take them long to respond.
(Efficient) markets take care of this kind of thing. They're really good at it. It's stupid to keep pretending that they don't.
The only reason why it works in Germany and not, say, in the US is because the corporations that run the grid in the US are also producers and they are more interested in milking their monopoly than actually improving their networks.
Similar to how Comcast refuses to upgrade their networks.
Also, very little oil is used to generate electricity. This Wikipedia article claims 5.5% of global electricity generation is from oil.[1]
Something I don't understand is why more coal and oil businesses aren't investing more in solar and wind. Perhaps they are and I'm not aware of it. Or perhaps they have a view of the market we're not privy to. BP used to manufacture solar panels, but they've wound down that operation.[2]
I'm generation source agnostic. I've read things that have made me doubt the long term viability of both solar PV and solar thermal.[3] I'm not at convinced burning coal is a good idea. Nuclear has it's problems, yet it does seem if Greenpeace got out of the way in Australia 40 years ago we could have nuclear like, say, France, and be producing one tenth the electricity related carbon emissions we do now in this country. I recently moved to Tasmania where electricity is 76%-ish hydro, but could have been higher if the Wilderness Society hadn't got in the way of the proposed Franklin River damn and hydro project, thereby halting indefinitely any new hydro electricity projects in this country. It strikes me as odd that the two strongest environmental NGOs in this country are now in a position where we can look back and, from a certain perspective, think 'Gee, that didn't really work out as intended did it.' So, ya know, I'm just confused about the whole mess. I'm fairly convinced, though, that if I keep clicking 'Like' the problem will eventually go away ;)
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#List_of_...
2. http://www.bp.com/en/global/alternative-energy/our-businesse...
3. The first few TCASE (Thinking Critically About Sustainable Energy) blog posts here http://bravenewclimate.com/?s=tcase
Edit: punctuation. NB.
NB: Errors and omissions expected. I don't necessarily agree with anything I say or write.
Nope, but it's a strong sign that they will do one day in the not too distant future when we have more intelligent grids (and more intelligent electricity consumption systems).
We are already starting to see this (e.g. the other day I saw a story about an aluminum smelter matching their production to the electricity spot price in Germany).
There are countries with power grids run by monopolistic assholes, often with strong financial interests in coal/gas/oil. Like America. The uptake of renewables in those countries will be much, much slower and they will pay more for electricity in the long run because they will keep the grids configured to operate poorly with renewables.
>Also, very little oil is used to generate electricity.
Yup, because it's damned expensive. This is why electric cars often end up being cheaper in the long run despite having higher purchasing prices.
This is also why solar panels are incredibly popular in Hawaii: their power stations do run on (expensive) oil.
>Something I don't understand is why more coal and oil businesses aren't investing more in solar and wind.
Typewriter companies didn't invest in computers. Kodak decided not to pursue digital cameras. This is the norm.
Large corporations are resistant to change at the best of times. They are ultra-resistant to change when the change will cannibalize an existing, profitable line of business.
I'm in favor of raising prices of energy in general. It's not as if Germany seems to be suffering economically relative to the rest of Europe.
It would be heartless to just write these people off, but it is also unfair to future generations (and even our future selves) to continue mining and combusting coal as though we aren't aware of the consequences. Perhaps a solution would be to offer employment with the renewable energy industry to coal miners, and to give those who are unable to accept a livable wage constituting a significant portion (if not all) of their coal-era wages. This might require that assistance be provided in relocating, training, etc. Probably not cheap, but this could transition us off coal while treating the miners humanely.
Ultimately we have to get off coal. Denial of this fact tends to stem from one of two viewpoints:
1) Apathy, or the sense that this is a problem for a future generation. 2) The belief that the economy of energy will regulate itself correctly, and usage of coal will decline naturally as renewable energy becomes more economically attractive due to continued technological refinement.
The problem with number 1 is that the stakes are too high. Our health, our livelihood, our economy and our provision of food and water all depend on cheap, abundant energy; it is woven into the fabric of our lives. Even a modest reduction in energy availability due to supply constraints would be devastating. The problem with number 2 is that coal, as a natural resource, is subject to the tragedy of the commons[0]. The true cost of coal is far higher than what is accounted for in a simple economic model, and humans have shown themselves to be remarkably bad at estimating this accurately.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/CURRENT/naics4_212100.htm
My read is that there are about 40,000 people "in the mines" and another 40,000 with skills that are already workable in other industries (this looks true for many of the people in the mines too).
40,000 is a lot of people (and their families make the number bigger), but it doesn't seem like a big enough number to be dominating national policy.
Maybe the BLS data isn't comprehensive?
I strongly suspect it's not the employees / workers which are directly presenting a political force so much as that they're being presented as pawns in the political battle. It's mine operators and coal-powered industry who's behind the political maneuvering. Possibly their bankers too who're about to be stuck with a bunch of worthless paper based on noneconomic or stranded assets.
Wet-field geothermal, with live steam, is a proven and viable technology, with decades of proven use. It's still got pretty limited overall potential, though it could reach 10-20% of electricity generation needs at present rates in the US, Japan, the Philippines, New Zealand, and possibly elsewhere. In Kenya, it could provide a large portion (possibly multiples) of present generating capacity.
Yes, the people presently employed in such occupations need to be taken care of. But those jobs should have gone long ago.