4 ms·
Since you're complaining about downvotes (which I also downvoted), I'll explain why I downvoted: Your complaint doesn't make any sense by itself. You're assumi
by ryanwaggoner 10y ago
Since you're complaining about downvotes (which I also downvoted), I'll explain why I downvoted:
Your complaint doesn't make any sense by itself. You're assuming that they're doing the same or less with more people. I have no idea where you got that idea. Wind is growing rapidly, so the fact that they're employing more people is expected and a good thing. You can't complain about efficiency with only the numerator.
- x1798DE 10y agoThis is true, but it is annoying to tout the number of jobs as if it's a benefit, not a cost. It should be kilowatt-hours / human hour, or some measure of labor productivity if you want to show serviced, or some measure of actual output if you want to show the magnitude of the sector, or both. Giving raw number of "jobs" requires a lot of assumptions about the sector to make it into useful information. Not to mention, the other comments in this thread do seem to be treating jobs as if they are a benefit, not a cost.
- jnordwick 10y agoHe's just being disingenuous with that statement. He isn't hold those cheering the jobs numbers to the same standard.
- oconnore 10y agoIf you magically increased the wind industry tomorrow by a factor of 31.2 to supply the entire US electricity demand of 4369TWh, you would have to employ 3.1 million people. That's only ~4 times the size of the US employment numbers for gas/coal (and luckily this was only a thought experiment to demonstrate that you are concern trolling, real industries don't grow without massive efficiency improvements along the way).
- twoodfin 10y agoRequiring 4X the labor to produce the same amount of energy is a big deal! Even just a million more workers would translate into $50B or more in cost, or $500/year for the average household.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]