Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 331 posts

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#111

Post by ryanwaggoner »

jnordwick wrote: post #67

This is NOT a good thing. Producing the same amount or less with more resources is generally considered a very very bad thing. It is the definition of being less efficient..

Since you're complaining about downvotes (which I also downvoted), I'll explain why I downvoted:

Your complaint doesn't make any sense by itself. You're assuming that they're doing the same or less with more people. I have no idea where you got that idea. Wind is growing rapidly, so the fact that they're employing more people is expected and a good thing. You can't complain about efficiency with only the numerator.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#112

Post by afterburner »

coin wrote: post #105
marze wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to ripping the tops of mountains in West Virginia and states nearby and filling in the beautiful valleys to strip mine coal, a huge win.

> Compared to ripping the tops of mountains Or consider nuclear, which is much cleaner, safer and lower coast than all other energy sources

Lower cost? Utterly laughable. Nuclear costs are notoriously high, always crazy multiples over budget, and then the operating and decommissioning costs are hidden with budget and accounting tricks. But you won't notice because it's a 50 to 80 year process.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#113

Post by VMG »

labster wrote: post #107
coin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compared to ripping the tops of mountains Or consider nuclear, which is much cleaner, safer and lower coast than all other energy sources

So open pit uranium mines are that much better than ripping the tops off of mountains for coal?

How many mines are needed for the production and maintenance of wind (or solar) of comparable capacity?

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#114

Post by ethbro »

labster wrote: post #107
coin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compared to ripping the tops of mountains Or consider nuclear, which is much cleaner, safer and lower coast than all other energy sources

So open pit uranium mines are that much better than ripping the tops off of mountains for coal?

You're forgetting the "It's different when it happens in Africa / India / China / South America" caveat to most arguments.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#115

Post by jimmaswell »

mambodog wrote: post #97
jimmaswell wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've heard, these cost overruns are due to political causes. Waste disposal is a non issue, and Fukashima was due to terrible planning. It wouldn't be solar's fault if someone put too many solar panels on a weak roof and they fell through.

Humans have shown time and time again we cannot be trusted to consistently do things right, so the likely outcomes of some realistic percentage of 'terrible planning', as you put it, should be part of any comparison of power generation techniques. The analogy you make to solar ignores that the failure modes of nuclear are much worse than solar.

From the page I found, "more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants". On average, nuclear is safer. The likelihood of another Fukashima is even lower now that it's happened and been documented.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#116

Post by MagnumOpus »

foofoo55 wrote: post #101
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't disagree more. They popped up as I was growing up - littering the coastline and countryside. They can be seen from great distances and serve to make the place seem an awful lot smaller. I for one can't wait until we develop a way to live without them - the only condolence is that they move us away from the coal and gas industries. I do hope that solar leaves them in its wake and we can be done with the mon…

I also find them an eyesore, audibly irritating[1], and the documented bird deaths are awful[2]. But, I'll take them over coal any day. [1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... [2] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-w...

Meh about [2] - house cats and glass&steel skyscrapers kill an awful lot more birds than that. There is absolutely no outcry against either; that's how we know the outrage against windmills killing birds is planted and artificially kept alive.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#117

Post by lorenzfx »

afpx wrote: post #108
jMyles wrote: post #6

I live in a school bus, traveling the country. I think wind turbines are absolutely beautiful; I always marvel at them when we drive by. Does anybody here know how to break into this industry, working on a mobile, on-site basis? Maybe with embedded tech?

Except when you live nearby them.... I am 100% in support of renewables. However, I also know several home owners near wind-rich areas. And, the noise pollution from the turbines is awful. Unfortunately, my friends are poor (as typical) and have little say in the matter.

Living near coal mines, coal or nuclear power plants isn't great either.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#118

Post by Animats »

ptaipale wrote: post #18
tinco wrote: post #17

The article does not respond to the claim of the president that windmills kill birds. Do they really in a significant way? Is it worthy of being called an environmental disaster?

I would say it is significant but not disaster. For some sources, look at http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-w... AFAIK, in terms of number of birds, house cats kill about 1000 times as many birds as windmills, but cats of course prey on small birds and windmills kill large birds which are far lower in numbers.

Altamont Pass, the first big wind farm, is the worst, with row after row of small wind turbines across a narrow pass in a mountain chain. It's a veg-o-matic for migratory birds. Those small turbines are obsolete, and are gradually being replaced with bigger ones.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#119

Post by philipkglass »

jnordwick wrote: post #77
vincentperes wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

environmental impact should be taken into consideration, it's most probably a good move for future generation

Of course, but that it takes more people is a net negative. I didn't say there aren't any positives to wind power. I think it is a balanced part of an alternative energy solution. That is takes so many people resources is a worry though.

The human labor required to produce a MWh of electricity from utility-scale wind or solar plants is significantly less than the labor that went into producing it from older fossil plants. The growing employment numbers you see in solar/wind right now are mostly an artifact of rapid expansion. American coal plant construction employment is about zero right now and all you see is the operational labor; solar/wind are growing quickly and what you mostly see are the temporary construction jobs.

See e.g. my comment here (search for "Nucla"): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13749769

A utility scale solar farm can be more than an order of magnitude more productive per employee than an old coal plant.

So can a utility scale wind farm. MidAmerican's Wind VIII project has 40 permanent jobs and generated 3,622,316 MWh in 2016 (10.33 real annualized megawatts per employee).

https://www.midamericanenergy.com/content/pdf/wind_facts.pdf

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58883/

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58884/

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58885/

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58886/

(The EIA data for Wind VIII is spread across these sub-projects.)

Utility-scale wind and solar are also thriftier with labor than nuclear plants.

Old coal plant: 0.87 real annualized MW/full time employee (0.57 megawatts per employee if you include the fuel mining jobs)

New AP1000 reactors at Vogtle, assuming 90% capacity factor: 2.5 real MW/FTE

Desert Sunlight solar farm: 9.8 real MW/FTE

Wind VIII wind complex: 10.3 real MW/FTE

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#120

Post by nawitus »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #100
ralfd wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many energy sources require subsidies though.

Wind and solar are competitive with coal and natural gas without subsidies.

Regardless, there are subsidies for wind power, which may even be the cause for the "wind boom":

https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/12/21/subsidies-drive-us...

Post reply on HN