4 ms·

When people stop bragging about how many more jobs green energy creates than fossil fuels, I'll start believing that renewables are cheaper at scale. These bra

When people stop bragging about how many more jobs green energy creates than fossil fuels, I'll start believing that renewables are cheaper at scale. These braggarts haven't calculated the labor intensity per MWh (construction + operation) over the full life cycle of utility scale wind and solar facilities. Utility scale renewables are less labor-intensive than coal or nuclear over the full life cycle. The only reason that renewable boosters can tout jobs vs. coal right now is because coal is shrinking and renewables are still growing robustly. I suspect that natural gas burned in a combined cycle plant may be more labor-thrifty than anything else, but 1) it's not a low-carbon electricity source like nuclear or renewables and 2) it has been harder for me to calculate how much labor is required for fuel extraction; the calculation is easier with coal since quite a few coal burning plants have dedicated mines. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13218366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13218366 for a labor-intensity comparison of legacy coal and utility scale PV that I worked out previously. In fairness, I have seen advocates for coal and nuclear brag about the bountiful wages distributed (costs incurred for electrical ratepayers) by their preferred generating technologies, too.

arduanika 8y ago
> Utility scale renewables are less labor-intensive than coal or nuclear over the full life cycle It's hard to marshal evidence for or against this claim, since as you say, the newest renewable technologies are in the earliest stages of their life cycles. It's also hard to defend or refute claims about the cost of renewables at scale, since they're currently such a small fraction of energy production. Are we looking at economies of scale / diminishing marginal costs? Or, how quickly will we exhaust the geothermal sites, the dam-able rivers, and the rare minerals that go into batteries and solar panels? Projecting the answers to these questions requires a lot careful modeling, extrapolation, and educated guesses. Given the hopes, fears, and ideologies at play, it's very easy to lie with stats here (or for proponents of any given source, to bend the truth in one direction in the conversation about creating jobs, and in the opposite direction in the conversation about cutting costs). Based on your linked post, it looks like you're digging into this rigorously & honestly, so thanks for that. > how much labor is required for fuel extraction Plus transportation. Isn't this way cheaper for nuclear, where way less fuel (in terms of mass) produces way more power? And, isn't there a good deal of extraction that goes into creating a solar panel?
- philipkglass 8y ago
  Or, how quickly will we exhaust the geothermal sites, the dam-able rivers, and the rare minerals that go into batteries and solar panels? With present technology geothermal is going to be a niche source. Hydroelectric generation is not, but most of its potential in developed countries is already tapped. When I speak of large scale renewable growth I mean utility-scale photovoltaics and wind. Neither solar panels nor batteries for stationary energy storage require rare minerals. Lithium ion batteries that maximize energy density, like those in cars and portable electronic devices, usually contain the comparatively rare element cobalt, but this is not required if lower energy density is acceptable. Batteries that stay in one place don't need maximum energy density and can eliminate cobalt. Lithium itself is not rare; lithium iron phosphate is a perfectly fine battery chemistry for stationary applications and requires no rare minerals. My estimates of labor intensity for renewables do not include storage or overproduction (to diminish reliance on storage). The numbers I've provided are for incremental nearer-term goals achievable without storage, like "displace the 28% of American electricity that comes from coal with renewables." Storage is immature and I'd be piling speculation on top of speculation if I tried to estimate how much storage and/or overproduction a zero-fossil energy system needs, and how much labor that will require. Note that a zero-fossil energy system built on nuclear foundations will need to deal with these questions too eventually; the difference between peak and average demand for electricity means that nuclear reactors too would need to be overbuilt or coupled with storage to take the place of fossil peakers. I think that nuclear power is quite safe enough, certainly safer than continued fossil combustion. I don't have any grudge against nuclear apart from the high costs and unpredictable schedules that have attended attempts to build new units. 15 years ago I thought it was obvious that building even the cheapest solar farms was a more expensive way to generate electricity than building an average nuclear reactor. But the numbers changed, and I changed my mind along with them.
  - arduanika 8y ago
    Very interesting, thanks. I too would like to see "utility-scale photovoltaics". So...what is the limiting factor in producing new solar panels? A raw material, or well-lit land near population centers, or political will, or what?

arduanika 8y ago

> Utility scale renewables are less labor-intensive than coal or nuclear over the full life cycle It's hard to marshal evidence for or against this claim, since as you say, the newest renewable technologies are in the earliest stages of their life cycles. It's also hard to defend or refute claims about the cost of renewables at scale, since they're currently such a small fraction of energy production. Are we looking at economies of scale / diminishing marginal costs? Or, how quickly will we exhaust the geothermal sites, the dam-able rivers, and the rare minerals that go into batteries and solar panels? Projecting the answers to these questions requires a lot careful modeling, extrapolation, and educated guesses. Given the hopes, fears, and ideologies at play, it's very easy to lie with stats here (or for proponents of any given source, to bend the truth in one direction in the conversation about creating jobs, and in the opposite direction in the conversation about cutting costs). Based on your linked post, it looks like you're digging into this rigorously & honestly, so thanks for that. > how much labor is required for fuel extraction Plus transportation. Isn't this way cheaper for nuclear, where way less fuel (in terms of mass) produces way more power? And, isn't there a good deal of extraction that goes into creating a solar panel?

philipkglass 8y ago
Or, how quickly will we exhaust the geothermal sites, the dam-able rivers, and the rare minerals that go into batteries and solar panels? With present technology geothermal is going to be a niche source. Hydroelectric generation is not, but most of its potential in developed countries is already tapped. When I speak of large scale renewable growth I mean utility-scale photovoltaics and wind. Neither solar panels nor batteries for stationary energy storage require rare minerals. Lithium ion batteries that maximize energy density, like those in cars and portable electronic devices, usually contain the comparatively rare element cobalt, but this is not required if lower energy density is acceptable. Batteries that stay in one place don't need maximum energy density and can eliminate cobalt. Lithium itself is not rare; lithium iron phosphate is a perfectly fine battery chemistry for stationary applications and requires no rare minerals. My estimates of labor intensity for renewables do not include storage or overproduction (to diminish reliance on storage). The numbers I've provided are for incremental nearer-term goals achievable without storage, like "displace the 28% of American electricity that comes from coal with renewables." Storage is immature and I'd be piling speculation on top of speculation if I tried to estimate how much storage and/or overproduction a zero-fossil energy system needs, and how much labor that will require. Note that a zero-fossil energy system built on nuclear foundations will need to deal with these questions too eventually; the difference between peak and average demand for electricity means that nuclear reactors too would need to be overbuilt or coupled with storage to take the place of fossil peakers. I think that nuclear power is quite safe enough, certainly safer than continued fossil combustion. I don't have any grudge against nuclear apart from the high costs and unpredictable schedules that have attended attempts to build new units. 15 years ago I thought it was obvious that building even the cheapest solar farms was a more expensive way to generate electricity than building an average nuclear reactor. But the numbers changed, and I changed my mind along with them.
- arduanika 8y ago
  Very interesting, thanks. I too would like to see "utility-scale photovoltaics". So...what is the limiting factor in producing new solar panels? A raw material, or well-lit land near population centers, or political will, or what?