3 ms·

environmental impact should be taken into consideration, it's most probably a good move for future generation

jnordwick 9y ago
Of course, but that it takes more people is a net negative. I didn't say there aren't any positives to wind power. I think it is a balanced part of an alternative energy solution. That is takes so many people resources is a worry though.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  The human labor required to produce a MWh of electricity from utility-scale wind or solar plants is significantly less than the labor that went into producing it from older fossil plants. The growing employment numbers you see in solar/wind right now are mostly an artifact of rapid expansion. American coal plant construction employment is about zero right now and all you see is the operational labor; solar/wind are growing quickly and what you mostly see are the temporary construction jobs. See e.g. my comment here (search for "Nucla"): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13749769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13749769 A utility scale solar farm can be more than an order of magnitude more productive per employee than an old coal plant. So can a utility scale wind farm. MidAmerican's Wind VIII project has 40 permanent jobs and generated 3,622,316 MWh in 2016 (10.33 real annualized megawatts per employee). https://www.midamericanenergy.com/content/pdf/wind_facts.pdf https://www.midamericanenergy.com/content/pdf/wind_facts.pdf https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58883/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58883/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58884/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58884/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58885/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58885/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58886/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58886/ (The EIA data for Wind VIII is spread across these sub-projects.) Utility-scale wind and solar are also thriftier with labor than nuclear plants. Old coal plant: 0.87 real annualized MW/full time employee (0.57 megawatts per employee if you include the fuel mining jobs) New AP1000 reactors at Vogtle, assuming 90% capacity factor: 2.5 real MW/FTE Desert Sunlight solar farm: 9.8 real MW/FTE Wind VIII wind complex: 10.3 real MW/FTE
- firebones 9y ago
  Any infrastructure project will require more people while it is being built out, and the rate of job growth will scale with the rate of build out. That isn't a negative or a worry. If the market becomes saturated, the growth will stop and a lot of the jobs will no longer be needed.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The negative of employing more people is pretty abstract if the power costs about the same for end users.
- vkou 9y ago
  It's not if you're a politician. "Fewer jobs! More efficiency!" is a surefire way to not get elected. Your constituents have to eat.

Of course, but that it takes more people is a net negative. I didn't say there aren't any positives to wind power. I think it is a balanced part of an alternative energy solution. That is takes so many people resources is a worry though.

philipkglass 9y ago
The human labor required to produce a MWh of electricity from utility-scale wind or solar plants is significantly less than the labor that went into producing it from older fossil plants. The growing employment numbers you see in solar/wind right now are mostly an artifact of rapid expansion. American coal plant construction employment is about zero right now and all you see is the operational labor; solar/wind are growing quickly and what you mostly see are the temporary construction jobs. See e.g. my comment here (search for "Nucla"): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13749769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13749769 A utility scale solar farm can be more than an order of magnitude more productive per employee than an old coal plant. So can a utility scale wind farm. MidAmerican's Wind VIII project has 40 permanent jobs and generated 3,622,316 MWh in 2016 (10.33 real annualized megawatts per employee). https://www.midamericanenergy.com/content/pdf/wind_facts.pdf https://www.midamericanenergy.com/content/pdf/wind_facts.pdf https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58883/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58883/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58884/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58884/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58885/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58885/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58886/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58886/ (The EIA data for Wind VIII is spread across these sub-projects.) Utility-scale wind and solar are also thriftier with labor than nuclear plants. Old coal plant: 0.87 real annualized MW/full time employee (0.57 megawatts per employee if you include the fuel mining jobs) New AP1000 reactors at Vogtle, assuming 90% capacity factor: 2.5 real MW/FTE Desert Sunlight solar farm: 9.8 real MW/FTE Wind VIII wind complex: 10.3 real MW/FTE
firebones 9y ago
Any infrastructure project will require more people while it is being built out, and the rate of job growth will scale with the rate of build out. That isn't a negative or a worry. If the market becomes saturated, the growth will stop and a lot of the jobs will no longer be needed.
maxerickson 9y ago
The negative of employing more people is pretty abstract if the power costs about the same for end users.
vkou 9y ago
It's not if you're a politician. "Fewer jobs! More efficiency!" is a surefire way to not get elected. Your constituents have to eat.