This is such a bull shit article! Not once did they mention that every fuckin Green job is subsidized by our tax dollars. If not for that theft, there would be no Commie Green energy!





The green economy has grown so much in the US that it employs around 10 times as many people as the fossil fuel industry – despite the past decade's oil and gas boom.

The fossil fuel sector, from coal mines to gas power plants, employed around 900,000 people in the US in 2015-16, government figures show. But Lucien Georgeson and Mark Maslin at University College London found that over the same period this was vastly outweighed by the green economy, which provided nearly 9.5 million jobs, or 4 per cent of the working age population. The pair defined the green economy broadly, covering everything from renewable energy to environmental consultancy.

Their analysis showed the green economy is worth $1.3 trillion, or about 7 per cent of US GDP.

The figures don't cover the presidency of Donald Trump, who promised to protect coal mining jobs and exploit oil and gas resources. But Maslin says the figures show that Trump's policy is economically misguided.

"The Trump administration with the 'America first' approach of 'fossil fuels are good', is stupid when it comes to economics.

If you want to be a hard-nosed neoliberal economist you would say, 'Let's support the green economy as much as possible.'"

The US stopped recording green job statistics several years ago, but these suggested 3.4 million people worked in the sector in 2011. Maslin and Georgeson used a much broader set of 26 sub-sectors including wind and solar power, marine pollution controls, carbon capture, biodiversity and air pollution. Maslin says the figures have been underestimated in the past, partly because the green economy is so diffuse.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2219927-us-green-economy-has-10-times-more-jobs-than-the-fossil-fuel-industry/?fbclid=IwAR21xonvyWNnyfopgWAd-_57FTlMPu6emGT8mmmV5TLXz13M7qpqUEeeKK8

So what they are trying to say is the oil and gas is a hell of a lot more efficient than "green"? I would like to see how many hours it takes for 1 kilowatt of green vs hours for energy from natural gas. Do these dumb as-es understand consumers pay for those bloated hours?  Whats next, they going to brag that the government hires a whole lot of people?

Why then if green is soooooo great is only one or two windmilsl running on a windmill farm month after month.  And the other 100 to 200 are lock down and not moving in my area.  Could it be I have 2 hydro dams within 75 miles of me and two more within 200 miles of me.   

Believing that our economy can run on entirely green energy is delusional, my own professor even admits this. Nuclear energy, by all accounts is our best bet, but the dems hate it. You can't have it both ways thought. Either we make a move towards a new future, or we stay with fossil fuels.

Quote from: s3779m on November 20, 2019, 04:14:47 PM
So what they are trying to say is the oil and gas is a hell of a lot more efficient than "green"? I would like to see how many hours it takes for 1 kilowatt of green vs hours for energy from natural gas. Do these dumb as-es understand consumers pay for those bloated hours?  Whats next, they going to brag that the government hires a whole lot of people?

Spot On!!!
Not to mention the math exposing the cost of all those employees over those in the oil industry. 90% of all energy comes from oil based energy which has a fraction of the employees of Green.
So when one does the math, the cost of Green is simply not economically feasible.
I wonder how many idiot libs fell for this article on its face?

Quote from: walkstall on November 20, 2019, 05:59:48 PM
Why then if green is soooooo great is only one or two windmilsl running on a windmill farm month after month.  And the other 100 to 200 are lock down and not moving in my area.  Could it be I have 2 hydro dams within 75 miles of me and two more within 200 miles of me.   

Same here, Norcal has three huge dams that supply all of the state, the Bay Area has thousands of wind turbines but they turn off the power when the wind blows?
Oh. and yeah, the power is off again.

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 20, 2019, 06:01:53 PM
Believing that our economy can run on entirely green energy is delusional, my own professor even admits this. Nuclear energy, by all accounts is our best bet, but the dems hate it. You can't have it both ways thought. Either we make a move towards a new future, or we stay with fossil fuels.

BINGO!!! Nuclear is the only way to go.

I've been watching a new YouTube channel for background while I work where he goes around the country in an RV.  When he hits out west, there's spots that are a sea of windmills that aren't even moving that destroy some of the most beautiful scenery in our country.  It's sad what libtards do to the environment.

Quote from: Solar on November 20, 2019, 06:39:38 PM
BINGO!!! Nuclear is the only way to go.

Exactly. I have never understood why the dems hate it so much though. Maybe a little insight there?

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 21, 2019, 08:25:41 PM
Exactly. I have never understood why the dems hate it so much though. Maybe a little insight there?

Imagine if CA started cranking up more nuclear power plants.  Their water and electric problems would be over.

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 21, 2019, 08:25:41 PM
Exactly. I have never understood why the dems hate it so much though. Maybe a little insight there?

You answered it yourself. They're an emotional lot where critical thought is seen as a Conservative trait. To do so would mark them in their social rankings, forcing them out of many of their groups.
I kid you not, the left only allows group think, to do otherwise is heretical that could force one to be ostracized.

Quote from: Solar on November 20, 2019, 03:51:33 PM
This is such a bull shit article! Not once did they mention that every fuckin Green job is subsidized by our tax dollars. If not for that theft, there would be no Commie Green energy!

Oil and gas get subsidised aswell in the US, i resume nuclear too. And likely good too, enery demands grow fast and withought subsidies supply might not keep up with demand.

Quote from: Solar on November 20, 2019, 03:51:33 PM
The green economy has grown so much in the US that it employs around 10 times as many people as the fossil fuel industry – despite the past decade's oil and gas boom.

The fossil fuel sector, from coal mines to gas power plants, employed around 900,000 people in the US in 2015-16, government figures show. But Lucien Georgeson and Mark Maslin at University College London found that over the same period this was vastly outweighed by the green economy, which provided nearly 9.5 million jobs, or 4 per cent of the working age population. The pair defined the green economy broadly, covering everything from renewable energy to environmental consultancy.

Their analysis showed the green economy is worth $1.3 trillion, or about 7 per cent of US GDP.

Yes you likely should scrutinise those numbers. It probably includes all the jobs around green energy aswell and if you would then do the same for oil i'm sure that would bloat the numbers. Lots of work though in green energy, can't see that as a bad thing.

Quote from: Solar on November 20, 2019, 03:51:33 PM
The figures don't cover the presidency of Donald Trump, who promised to protect coal mining jobs and exploit oil and gas resources. But Maslin says the figures show that Trump's policy is economically misguided.

I don't think the coal sector is doing nessecarily so much better even with Trump, but i guess the figures here were from before 2016?

Quote from: s3779m on November 20, 2019, 04:14:47 PM
So what they are trying to say is the oil and gas is a hell of a lot more efficient than "green"? I would like to see how many hours it takes for 1 kilowatt of green vs hours for energy from natural gas. Do these dumb as-es understand consumers pay for those bloated hours?  Whats next, they going to brag that the government hires a whole lot of people?

The issue with comparisons of costs is that wind energy is variable and thatsome area's receive significant more wind and/or higher windspeeds making them more effecient. Usually the yield of a windmill is considered in "average conditions" but the impact of putting it in a very windy zone can be so impactfull that a windmill there yields a multiple of one in average conditions. For that purpose then there are also "windmaps" used to decide where to put them, you would see that for the US the strongest winds are in typicly in the midwest. Average windspeed also depends o the height upon which the turbine sits. Another factor that can make the cost of windmills or even solar panels lower is the price of the ground upon which the installation sits and for the US that means that desert area's with high winds are additionally interresting for windmills. I added 2 windmaps of the US below at different height and under that a cost comparison of wind versus oil in terms of price per kilowatthour.





You can note the variation of windspeed here. At 30 meters you can expect about 7 meters per second windspeed in Texas, at 100m  you could get 8.5 meters per second.

cost comparison



This can certaintly be scrutinised. Lazard gives the cheapest costs for wind afaik, Bloomberg iirc puts the costs higher. However, wind energy has become quite cheap to be fair and typicly people just underestimate it. There is a fair amount of technological evolution in wind energy making them more efecient year after year and in the last 40 years the sector have made huge strides to a point no where hey are pretty much competitive even when unsubsidised. Preffered even often because it's fairly green but more importantly the investment costs ins't that high and it's easier to match to demand.

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 20, 2019, 06:01:53 PM
Believing that our economy can run on entirely green energy is delusional, my own professor even admits this. Nuclear energy, by all accounts is our best bet, but the dems hate it. You can't have it both ways thought. Either we make a move towards a new future, or we stay with fossil fuels.

Nuclear is good and a very usefull form of energy for transition. A few things to take i mind though:
-The costs of investment are huge and even more notably getting the permits is rather challenging
-Uranium is somewhat limited too, though we certaintly could go a while on it likely its cost would rise after time. Furthermore the costs of nuclear plants would rise fast if we started building lots of them at once as the company's that supply the equipment wouldn't keep up.
-Technological evolution in Nuclear is sadly not going at a speed that was hoped for. Nuclear would be such a better option if we managed to improve on fusion. In the meantime Wind and especially solar evolves fast in technoligy.

There is however a huge plus to Nuclear in comparison to solar and Wind: you can gennerate it on demand. You get youre wind energy and solar when there is wind and sun and otherwise you dont, nuclear and many other conventional sources of energy don't have that issue.

You kinda preferably got to build those nuclear plants in some spot far away from urban area's (or people get afraid which is a bit silly) and preferably where nuclear waste is easy to dispose withought protests. Would be nice if we could put them in deserts aswell but nuclear plants typicly need a lot of water.

However, to argue that a high tech civilisation might not get its energy 100% from renewables is likely going to get more incorrect as the technoligy evolves and especially if better energy grids can be build that can transport high volumes of energy over long distances. To look for example far into the future then you have youre typical Kardashev Type II civilization which would have build it's own dyson sphere to capture 100% of the suns energy, a volume of energy so vast that it makes us look like amateurs with our oil.

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 22, 2019, 07:59:43 AM
Oil and gas get subsidised aswell in the US, i resume nuclear too. And likely good too, enery demands grow fast and withought subsidies supply might not keep up with demand.

And Conservatives have always been against them as well

QuoteYes you likely should scrutinise those numbers. It probably includes all the jobs around green energy aswell and if you would then do the same for oil i'm sure that would bloat the numbers. Lots of work though in green energy, can't see that as a bad thing.

Difference being, oil connected business does not rely on govt subsidies to survive. Green on the other hand wouldn't even exist without the govt teat. As an expert in the field, I know of what I speak.

QuoteI don't think the coal sector is doing nessecarily so much better even with Trump, but i guess the figures here were from before 2016?

Yes, they're old and yes, Trump killed a lot of the Marxists unconstitutional regs against the coal industry.