The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by firebones » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:23 PM UTC

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.

Any infrastructure project will require more people while it is being built out, and the rate of job growth will scale with the rate of build out. That isn't a negative or a worry. If the market becomes saturated, the growth will stop and a lot of the jobs will no longer be needed.

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

#122

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #44

ThomPete wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windmill technology is fairly low tech. there are a few things around the wings but besides that it's not really a "tech" business IMO.

How did you reach that conclusion? Those things scream "advanced material tech" to me. Almost as much as space rockets.

The towers are just lots and lots of steel.

A lot of them are made in facilities that were built to make railcars (including big tank cars).

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

#123

Post by toomuchtodo » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:30 PM UTC

nawitus wrote: post #120

toomuchtodo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Good! Fossil fuels have a 100 year head start.

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

#124

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

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 negative of employing more people is pretty abstract if the power costs about the same for end users.

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

#125

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

jnordwick wrote: post #75

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..

Downvoted for basic economic on HN as usual. Why is this site so economically illiterate?

Labor efficiency is only part of the picture.

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

#126

Post by Consultant32452 » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

8ytecoder wrote: post #25

laughfactory wrote: post #21

Number of jobs, by itself, is a worthless statistic. What's the median wage? If it's $10/hr then it's like reporting on how many people are employed in fast food. Reality is that most jobs, in most sectors, pay crap. Wind energy is no exception.

Did you check the linked BLS statistics page from the article? Median is $25/hr

For reference, the median US hourly wage is $22/hr. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wages

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

#127

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #99

tim333 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Over time, humanity will figure out ways of making wind turbines less of a danger to birds. Or the birds will evolve to dislike wind turbines.

I'd assume this is the case, as birds already use the earth's magnetic field for navigation and wind turbines generate a significant magnetic field.

Detecting a small field while flying at 10-15 meters / second (30 miles per hour) might not be possible with whatever they use to detect the wider field.

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

#128

Post by mambodog » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #115

mambodog wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you mean 'on average, nuclear is safer than rooftop solar'. How about nuclear vs. large scale solar? Large scale solar + wind? These are more realistic equivalents to nuclear.

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

#129

Post by jahnu » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:38 PM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #112

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

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.

Sadly true. If it weren't for the insane costs I'd be a bigger fan of nuclear.

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

#130

Post by MrTonyD » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 6:39 PM UTC

MagnumOpus wrote: post #116

foofoo55 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And I was reading that most "capped" underwater oil wells are actually leaking oil - and there are many thousands. So oil is silently killing incredible amounts of sea life. So, while I regret the loss of animal life to wind turbines it is much better than the loss of life to oil. (And new wind turbines in the ocean are being placed at heights which almost eliminate bird impacts and also being designed with structures which won't attract birds as a place to perch, unlike prior generations of wind turbines.)