2 ms·

I am 99% sur that solar requires more manpower than nuclear, for an equivalent controllable power output.

renewiltord 6y ago
Yeah, but it's more granular and you can deregulate it and still be safe, so you can leave it to the market to handle pretty easily.
philipkglass 6y ago
The Desert Sunlight solar farm generated 1,344,841 MWh in 2018 [1] while employing 15 people full time [2]. That is an annualized output of 10.2 megawatts per full time employee. The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant generated 18,213,519 MWh in 2018 with 1400 full time employees [3]. That is an annualized output of of 1.5 megawatts per FTE. During operation, the solar farm generates more than 6 times as much energy per FTE. Of course you need storage too for solar to supply power after sundown. I looked at some recent utility scale battery project news, like the Moss Landing project currently under construction, but I couldn't find information about these projects adding any number of permanent jobs after construction. They may be too low maintenance. Finally, you need to amortize the project construction labor over the life of the project to get an all-in labor intensity analysis. Diablo Canyon was unfortunately built long enough ago that contemporary reporting was pre-digital. From recent nuclear projects in the United States, it looks like nuclear projects don't have lower lifetime labor intensity (inclusive of construction) than solar + storage either. The low labor intensity of large scale renewables is an under-appreciated point. Most of the labor is front-loaded into the construction phase, and doesn't amount to a lot per lifetime MWh. When you see breathless reports about how solar power is employing a boatload of people, they're talking about short term construction work. If solar power were at steady-state, as mature as coal or nuclear power, it wouldn't provide many jobs. The only reason its job numbers are so much higher than coal/nuclear is because coal/nuclear are stagnant/declining while solar is still in the rapid growth/construction phase. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm [2] https://www.energy.gov/lpo/desert-sunlight https://www.energy.gov/lpo/desert-sunlight [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

Yeah, but it's more granular and you can deregulate it and still be safe, so you can leave it to the market to handle pretty easily.

philipkglass 6y ago

The Desert Sunlight solar farm generated 1,344,841 MWh in 2018 [1] while employing 15 people full time [2]. That is an annualized output of 10.2 megawatts per full time employee. The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant generated 18,213,519 MWh in 2018 with 1400 full time employees [3]. That is an annualized output of of 1.5 megawatts per FTE. During operation, the solar farm generates more than 6 times as much energy per FTE. Of course you need storage too for solar to supply power after sundown. I looked at some recent utility scale battery project news, like the Moss Landing project currently under construction, but I couldn't find information about these projects adding any number of permanent jobs after construction. They may be too low maintenance. Finally, you need to amortize the project construction labor over the life of the project to get an all-in labor intensity analysis. Diablo Canyon was unfortunately built long enough ago that contemporary reporting was pre-digital. From recent nuclear projects in the United States, it looks like nuclear projects don't have lower lifetime labor intensity (inclusive of construction) than solar + storage either. The low labor intensity of large scale renewables is an under-appreciated point. Most of the labor is front-loaded into the construction phase, and doesn't amount to a lot per lifetime MWh. When you see breathless reports about how solar power is employing a boatload of people, they're talking about short term construction work. If solar power were at steady-state, as mature as coal or nuclear power, it wouldn't provide many jobs. The only reason its job numbers are so much higher than coal/nuclear is because coal/nuclear are stagnant/declining while solar is still in the rapid growth/construction phase. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm [2] https://www.energy.gov/lpo/desert-sunlight https://www.energy.gov/lpo/desert-sunlight [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant