CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Biomass solar jobs subsidies

Published on March 20th, 2013 | by Zachary Shahan

23

Over 3 Times More Green Jobs Per $1 Invested Than Fossil Fuel Or Nuclear Jobs

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

March 20th, 2013 by Zachary Shahan
 
Reposted from Solar Love:

Just as a quick reminder, if our national goal is to create jobs, investing in clean energy is several times more effective than investing in fossil fuel or nuclear jobs.

Robert Pollin, the President of Pear Energy and a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has studied this matter in depth with the Department of Energy and the International Labour Organization. As his Pear Energy team writes:

“The basic facts are simple. When we invest, say, $1 million in building the green economy, this creates about 17 jobs within the United States. By comparison, if we continue to spend as we do on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, you create only about 5 jobs per $1 million in spending. That is, we create about 12 more jobs for every $1 million in spending — 300 percent more jobs — every time we spend on building the green economy as opposed to maintaining our dependence on dirty and dangerous oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.”

For a visual representation and numbers for a variety of more specific sectors, check out this infographic:

Transit Rocks It. (Click Here To Enlarge.)

Transit & rail rock it, but solar’s not too shabby either. (Click Here To Enlarge.)

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • Aparna

    Hi Zachary, Great article. Where is the jobs infographic from? Can you provide more detail on the assumptions and methodology? like are these jobs temporary? or for how many years? And why are renewables more jobs intensive? is it because it’s higher tech to manufacture so requires more people working on it at different stages of the supply chain? or are these more maintenance staff? Any insights valuable! thanks

  • Coal woker

    More worker cause Co2 Emission, that a bad thing if your trying to save the Planet.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Trying to follow your logic here…

      I guess you’re saying that 3 live green energy workers produce more CO2 than a dead coal miner?

      Can’t argue with that….

  • Indigo Mordant

    Obviously nuclear isn’t included because nobody likes the fact that a handful of technicians could power whole cities with a proven, efficient power source.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      lol. nuclear is priced out of the market. you may as well be advocating that we use candles to light our cities.

      • Tom G.

        Wait, wait; isn’t Indigo talking about a solar power plant. You know, 10 people is all it takes to run and maintain a GW [1,000 MW] solar power plant. That might be what he is saying since it takes 300-600 people to operate and maintain a GW nuclear plant. Just proposing an alternative line of thinking.

    • Bob_Wallace

      You haven’t noticed that nuclear is dying?

      Nuclear energy is too expensive, too dangerous and takes too long to bring on line. Even China has cut way back on their nuclear construction plans.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ivor.oconnor Ivor O’Connor

    Uh huh. Exactly how does it create more jobs? I clicked on the supplied link. Nothing stood out.

    I’m not convinced more jobs is a good thing anyways. Energy is just a resource that allows us to accomplish real things. If green jobs requires more workers isn’t that a bad thing?

    • Bob_Wallace

      If an clean energy source can produce electricity for about the same or less cost than fossil fuel/nuclear – and – employ more people is not that a good thing?

      Seems to me it;s a win-win and win some more.

      • http://profiles.google.com/ivor.oconnor Ivor O’Connor

        Yes. When put that way it makes sense. I’ll look at the references Zachary gave tonight.

        • Bob_Wallace

          I suspect it might turn out that many of the green jobs are “temporary”. That they will last for only the 20 to 40 years that it takes to install the needed renewable capacity.

          When that happens jobs per MWh or however one would like to measure them might turn out to be about the same.

          • http://profiles.google.com/ivor.oconnor Ivor O’Connor

            20 to 40 years? Haven’t renewables, wind and solar, been doubling every three years since 2000? If we are at 10% of our electrical in 2013 because of wind and solar then:
            20% in 2016 (3)
            40% in 2019 (6)
            80% in 2021 (9)
            160% in 2023 (12)
            320% in 2026 (15)
            640% in 2029 (18)

            In less than 20 years, not 20 to 40, we’ll be meeting all our electrical needs and probably taking the excesses to make methane as a replacement for oil. What’s wrong with my thinking? Nobody is saying this except for me so I must not be getting something right?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Remember, it’s a lot easier to double a small number than a large one.

            Doubling two means adding another two in one year.

            Doubling two hundred means adding another two hundred in one year.

            In their study, Jacobson and Delucchi calculated that we could get the world to almost 100% renewables with a massive World War II type effort. Like when we were working hard around the clock to crank out war materials.

            I use that as my “talking number”, that adequately scared the world could put the pedal to the floor and get off fossil fuels in roughly 20 years. I don’t think we’ll get scared soon enough and strong enough to have quit fossil fuels 20 years from now.

            Five years from now we might be amply concerned….

          • http://profiles.google.com/ivor.oconnor Ivor O’Connor

            Thanks again. These forums are a great place to ask questions. It’s like having the experts at your fingertips!

            It will be interesting to see at what point the doubling ends. I’ll be looking for both World stats and USA stats. Currently though it seems like we have an infinite supply of farm land being wasted on biofuel. And more Chinese PV panels than grains of sand on the beach.

            We need farm equipment and robots to install PV in mass. Similar to how farm crops are handled now.

          • Bob_Wallace

            If you haven’t read the Jacobson and Delucchi 2009 Scientific American article you might want to.

            They took projections of how much energy the world would need in 2030 and calculated how many wind turbine, solar panels, etc. we’d need to install to produce that power with renewables And they showed how it would be possible for us to get there in 20 years.

            The paper is a bit dated. Solar panels have become more efficient as have wind turbines. We’d have to build fewer, but their numbers are good enough to give you an overall feel for the task.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

          • David Tiessen

            No you are correct and Ray Kurzweil has been saying it and it’s actually doubling every 2yrs for the last 20 yrs thus 7 more doubles and 100% of world energy needs are met purely by solar covering 1% of the planet. Which equates to the size of Alberta so they’ll be something to cover that eye sore up once they’re done creating probably another worlds largest ecological disaster.

          • Bob_Wallace

            There’s no way that the world will get 100% of its electricity from solar.

            But if that were to happen how about we take a look at how much of the world’s surface would be covered by panel.

            See those little green rectangles? You think they equal 1% of the world’s land area?

            (You need to stop snorting Koch.)

          • David Tiessen

            Bob why argue for the sake of arguing? It’s pointless and inefficient. No those little green squares equate to 1/3% of Earths land mass and yes 2030. All energy from solar. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/10/business/ray-kurzweil-future-of-human-life/

          • Bob_Wallace

            David, I’m not arguing for the sake of argument.

            You posted incorrect information and I am countering it with facts.

            Re-read the link you posted. Kurzweil does not say that we will power the world with 100% solar. He is talking about how much solar potential there is and how rapidly solar power is growing.

          • David Tiessen

            Well Bob, then perhaps you are splitting hairs, as in your comment on the amount of land mass it would require to reach 100% of our energy needs by solar not being 1% of land mass of Earth. You are absolutely correct, I did the math, and it’s not 1% it’s actually less. So what was your point? That it was an even smaller amount? Well that was my point as well as in it will not require much land mass of the earth or specifically the size of at Alberta, with an area of 661,848 km2. Which is actually an exaggeration as it will take approximately 180,000 sqkm less!

            Now as far as what Ray Kurweil meant by his comment perhaps you may wish to take it up with his because between you and I we will have to agree to disagree because I stand by my interpretation of his statements of what meeting 100% of our energy needs by purely by solar means:

            “We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy,” he has predicted. “It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we’ll meet 100% of our energy needs in 20 years.”

            Since around one-third of that 104GW installed capacity is in Germany and China is only really getting going, Kurzweil’s forecasts don’t look too far-fetched.

            Despite these glitches (or S curves) on his graph, Kurzweill still believes that a “doubling every two years means it’s only eight more doublings before it meets 100% of the world’s energy needs.”

            That takes us to about 2027, close to his predictions in 2008.
            You may choose to retort back Bob but I am sorry I shall not be replying back for efficiencies sake.

            Regards.

            http://www.pv-tech.org/editors_blog/could_kurzweil_be_right_about_solar_the_google_of_energy

          • Bob_Wallace

            China is installing a lot more wind than solar. I think that’s an indication that China is not looking at a 100% solar grid.

            I suspect what you are doing is turning a “could” into a “will”.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      i’m not sure which of his research studies those estimates come from. he has researched the matter extensively and written several books and research papers on the matter:

      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Robert+Pollin+clean+energy+jobs&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

      http://www.peri.umass.edu/nc/201/?tx_peripubs_pi1author_id=39

      Co-director and Professor of Economics
      Robert Pollin’s research centers on macroeconomics, conditions for low-wage workers in the U.S. and globally, the analysis of financial markets, and the economics of building a clean-energy economy in the U.S. His books include A Measure of Fairness: The Economics of Living Wages and Minimum Wages in the United States (co-authored, 2008); An Employment-Targeted Economic Program for Kenya (co-authored, 2008); An Employment-Targeted Economic Program for South Africa(co-authored, 2007); Contours of Descent: U.S. Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity (2003); and The Living Wage: Building A Fair Economy (co-authored 1998); and the edited volumes Human Development in the Era of Globalization (co-edited 2006); Globalization and Progressive Economic Policy (co-edited, 1998); The Macroeconomics of Saving, Finance, and Investment (1997); and Transforming the U.S. Financial System(co-edited 1993). Most recently, he co-authored the studies “Green Recovery” (September 2008), “The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy” (June 2009), and “Green Prosperity” (June 2009) exploring the broader economic benefits of large-scale investments in building a clean-energy economy in the United States. He is currently consulting with the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Labour Organization on the economic analysis of clean-energy investments. He has worked with the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Economic Commission on Africa on policies to promote decent employment expansion and poverty reduction in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. He has also worked with the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress and as a member of the Capital Formation Subcouncil of the U.S. Competitiveness Policy Council.

      http://www.peri.umass.edu/staff/

      • http://profiles.google.com/ivor.oconnor Ivor O’Connor

        Thanks Zachary. I looked and skimmed through the results of the two links you supplied above. I didn’t get very far. It’s too esoteric for me and goes right over my head. I like information my mom could understand.

Back to Top ↑