Comments 1 to 10:

1. TWFA at 04:59 AM on 26 December, 2024

   So, two to five times as many jobs required to deliver the same amount of energy is... good? Would the same be true of farming, or just about any other industry of production?

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [BL] You have previously been warned about posting drive-by comments on threads without engaging in honest discussion To repeat the warning given before on this comment:

   It appears that you have unfinished business on a thread where you commented two weeks ago.

   Participation in the comments threads at SkS requires that you engage in legitimate, constructive dialog with other participants.  You are violating the sloganeering section of the Comments Policy, which states:

   No sloganeering.  Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted.

   On the previous thread, you made unsupported assertions that have been refuted by other comments. You have provided no response to any of that material. You will not be allowed to start a new thread of unsupported assertions until you go back to that thread and respond to your critics. Suitable responses could include:

   • Admitting your errors and agreeing to the corrections.
   • Providing additional information and links to scientific evidence that your assertions are supportable.
   • Providing more detailed explanations of your positions, and explaining how your original comment was misunderstood.
   • etc.

   Until you return to that thread and engage in honest discussion, any further comments you post on any other thread will be deleted.

   Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

   Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

   This is a final warning. Unless you return to the previous thread and give an appropriate response, the next post you make will result in your posting privileges being rescinded.

2. David-acct at 06:40 AM on 26 December, 2024

   TWFA -

   I wouldnt go as far as you did, though in general higher rates of employment per units of production is an indication of less efficiency, not greater efficiency.  In this case, a large percentage of jobs would be temporary associated with construction, so the better measure would be compare the jobs per units of prodction associated with operations.  

   0 0
3. Bob Loblaw at 01:32 AM on 27 December, 2024

   David-acct:

   "Generally" is not an easily-supported position. A lot more than employment numbers goes into an economic efficiency determination. Any production operation has to balance staffing, capital costs, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, non-labour input costs, etc. I would have thought that a good accountant would realize this.

   "Efficiency" where large capital costs spent elsewhere replaces local jobs, leaving severe local unemployment, may be profitable for an individual company, but may not be a good thing for the local community. How many problems exist in the US because jobs have been exported to China?

   I agree that temporary construction jobs may not be a suitable long-term indicator, but in an industry that is continually expanding in small increments, construction jobs would continue to exist as long as expansion continues. You would have to make sure that the job counting does not count the same employees several times as they move from project to project, though. This illustrates the difference between looking at an industry as a whole rather than extrapolating from a single project's accounting as if it represented the entire industry.

   0 0
4. michael sweet at 08:31 AM on 28 December, 2024

   David-acct,

   The op cites publications by acknowledged authorities that support the claim that renewables end up with many more jobs at the same time they have lower energy costs.  Your unsupported response "I doubt it" is out of order.  If you want to claim the op is incorrect you must provide references that support your claim.

   I note that many peer reviewed papers like Jacobson et al 2022 make the same claim.  I have never seen an analysis that finds less jobs from renewables.  Fossil supporters simply say they disagree without any analysis or data  Opinions without supporting data are worthless on a scientific site like Skeptical Science.  The fact that there are already more renewable jobs than coal when we must dramatically enlarge renewables tells the whole story!

   0 0
5. David-acct at 09:26 AM on 31 December, 2024

   Mr Sweet -
   My statement was that more jobs per unit of production is an indication of less economic efficiency. I limited my comment to the production and operation side of the equation. I did not address the costs or the benefits of the manufacturing and installation side of the equation since it is not relevant to well established economic concepts.

   
   You frequently use the phrase " unsupported Claim". Nothing could be further from the truth. My comment is based on well supported basic economic concepts that are well known and which are found in any freshmen level micro economic textbook, including Paul Krugman's intro to Economics. There is no reason there should be a need to provide citations for something so basic.

   
   Further, nothing in Jacobson's 100% renewable studies dispute my statement. In fact I would be very surprised that something so contrary to established economic concepts would be published in a peer reviewed paper. If it did get by peer review, then it would be a good sign the economic cost analysis is not nearly as robust as portrayed.

   0 0
6. michael sweet at 23:18 PM on 31 December, 2024

   David-acct:

   You have not provided any support for your wild claim that "more jobs per unit of production is an indication of less economic efficiency.". You frequently post unsupported comments denigrating renewable energy.  This is a scientific board, my degree is in Organic Chemistry.  I did not take Ecomomics.  You must provide written evidence to support your claim.  I note that Bob Loblaw at 3 provided several other reasons why renewable energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels and provide more jobs at the same time.  Please show that all of Bob Loblaw's reasons are incorrect.

   I remembered that you made me document that French nuclear power plants shut down on the weekend.  This was a factoid that everyone informed about nuclear energy knows.  You provided raw data claiming that the data showed the plants did not close, even though I cited reliable sources that they did.  I looked at two days of data and asked you these two questions:

   "Several question about this raw data occured to me.

   1) You state clearly that the data shows no nuclear power stations were shut down. Please explain why the power generated on the weekend is so much less than the power generated on Thursday. How does this show that no power stations were shut down over the weekend? It appears to me that about 6 of 31 power stations (20%) were turned off.

   2) On both days they are generating more power at night when power is generated at a loss than they are generating during the day when the price of electricity is much higher. Can you explain why the "always on" nuclear plants generate less power during the most expensive part of the day than they do when electricity is cheapest?

   This proves beyond doubt that examining cherry picked factoids without any analysis is a complete waste of time. Please do not cite raw data any more. You need to cite analysis of data that filter out gross errors." Source

   Unfortunately, you never responded.  Please answer these questions.  In a scientific discussion you have to answer others questions, you can' t simply  leave when you are called out for making obviously false claims.

   0 0
7. Bob Loblaw at 02:05 AM on 1 January, 2025

   I, too, am puzzled by David-acct's repetition of his claim, as stated in comment 5:

   My statement was that more jobs per unit of production is an indication of less economic efficiency. I limited my comment to the production and operation side of the equation. I did not address the costs or the benefits of the manufacturing and installation side of the equation since it is not relevant to well established economic concepts.

   He has ignored what  said in comment 3. To rebut again:

   • More jobs per unit of production is only an indicator of lower labour efficiency.
   • David-acct has not "limited [his] comment to the production and operation side of the equation". He has limited it to the labour side of the equation, ignoring many other costs related to production and operation.
   • "Well established economic concepts" argue for including all costs related to the production and operation of the industry.
   • As an accountant, I am sure that David-acct is familiar with the process of accounting for depreciation of capital assets, the carrying costs of debt, and expenses such as providing heat and power. None involves a lot of labour input during normal operations, but they sure affect the bottom line.
   • You can increase labour efficiency by replacing 20 people cutting wood using hand saws, with 2 people cutting wood with a table saw - but don't pretend that there is no cost associated with buying a table saw, buying a generator or paying to install electricity in a remote location, and paying the gas or electric bills.
   • The business needs to look at the relative costs of hiring more people versus buying and operating the table saws in order to determine the efficiency of their financial (economic) input.
   • In a location where labour is cheap, and electricity and table saws are difficult (read "expensive") to get, then 20 people cutting wood with hand saws may be more economically efficient.
   • ...and of course, there are always the "externalities" that must be considered on a society-wide basis. Individuals and corporations are often very good at making sure that costs are borne by third parties: dumping toxic substances into the water or air and letting the people downstream (or the taxpayers) deal with the damage that is caused. Great for local profits; not so good for the community.
   • Climate change is definitely one of those areas where externalities are present, and industries involved in producing and selling fossil fuels are fighting like heck to make sure that those externalities remain externalities, so they can maximize their profits.

   ..and when David-acct starts throwing around phrases such as "well supported basic economic concepts", it is pretty clear that he is just trying to bluff his way through the argument, rather than supporting his position.

   0 0
8. nigelj at 06:17 AM on 1 January, 2025

   David-acct said: "My statement was that more jobs per unit of production is an indication of less economic efficiency...."

   This is only potentially true looking at labour productivity alone as BL points out. This doesnt mean renewables have poor overall economic efficiency. In fact we know renewables have higher overall economic  efficiency  than fossil fuels. This is because (simply put) while renewables require more labour inputs than fossil fuels, they have much lower running costs, that more than offsets the higher labour costs. We know this because renewables are lower cost per mwatt hour than fossil fuels.

   I assume the high labour costs of solar power are related to installing all those panels. No problem. It gives people useful work, and this is important in economies facing high unemployment from automation and AI.

   0 0
9. Bob Loblaw at 01:25 AM on 2 January, 2025

   nigelj @ 8:

   It is also worth noting that high labour requirements during installation would be considered as a one-time fixed cost in the context of a single project. In terms of economics, this would be a cost that should be amortized over the life of the project (or at least a period of time).

   • If the project borrows money to pay the installation costs, then paying off the loan is spread over time, not paid up front.
   • If the project pays directly, then the usual accounting practice is to consider it a capital cost and write off depreciation over time. This implies that the value of the capital investment drops over time. (Maintenance costs are an acceptable cost of keeping  up the value of an asset.)
   • Accounting for capital depreciation on your tax return will most likely use different rules from the internal "how much is what is left of my project worth today?" calculations that are reported to shareholders. (Within reason, law, and generally-accepted accounting principles - which a registered accountant is obligated to follow.)

   ...and the same issues are present for coal, nuclear, hydro plants, etc, which have huge capital costs associated with construction. Too often, the claims of "this coal/nuclear/whatever plant will create bazillions of jobs" include short-term construction jobs. Such construction jobs are only a permanent part of the economy as long as more and more production facilities are constructed on an ongoing basis.

   0 0
10. Evan at 02:22 AM on 3 January, 2025

    I know that my comment is a little off topic, but one reason utilities like renewable energy is that costs are more predictable than for fossil-fuel plants. For renewable energy, the energy is free, even if more labor is required than fossil fuel plants. Fossil-fuel plants always have to be fed a product whose price goes through wild gyrations over the life of the plant. Whatever long-term average costs are, there is the uncertainty associated with what it will cost to feed your power plants.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.