Sustainability: “Even artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.”
It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of power as one coal worker
If there is one chart that you look at today you should make it this one from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Using data from the United States Department of Energy, it takes 79 solar workers to produce the same amount of electric power as one coal worker. It also takes 79 solar workers to produce the same amount of electric power as two natural gas workers.
Here is the chart:
Inconvenient energy fact. Image: AEIdeas
Mark Perry of the AEI sums it pretty nicely:
The goal of America’s energy sector isn’t to create as many jobs as possible (as the NYT article “Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal“ would apparently have us believe) especially the politically-favored and heavily-subsidized renewable energy jobs. Rather, the economic goal is to produce as much electric power as possible at the lowest possible cost, and that means we want the fewest number of energy workers!
Unfortunately, it’s the fault of the politicians who constantly espouse the incorrect idea that jobs are an economic benefit (SEE: Paging Milton Friedman – Pope Francis warns of ‘very grave sin’ if you fire workers). Remember, the ultimate objective of any society is to have the fewest amount of workers producing the greatest amount of output.
Of course, basic economics is never something that politicians value.
[Byline Andrew Moran]
Economic Collapse News (edited)
04 May 2017
Related
Nearly 120 wind turbines catch fire each year – ten times the number reported by the industry – according to new research. The figures show that fires are the second biggest cause of accidents in wind turbines, after blade failure […] Fires can also start as a result of lightning strikes, with turbines being especially prone as they are metallic and often the tallest structures for miles around.
See Also
Exactly, how much land and how many dead animals does it take to provide “safe,” “reliable,” and “green” subsidized energy to an astoundingly few number of homes? Is it “Environmentally friendly?” Of course, unless there is any concern at all about wildlife and land preservation. Who would have thought that any agenda decreasing the amount of bird species could lead to more insect and animal pests, diseases and destruction?
********
On the other hand. it ought to be clear to us by now, that from Fukushima and Chernobyl Events, humans lack the ability to ‘live’ with the consequences of ‘sustainable’ nuclear energy. Looking at it another way, for every small pile of dense fissionable material and nuclear waste product that is generated, it will at least require sustainable numbers of jobs for monitoring and clean-up by future generations of humans and/or mutants.
Head Space 