Green Energy Revolution Megathread

[CountDeMoney]

Seems like green jobs is definitely a thing.

That's what's hilariously sad about all this coal bullshit; not even the energy sector wants it.  LNG is cheaper, more efficient and easier to transport. 

[jimmy olsen]

It's a brand new technology. They haven't installed that much, but they will.

What's holding them back, if it's economically viable?

Nothing's holding them back. 

It takes years for new technology to proliferate and be installed across a big industry like this.

[The Minsky Moment]

According to this, clean energy jobs in the US outnumber fossil fuel jobs 2.5 to 1: https://www.docdroid.net/G6njmYC/sierra-club-clean-energy-jobs-report-final-1.pdf.html

Seems like green jobs is definitely a thing.

Yes the Dept of Labor data backs that up as well.  Also, the trend in the coal industry has been greater automation and mining techniques that require much less labor - this would be facilitated by deregulation.   Pushing coal vs. solar makes zero sense in terms of promoting quality job growth, not to mention the other factors.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes the Dept of Labor data backs that up as well.  Also, the trend in the coal industry has been greater automation and mining techniques that require much less labor - this would be facilitated by deregulation.   Pushing coal vs. solar makes zero sense in terms of promoting quality job growth, not to mention the other factors.

But as we all know the majority of jobs in green energy are in manufacture and installation.  We seem to be undergoing an installation boom right now.  I don't expect that ratio to be maintained.  Unless carbon extraction drops enormously.

[The Larch]

Seems like green jobs is definitely a thing.

That's what's hilariously sad about all this coal bullshit; not even the energy sector wants it.  LNG is cheaper, more efficient and easier to transport.

In the same vein and with a similar motivation, even Big Oil doesn't want the US to walk back from the Paris Agreement.

Exxon urges Trump to keep US in Paris climate accord
Letter comes as White House seeks to unravel Obama greenhouse commitments

ExxonMobil, the largest American oil group, has written to the Trump administration urging it to keep the US in the Paris climate accord agreed at the end of 2015.

In a letter to President Donald Trump's special assistant for international energy and the environment, Exxon argues that the Paris accord is "an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change".

The letter was sent last week, but has emerged as Mr Trump is preparing to announce executive orders beginning a rollback several of Barack Obama's climate policies, while leaving the question of Paris open.

Trump administration officials have said a decision on participation in Paris is still "under discussion", and have been soliciting views from US energy companies.

Exxon argues in its letter that there are several reasons for the US to stay in the Paris accord, including the opportunity to support greater use of natural gas, which creates lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal when burnt for power generation.

Coal is totally dead in the long term as a mainstream energy source. It will retain importance in less advanced countries but its importance will only go down from now on, and it has been already going down in the last few years. No amount of pro-coal legislation will change that, short of imposing punitive legislation on natural gas or renewables.

[crazy canuck]

It's a brand new technology. They haven't installed that much, but they will.

What's holding them back, if it's economically viable?

Nothing.  A number of companies are currently competing to integrate high capacity storage into electrical grids around the world.

[grumbler]

It's a brand new technology. They haven't installed that much, but they will.

What's holding them back, if it's economically viable?

Nothing.  A number of companies are currently competing to integrate high capacity storage into electrical grids around the world.

I'm not sure that this is evidence of economic viability.  Electrical utilities are willing to experiment with non-economically-viable systems in hopes that they are advancing the science towards economically-viable end states.    Some grids (those with high marginal production costs) will find it economical to use battery storage before others with lower marginal costs.

I don't think enough work has been done to evaluate the real costs of battery storage on a large scale yet. Issues like battery life in a real-world application are not resolved except in the loose estimate sense.

[derspiess]

Seems like green jobs is definitely a thing.

[crazy canuck]

It's a brand new technology. They haven't installed that much, but they will.

What's holding them back, if it's economically viable?

Nothing.  A number of companies are currently competing to integrate high capacity storage into electrical grids around the world.

I'm not sure that this is evidence of economic viability.  Electrical utilities are willing to experiment with non-economically-viable systems in hopes that they are advancing the science towards economically-viable end states.    Some grids (those with high marginal production costs) will find it economical to use battery storage before others with lower marginal costs.

I don't think enough work has been done to evaluate the real costs of battery storage on a large scale yet. Issues like battery life in a real-world application are not resolved except in the loose estimate sense.

It is true that some areas are further along than others.  Also much depends on the cost and source of the electrical power being stored.  For example in Norway, investing in storage makes significant economic sense with their surplus of hydro generated power which if stored can be sold into other markets.  California is in a similar situation with its fast developing infrastructure of alternative energy sources.  The other reality is that all jurisdictions are going to have to meet increasing electrical demand one way or the other.  Storage of low cost but variable sources of generation is a practical and efficient solution to that problem.

As for evaluating the costs, you should look at all the work the Norwegians have done on the topic.

[CountDeMoney]

Fucking experience requirements
Always something 

Experienced Underground Coal Miners
Custom Staffing Services - Owensville, IN
$22 an hour
Custom Staffing Services
116 reviews
Read what employees say about working here.
Experienced Underground Coal Miners Needed!

(apply ASAP, positions won't last!)

Positions Available:

4 Mechanics
8 Roof Bolters
4 Car Drivers
2 Scoop Operators
6 3rd Shift (Set Up, Rock Dust, Belt & Power, etc.)
Benefits Include:

Medical Insurance (after 30 days + the first of the month)
Paid Vacation (after 1 year)
Paid Holidays (after 1 year)
Referral Bonus ($300)
Paid Weekly (Direct Deposit & Global Cash Card offered)
All candidates must pass physical and drug screen

To Apply:

Bring your Driver's License, Social Security Card, Indiana Experienced Underground Card, & most recent Annual Refresher Training Certificate to:

Custom Staffing

1820 N. Green River Rd.

Evansville, IN 47715

8am to 3pm (Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday)

Salary: $22.00 /hour

Required education:

High school or equivalent
Required experience:

Underground Coal MIning: 1 year

[The Brain]

Drug screen? Pass.

[Eddie Teach]

You'd have to be high to want to work in a coal mine.

[CountDeMoney]

You'd have to be high to want to work in a coal mine.

Obviously a shitload of people do, or they would've voted for Hillary.

If her campaign had been on the ball, they would've explained that lower-case "c" on her emails meant "coal."

[Jacob]

But as we all know the majority of jobs in green energy are in manufacture and installation.  We seem to be undergoing an installation boom right now.  I don't expect that ratio to be maintained.  Unless carbon extraction drops enormously.

Good point.

[derspiess]

I support Seedy working in a coal mine.