10 ms·

Coupling energy production success to job creation is a mistake, and the DOE is taking political wins at the cost of long-term energy abundance. Labor inherent

Coupling energy production success to job creation is a mistake, and the DOE is taking political wins at the cost of long-term energy abundance. Labor inherently puts a floor on the price of energy, no matter how cheap or clean the technology is! "Cheap, clean energy" IS the consumer benefit, not the bureaucracy and make-work. We should aim for a world where near-infinite energy production is produced by one guy in DC with a button that says "PRODUCE MORE".

Bostonian 3y ago
Exactly -- producing the same amount of energy with more people is a bad thing.
- burkaman 3y ago
  We're producing more energy, not the same amount: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/#/?f=A&start=1949&end=2022&charted=4-6-7-14 https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/#/?f=A&start=19...
  - gertlex 3y ago
    You're misinterpreting the comment, almost certainly. The claim is more specifically: "Per given amount of energy generation, renewables are requiring employing more people, likely causing higher energy costs than other methods might" I'm just observing here. Obviously, there's tradeoffs to consider. I don't personally have a stance that this is a problem or that there's currently a better way to make our energy production green.
    - jopsen 3y ago
      > Per given amount of energy generation, renewables are requiring employing more people, I don't really see that claimed backed by sources. But short-term, yes probably, it'll take a lot of work install renewable energy sources everywhere. But once installed, maintenance will probably require fewer human hours. And certainly fewer human hours spent extracting raw materials (oil, gas, coal).
  - bequanna 3y ago
    You’re splitting hairs. The real metric would be man hours per GWh generated or similar. That metric is moving in the wrong direction as we move to distributed, intermittent generation. Make work is not progress, it’s a tax.
    - burkaman 3y ago
      I do think that would be an interesting metric, but it sounds pretty difficult to calculate and I haven't found any related research. I disagree that distributed generation is the wrong direction, I think it's extremely valuable and worth extra labor if it's more resistant to supply chain issues and less carbon intensive than whatever it's replacing.
    - midasuni 3y ago
      Not really because you’re completely ignoring the externalities with that metric. But if you did include the entire supply chain, how many many man hours went into securing oil supply with the invasion of Iraq? Not just the armed forces, but the man hours of production for the materiel.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  That is not strictly correct, especially in comparison with fossil fuel energy where production is highly concentrated. Automating things in a refinery is a lot easier than building robot steeplejacks to maintain 10,000 windmills. Secondly, renewables capex, which is rapidly growing, creates lots of jobs, and will do so until production levels satisfy demand.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Bostonian 3y ago

Exactly -- producing the same amount of energy with more people is a bad thing.

burkaman 3y ago
We're producing more energy, not the same amount: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/#/?f=A&start=1949&end=2022&charted=4-6-7-14 https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/#/?f=A&start=19...
- gertlex 3y ago
  You're misinterpreting the comment, almost certainly. The claim is more specifically: "Per given amount of energy generation, renewables are requiring employing more people, likely causing higher energy costs than other methods might" I'm just observing here. Obviously, there's tradeoffs to consider. I don't personally have a stance that this is a problem or that there's currently a better way to make our energy production green.
  - jopsen 3y ago
    > Per given amount of energy generation, renewables are requiring employing more people, I don't really see that claimed backed by sources. But short-term, yes probably, it'll take a lot of work install renewable energy sources everywhere. But once installed, maintenance will probably require fewer human hours. And certainly fewer human hours spent extracting raw materials (oil, gas, coal).
- bequanna 3y ago
  You’re splitting hairs. The real metric would be man hours per GWh generated or similar. That metric is moving in the wrong direction as we move to distributed, intermittent generation. Make work is not progress, it’s a tax.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    I do think that would be an interesting metric, but it sounds pretty difficult to calculate and I haven't found any related research. I disagree that distributed generation is the wrong direction, I think it's extremely valuable and worth extra labor if it's more resistant to supply chain issues and less carbon intensive than whatever it's replacing.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    Not really because you’re completely ignoring the externalities with that metric. But if you did include the entire supply chain, how many many man hours went into securing oil supply with the invasion of Iraq? Not just the armed forces, but the man hours of production for the materiel.
Zigurd 3y ago
That is not strictly correct, especially in comparison with fossil fuel energy where production is highly concentrated. Automating things in a refinery is a lot easier than building robot steeplejacks to maintain 10,000 windmills. Secondly, renewables capex, which is rapidly growing, creates lots of jobs, and will do so until production levels satisfy demand.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]