90% of Danish wind industry employment crowds out other technology sectors- almost no net job creation
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/Wind_at_work_FINAL.pdf
There is an "acute shortage" of skilled labor in the wind industry
http://www.eesi.org/fact-sheet-jobs-renewable-energy-and-energy-efficiency-01-jun-2011
http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag211.htm
Renewables require a similar amount of labor as the oil & gas industry while producing virtually no energy. Powering the US on renewables would require millions of wind installations and hundreds of millions of solar installations, the largest engineering project in history repeated every 30 years.
Solar currently provides 0.1% of US energy consumption and employs 90,000 people. If we extrapolate this to 25% of energy consumption, solar would require 22 million workers. If we assume half of those can be automated or whatever, that's still 10 million.
Wind is a bit better, it's about a tenth as labor intensive. But that's still 1 million workers or five times the size of the oil industry, which is already having labor shortages.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/20/150871935/as-workers-age-oil-industry-braces-for-skills-gap
Despite what cleantechnica.com says, wind and solar are the only real, scalable renewables and both are necessary to deal with intermittency. Without one or both, enjoy, like, not having power in the middle of the day.
Feudalism: there is no alternative.
Edited by bound2hostageXchange ()
If the proles will always be at subsistence, wealth redistribution accomplishes nothing. There should be feudal hierarchy so at least some people still have a decent standard of living.
mustang this just illustrates my point that you are the most cynical liberal of all.
Maybe, after Vox was banned.
uuuugh those feminists are genociding black babies...
Why would I want to have sex let alone with a feminist?
gwap posted:whwere is the anime? i cant find it
wow goat pretty generous of you. are you sure this ugly sissy tranny faggot is really worthy to receive your upvotes? think carefully about this, your manly lantern jaw may disown you and shrivel away if you fail to affirm your masculinity by taking every opportunity to totes own tha shit outta every lil genderfuck b*tch u see...
I'm not offended by your gender or orientation roseweird, I'm offended by your liberalism. LGBT and Fascism are actually complimentary, the Nazis had many homosexuals in important positions.
I'm going to do this because I am fucking retarded.
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/10/1866
I'm going to compare the job market of an industry based on mostly passive infrastructure
Employment is growing in line with capacity. Wind in particular is a pretty mature industry and the crowding out of skilled labor has already been observed.
Employment grew 2.6 times from 2007 to 2009 while capacity grew 3.2 times. So two thirds of the capacity growth is matched by employment.
Wind is having faster employment growth from a higher base, and engineering employment is growing faster than overall employment.
I'm sure Denmark has room to grow because its a small country that can export nothing but turbines and import what it needs, but if the US were to start building out renewables it would drain its engineers rapidly.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LYM740wBdjE/S6rCJUZRrkI/AAAAAAAAAgQ/rFy9Pfbd-Sw/s1600/jobs+per+million+spent.jpg
Lets take a look at renewables propaganda.
Say renewables eventually come down to a reasonable price ($1/W). That means 13 jobs per MW of capacity.
If we want 25% of the US on renewables, that's 1 million MW of capacity, or 13 million jobs.
That's insane. If we say 10% of those are engineers, that's 1.3 million engineers. There are 800,000 engineers in the US.
Edited by bound2hostageXchange ()
Here's an actual study looking at the number of jobs created per MW over the lifetime of the system.
10PWh requires 15 million jobs for solar or 2 million for wind. So wind actually seems decent, but not really since that's only a quarter of what the US consumes.
let's begin with some assumptions:
1. the earth will die alongside the sun in 5 billion years
2. future lives are as valuable as current lives
3. technology will improve at an unknown rate making living standards better given the same resource input
4. future lives will therefore be assigned less resources the further into the future they are
5. the world socialist republic will be achieved in the near future so we will assume identical living standards across the world
now, mustang, please calculate, given the above assumptions, how much copper will need to be using per person per year in order to eke out a living in 5 billion years
But, about the degree thing, I'm already doing that. I'll include bot attacking Rhizzone on my computer science resume.