He’s back, in all of his tone-deaf glory.
Forget the fact that to first order, there are no solar-panel manufacturers here. Has anyone done an economic analysis of shifting from a high-density energy source to a low one? Kerry et al say that solar-panel production is the one in which jobs are growing fastest, but that’s meaningless outside the context of how many there are, or how low labor productivity they are in energy production, compared to gas and oil. It’s easy to grow something that is minuscule fast, but that doesn’t solve the problems of all the people Biden just threw out of work.
All those new houses (heh–assuming anyone can get permission to build them) in California that are going to need solar panels, I guess will need people to install them.
Eight of the ten top solar cell manufacturers are Chinese. A Korean and a Canadian company are the other two. I doubt Trudeau is going to be in any mood to give Canadian solar cell jobs to American welders and pipefitters after Biden stiffed Canada.
Not an economic analysis, but here is an energy based one using California as a model. California with large parts of the state as a semi-arid desert gives probably one of the best examples of the availability and exploitation of solar power, (along with the other desert southwestern states). So the numbers here are probably the best you are going to get with solar for any given state in the US. As the reviewer states, California is not going to be able to depend solely on solar for renewable energy given the current state of the art in energy storage. That goes for wind as well. Baseline, dispatch-able power is still heavily dependent on their one remaining nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon and of course the peaking natural gas plants sorted around the state. The author of this video course also throws in the dispatch-able generation from hydro, even though the green crowd would like to make that disappear as well because, environment. Apparently dispatch-able geothermal is not significant enough of a resource to earn mention. According to this video it has not grown beyond its 6% overall contribution since the 1970s and has even shrunk a little.
Caveat Emptor: This video ends with a pitch for learning to program in Python as well as makes a sales pitch for subscription to their pay website.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5cm7HOAqZY
I haven’t even broached the topic of the rare earth metals used in either solar cell production, wind turbines or electric cars. Noteworthy, the US is not a major source of these either. (I’ll give you a guess for a country that is). For some info on that I would recommend this Gibbs/Moore (yes that Michael Moore) feature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x7UgKfSug0
Be forewarned, this movie is the definition of Debbie Downer.
For a more brief summary see:
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/03/08/america-should-stop-relying-on-china-for-rare-earths-needed-for-renewable-energy-infrastructure/
Maybe if the federal government started subsidizing metal roofing we could get those welders back to work welding solar panels to roofs?
Has anyone done an economic analysis of shifting from a high-density energy source to a low one?
Yes, and it is as useful to government types as an economic analysis of SLS.
Too bad I couldn’t read the article. The Boston Herald informed me that I’ve reached my free article limit for the month, which is genuinely puzzling since I haven’t read any Boston Herald articles in several months…none. My usual dodge of using Tor doesn’t work any more with most sites. There’s an opportunity here, and I’m definitely going to explore it.
“Has anyone done an economic analysis of shifting from a high-density energy source to a low one? ”
It seems if one get 300 watts per meter sunlight, when you need it, solar energy would be viable.
Mars surface doesn’t give you that. Mars surface doesn’t give you an average of 300 watts per meter of sunlight {which is not I am talking about}. Some places on Earth one can get average of 300 watts per square meter per year {but again, not talking about}.
The lunar polar region can do what I am talking about {except during time Earth blocks the Sun] by using polar solar electrical grid.
And Mars could barely do with it’s polar region- if don’t include that pole’s winter time.
When you need it, would mean, night time and winter.
With lunar pole region one sort of cheating because you not including the area of shadow that fall on the lunar surface {and blocks that area from collecting solar energy. Or lunar polar region is small and can’t get 300 watts of sunlight per square of total polar region area.
Or in terms energy density per square meter of lunar surface, the lunar equator is much higher, in terms average, but you got 14 earth day night, when can’t the 300 watts per meter of sunlight, when you want it.
Both Mars and Moon gives only 1/2 of time you want it 300 watt or more on average {other the polar regions].
Earth gives only 1/4 of time you could want it- you get solar energy only in “peak hours” roughly 6 hours a day.
And Germany being solar capital of world is farcical, but if closer to equator and say, in desert, you get 1/4 of time you could want and do even better 300 watts on average per day.
Anyhow I assume lunar polar region are viable for solar energy, but it’s small area and can only use portion of this small area.
With Mars in small “select” areas one get more than 50% and with polar region can exceed it to 100% with grid {but not in winter}. Due to more time, I think Mars is more viable for solar energy than Earth is.
But But Mars solar has lower energy density than Earth’s solar {if don’t include Germany and other lousy places to harvest solar energy. Ie Seattle or Canada}
How many jobs either manufacturing or installing solar panels pay as well as oil field jobs?
How many blue collar jobs
either manufacturing or installing solar panelspay as well as oil field jobs?FIFY