- ‹ previous
- 641 of 1535
- next ›
Wind Employs More Americans Than Coal
The wind energy industry is growing quickly and now employs more people than the coal industry. A report released this week by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) finds that 85,000 people work in wind, up from 50,000 a year ago. Todd Woody at Fortune's Green Wombat points out that 81,000 people work in the coal industry and notes, "Those figures are from a 2007 U.S. Department of Energy report but coal employment has remained steady in recent years though it's down by nearly 50% since 1986."
While there is growing demand for wind as an alternative energy source, and the industry is responding in kind—wind power generating capacity increased by 50% in 2008—it is not insulated from the broader economic slowdown. The AWEA reports that by the end of 2008 "financing for new projects and orders for turbine components slowed to a trickle and layoffs began to hit the wind turbine manufacturing sector." Notes AWEA CEO Denise Bode, granted with a vested interest:
"The U.S. wind energy industry's performance in 2008 confirms that wind is an economic and job creation dynamo, ready to deliver on the President's call to double renewable energy production in three years. At the same time, it is clear that the economic and financial downturn have begun to take a serious toll on new wind development. We are already seeing layoffs in the area where wind's promise is greatest for our economy: the wind power manufacturing sector. Quick action in the stimulus bill is vital to restore the industry's momentum and create jobs as we help make our country more secure and leave a more stable climate for our children."
So it's probably good for the wind industry that the House just passed Obama's stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, which, as the Congressional Quarterly noted, "includes $20 billion for the renewable-energy sector, including a three-year extension of the tax credit for producing electricity from wind." Needless to say, the investors are watching.
[Update: As commenters have pointed out, it seems I've fallen pray to a bit of an apples/oranges comparison here: The job figures for the coal sector only counted miners, while those for wind were all-inclusive. However, the trajectory for each industry remains clear: Coal is shedding jobs while wind is growing quickly.]
[Late update: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar—"Windmills off the East Coast could generate enough electricity to replace most, if not all, the coal-fired power plants in the United States."]
Photo used under Creative Commons license
This is really interesting! A few questions tho:
how does the type of work differ between the 2? I'd be curious to look at the variety of jobs- skilled labor, computer-modeling brains of each- How will these percentages change/ what type of jobs will be created with a changing energy system? who 's out of a job and where can they go?
Good questions, Anony. The AWEA report I reference says:
"...the share of domestically manufactured wind turbine components has grown from under 30% in 2005 to about 50% in 2008. ...new manufacturing facilities created 13,000 new direct jobs in 2008."
So at least some of the wind jobs are manufacturing, construction, etc. Also, a large portion of the manufacturing jobs that will be created are the result of Obama strengthening "Buy American" laws, see page 12 of the stimulus plan. Under Bush, such laws were weakened, and much of the manufacturing required for domestic construction projects took place overseas. Obama seems intent on bringing that manufacturing, and the jobs, back to the US.
I find this equally fascinating. I wonder how the socio-economic costs compare. Health of the environment, the people who live and work in the adjacent communities, the tax-payer funded "common burderns" of regulatory, and management agencies?
This essay and the referenced article are very misleading starting with the title "Wind employs more than coal."
First, the 85,000 jobs from wind generation include the following from the referenced article:
"About 85,000 people are employed in the wind industry today, up from 50,000 a year ago, and hold jobs in areas as varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more. About 8,000 of these jobs are construction jobs...."
This is compared to the 81,000 jobs in "coal" all of which are involved in the MINING of coal. This number does not count coal-powered plant component manufacturing, construction, installation, and operations and maintenance. This would add 1000s of people and jobs to the "coal" list. Let's be sure to compare apples to apples, ok?
Secondly, economics drives all capitol project decisions. Wind power is only seeing growth because of very large tax incentives at both the federal and state levels. So why are such large government incentives (subsidies) needed?
When you compare the costs of construction per megawatt of electricity produced, wind and fossil are about the same in the $1500/megawatt, compared to nuclear at around $2500/megawatt. Operating costs per megawatt are range from wind at the cheapest to coal as the most expensive. However, the real cost of wind power is hidden in this fact: The average capacity factor, i.e., the amount of electricity actually made divided by the generator's nameplate capacity, for wind is 25%. In other words, wind generators operate at 25% efficiency. A nuclear power plant or coal-fired plant operates at 95% capacity factor. Therefore, you need four times as many wind generators to equal one nuclear power plant, or four times $1500/megawatt or $6000/delivered megawatt to $2500/delivered megawatt for nuclear.
It's important to have all the info and compare apples to apples when making significant policy and monetary decisions. Given the current Washington DC spin, we are heading for an economic train wreck but that is a topic for another column.
Barry,
You're absolutely correct, and I appreciate your arguments. That said, those 1000s or people who work in "coal-powered plant component manufacturing, construction, installation, and operations and maintenance" may be shifted over to the wind industry and other renewable manufacturing positions. As we diversity our energy sources, we will need more and more people to operate and maintain the systems. See Mother Jones' Future of Energy package for more reading. There is a genuine need and desire for renewable, and capital (public and private) is chasing it.
Good point on the real coal employment numbers.
However, mining coal is a worse job than manufacturing wind turbines. You should take that into account financially, in health care dollars and injuries.
You also don't take into account mountaintop removal and other coal damage to the environment and humans. Put a value on that next.
Then put a value on coal's contribution to global warming.
Next, realize that wind will only be working part of the time, yes, but other technologies are going to fill that gap. I.E. wind, unlike coal, is not a sole solution.
Add it all up, and coal is more expensive, and wind/etc. employment will one day REALLY overtake coal. But good luck on trying to stop technological and social advancement - which is what Republicans do.
Elydawg
You had me nodding my head in agreement until the last sentence.
I personally do not like coal as a fuel source choice for generating electricity due to the many tons of air pollutants produced per megawatt. Transporting the three one-hundred car coal trains per week from Wyoming to a station in Illinois is also a waste.
Additionally, as an environmentalist from the 70's (I even used to demonstrate and testify for wilderness preservation in the NW!), I do not like damming pristine rivers and their valleys for the same environmental damage reasons you mention. The primary reason I commented at all was the incorrect/incomplete comparison between the number of jobs involved with producing electricity via wind and coal-fired stations.
That said, I believe neither wind nor solar in their current technologies are the answer to a nation's strategic and tactical needs for a reliable electrical grid on a 24/7 basis. I personally do not like the environmental damage wind mill farms create from an esthetic point of view or mortally rate on birds not to mention the noise pollution and their propensity to fly apart and send shrapnel across the neighborhood.
I am not sure what social advancement we are talking about but real social advancement comes from making objective technological choices that consider all the options and benefits not just the popular boutique item du jour.