Interesting article from SolarReviews.com

[solar pete]

Howdy All,

Just saw this article about the White House's plan for clean renewable energy

http://www.solarreviews.com/news/whie_house_clean_power_plan_080315/

P.S SK I dont think you should read it, it may make your head explode

[SunEagle]

Howdy All,

Just saw this article about the White House's plan for clean renewable energy

http://www.solarreviews.com/news/whie_house_clean_power_plan_080315/

P.S SK I dont think you should read it, it may make your head explode

What that article does not state is that while the RE industry will increase (and I am in favor of that), the coal industry will die putting thousands of people out of work. Which is sad.

There was also a little blip in the Tampa Bay Times paper today that stated a "US think tank" determined that even if the US eliminated 100% of the CO2 it produces the affect on climate change would be next to nothing due to the other countries that will continue to produce the stuff. Yet going with the new White house plan, will put a lot of people out of a job, increase electric costs and do nothing to help the climate.

IMO why can't solar and RE stand on it's own without using "fear" of the weather to get people to install it.

[emartin00]

What that article does not state is that while the RE industry will increase (and I am in favor of that), the coal industry will die putting thousands of people out of work. Which is sad.

There was also a little blip in the Tampa Bay Times paper today that stated a "US think tank" determined that even if the US eliminated 100% of the CO2 it produces the affect on climate change would be next to nothing due to the other countries that will continue to produce the stuff. Yet going with the new White house plan, will put a lot of people out of a job, increase electric costs and do nothing to help the climate.

IMO why can't solar and RE stand on it's own without using "fear" of the weather to get people to install it.

Sure, if we go 100% renewable and India and China remain reliant on coal, it won't be better than today, but if we still rely on coal too, it will be worse...
Plus China has started to clean up their act a bit as well. When your cities are constantly clouded in smog, you realize you have to change something.

People will lose their jobs in the coal industry, but many more will get jobs in the solar and wind industry. Technologies grow, and then they die. If you don't have the ability to change career paths from time to time, then you will be out of luck. That's the way things work. I have family and friends who lost their jobs when the paper mills all shut down. But they moved on and found other jobs.
You can't just rely on old technology because you don't want to put people out of work or you end up with a stagnant economy.

[SunEagle]

Sure, if we go 100% renewable and India and China remain reliant on coal, it won't be better than today, but if we still rely on coal too, it will be worse...
Plus China has started to clean up their act a bit as well. When your cities are constantly clouded in smog, you realize you have to change something.

People will lose their jobs in the coal industry, but many more will get jobs in the solar and wind industry. Technologies grow, and then they die. If you don't have the ability to change career paths from time to time, then you will be out of luck. That's the way things work. I have family and friends who lost their jobs when the paper mills all shut down. But they moved on and found other jobs.
You can't just rely on old technology because you don't want to put people out of work or you end up with a stagnant economy.

Changing careers is ok if it is done is an orderly fashion. The paper industry did not shut down in just a couple of years, so people had time to explore and find new jobs. What the White house is proposing will shut down hundreds of power generating plants in only a few years without having the same amount of power generation in place to cover the loss. This will increase electric costs for most people because of the more expensive "fuels" it will be generated with.

RE (solar and wind) will be built and create some temporary jobs but most of the new jobs will go away when the construction is over. Much different then building a power generating plant and then staffing it 24/7 to keep it running.

The coal industries have been working on making their plants cleaner and better for the past decade and can increase the pace on the newer plants while they retire the older and more polluting plants. But this will take a lot longer than what the EPA and our Wh wants to do.

I agree a phase out of the higher poluting generating plants is required. But shutting them all down quickly is just plain dangerous to our economy.

Also thinking that RE will be "clean and green" and there for you 24/7 is a fantasy. Few people understand that because they do not really know what it takes to produce and transport power to all their customers without interupption.

Change is required but doing too quickly is bad.

[Naptown]

The coal industry has already lost thousands of well paying albeit dangerous jobs.
This was not due to solar or any other RE source of power but to a change in how it is mined.
They have gone from underground mining to mountaintop removal.
This cuts the labor per ton extracted by a huge amount.
And at the expense of some very fragile ecosystems.
Google mountain top removal.
This is devastation at its extreme.

[SunEagle]

The coal industry has already lost thousands of well paying albeit dangerous jobs.
This was not due to solar or any other RE source of power but to a change in how it is mined.
They have gone from underground mining to mountaintop removal.
This cuts the labor per ton extracted by a huge amount.
And at the expense of some very fragile ecosystems.
Google mountain top removal.
This is devastation at its extreme.

I agree that mining anything that way is just wrong and needs to be changed.

I understand there are two sides to this discussion with a lot of personal opinions based on first hand experience and neither side is right or wrong.

I am just saying that quickly walking away from the coal industry has side affects that can be more detrimental to a lot of people than slowly reducing the way it is removed from the earth and used.

[J.P.M.]

Changing careers is ok if it is done is an orderly fashion. The paper industry did not shut down in just a couple of years, so people had time to explore and find new jobs. What the White house is proposing will shut down hundreds of power generating plants in only a few years without having the same amount of power generation in place to cover the loss. This will increase electric costs for most people because of the more expensive "fuels" it will be generated with. RE (solar and wind) will be built and create some temporary jobs but most of the new jobs will go away when the construction is over. Much different then building a power generating plant and then staffing it 24/7 to keep it running. The coal industries have been working on making their plants cleaner and better for the past decade and can increase the pace on the newer plants while they retire the older and more polluting plants. But this will take a lot longer than what the EPA and our Wh wants to do. I agree a phase out of the higher poluting generating plants is required. But shutting them all down quickly is just plain dangerous to our economy. Also thinking that RE will be "clean and green" and there for you 24/7 is a fantasy. Few people understand that because they do not really know what it takes to produce and transport power to all their customers without interupption. Change is required but doing too quickly is bad.

A comment or two and perhaps adding to SunEagle's comments: 1.) There is a 1.2 MW, ~ 8 acre solar farm in my elevated line of sight as I write this. It's been there for several years. I look at it several times/day. So far, after several years of cursory watching, I have yet to see ANY activity at the site. It seems it does not take a lot of maint., or a large staff. I realize that's not a 1,200 MW plant, but still, probably a lot less staff for solar than conventional plants, and probably lower wages as well. 2.) While I hear/read a lot about power plants closing, often with at least the implication it's the green meannie dominated gov. forcing such things, I wonder if at least some of those closures aren't cost effective changeouts/retires that would happen with/without gov. mandate and at least partially made possible or necessary, or an economically wise choice by improvements in technology that occurred between the time of plant commissioning/refit and the present. If I owned/ran a power plant, I'd make the changeout as a business decision considering all the factors, including gov. mandates, and get any extra mileage that may be gained in terms of public relations in my (perceived) battles with the tree huggers as part of the bargain. Just my $0.02.

[sensij]

I am just saying that quickly walking away from the coal industry has side affects that can be more detrimental to a lot of people than slowly reducing the way it is removed from the earth and used.

How can anything about this plan be considered "quick"? The emission goals are for 2030.

There are something like 174,000 coal related jobs in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

Every one of those jobs could be lost in a single week and it would be only a small dent in the overall unemployment numbers. Yes, it is a tough situation for those who count on that employment, but count me among those who think the employment potential for building the infrastructure necessary for large scale RE and energy storage will be much higher than what is being lost.

[nomadh]

A comment or two and perhaps adding to SunEagle's comments: 1.) There is a 1.2 MW, ~ 8 acre solar farm in my elevated line of sight as I write this. It's been there for several years. I look at it several times/day. So far, after several years of cursory watching, I have yet to see ANY activity at the site. It seems it does not take a lot of maint., or a large staff. I realize that's not a 1,200 MW plant, but still, probably a lot less staff for solar than conventional plants, and probably lower wages as well. 2.) While I hear/read a lot about power plants closing, often with at least the implication it's the green meannie dominated gov. forcing such things, I wonder if at least some of those closures aren't cost effective changeouts/retires that would happen with/without gov. mandate and at least partially made possible or necessary, or an economically wise choice by improvements in technology that occurred between the time of plant commissioning/refit and the present. If I owned/ran a power plant, I'd make the changeout as a business decision considering all the factors, including gov. mandates, and get any extra mileage that may be gained in terms of public relations in my (perceived) battles with the tree huggers as part of the bargain. Just my $0.02.

Bottom line is ALL jobs seem to eventually be going away. The only real consistent growth is government bureaucracy or private company jobs that have to deal with bureaucracy. Can we function as a society where nearly ALL of us are on welfare? Maybe next step is to mandate 20 hr work week. You could nearly double employment right there. Maybe thats the payoff for creating a polite functional society. We all get more time off.

[emartin00]

Changing careers is ok if it is done is an orderly fashion. The paper industry did not shut down in just a couple of years, so people had time to explore and find new jobs. What the White house is proposing will shut down hundreds of power generating plants in only a few years without having the same amount of power generation in place to cover the loss. This will increase electric costs for most people because of the more expensive "fuels" it will be generated with.

Maybe the industry in general, but it hit the New England economy hard, and fast. There are a number of towns in Maine that were very large and supported by the paper mills. The town where my mom grew up lost 70% of its population in just a few years. It was not a slow transition at all.

[SunEagle]

Maybe the industry in general, but it hit the New England economy hard, and fast. There are a number of towns in Maine that were very large and supported by the paper mills. The town where my mom grew up lost 70% of its population in just a few years. It was not a slow transition at all.

I am sorry to hear about the loss of jobs in your mom's town. I am sure it was not an easy path to continue to live and work in that area.

[Naptown]

Isn't the mill in Bucksport the last mill in Maine?

[Naptown]

Isn't the mill in Bucksport the last mill in Maine?

Sorry closed and sold to a scrap metal
Company.

[SunEagle]

Sorry closed and sold to a scrap metal Company.

Are you saying there are no more paper mills in Maine? Where do they send to timber to be processed and please don't tell me it's China.

[solar pete]

Howdy All,

Love this thread. When I read the article I thought, well fair enough, if I was operating one of the old coal fired power stations I think I would be looking to replace it with gas, you guys have got heaps of gas from fracking, and then also put in a large solar array ready for when batteries get cheaper, then whack in a huge storage system when the prices make sense.

The job loses from the old industry's is very sad but you (in my opinion) have to keep looking at the bright side, didnt standard oil run full page ads when they went from oil lamps to electric lights, claiming lives would be in danger, many jobs were lost. We got through that change I think we can get through the next one too

Cheers everybody.