• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

About those renewable jobs claims

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course this kind of dishonesty will come as no surprise to the skeptics , oh whoops I mean deniers( snicker) here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...n-deception-false-comparisons/2/#23d2f1da709f

Comparing solar industry jobs to conventional energy jobs, Hoffman writes, “How do these numbers compare with numbers in the fossil fuel industries? In 2015 workers employed directly in oil and natural gas extraction numbered about 187,000.”

Hoffman then takes his comparison into the political realm, writing, “The U.S. Congress must recognize this and put policies in place that accelerate their [wind and solar energy] growth.”

At first glance, Hoffman’s claims appear to be a powerful argument in favor of preferential government policies for wind and solar power. Hoffman is not alone making these claims. In appearances at legislative hearings throughout the 50 states, I often encounter renewable energy advocates making the same jobs-based appeal to government policymakers. But are the claims true? The answer is no.

Did you notice anything different about Hoffman’s verbiage when comparing solar industry jobs to conventional energy jobs? Hoffman doesn’t put any qualifiers on “solar industry” jobs, while he limits conventional energy jobs to “workers employed directly in oil and natural gas extraction.” Let’s look at the specifics of how this language impacts the number of reported jobs in each industry.
 
Of course this kind of dishonesty will come as no surprise to the skeptics , oh whoops I mean deniers( snicker) here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...n-deception-false-comparisons/2/#23d2f1da709f

Comparing solar industry jobs to conventional energy jobs, Hoffman writes, “How do these numbers compare with numbers in the fossil fuel industries? In 2015 workers employed directly in oil and natural gas extraction numbered about 187,000.”

Hoffman then takes his comparison into the political realm, writing, “The U.S. Congress must recognize this and put policies in place that accelerate their [wind and solar energy] growth.”

At first glance, Hoffman’s claims appear to be a powerful argument in favor of preferential government policies for wind and solar power. Hoffman is not alone making these claims. In appearances at legislative hearings throughout the 50 states, I often encounter renewable energy advocates making the same jobs-based appeal to government policymakers. But are the claims true? The answer is no.

Did you notice anything different about Hoffman’s verbiage when comparing solar industry jobs to conventional energy jobs? Hoffman doesn’t put any qualifiers on “solar industry” jobs, while he limits conventional energy jobs to “workers employed directly in oil and natural gas extraction.” Let’s look at the specifics of how this language impacts the number of reported jobs in each industry.
I saw that 187,000 number and wondered where they got it from?
I think there are more people employed in oil and gas than that in Texas alone.
How many jobs in Texas are related to oil, gas? Go figure - Houston Chronicle
Last week Texas Railroad Commissioner David Porter announced that, as of June,
"a record-breaking 297,800 Texans appeared on oil and gas industry payrolls."
 
[h=1]Renewable Energy, what is the cost?[/h]By Andy May A key question to think about, do renewable fuels decrease fossil fuel use, or do they increase it? What are the costs of using renewable energy? The sun and wind are free, does that make wind and solar power free? Biofuels require power to plant crops, make fertilizer and spread it, harvest…

March 13, 2017 in Green tech.
 
[h=1]Renewable Energy, what is the cost?[/h]By Andy May A key question to think about, do renewable fuels decrease fossil fuel use, or do they increase it? What are the costs of using renewable energy? The sun and wind are free, does that make wind and solar power free? Biofuels require power to plant crops, make fertilizer and spread it, harvest…

March 13, 2017 in Green tech.

Another "What's up with that" link, Jack? You sure like your bias websites. Here's a Fact Check of the organization.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Watts Up with That is a 100% climate denial website. They cite junk science and reject the consensus of climate scientist globally in the pursuit of their denial.


And here's information of the founder and funding of What's up with That. Do you like big corporate money?

https://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

According to leaked documents released in 2012, Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute.

If you're not familiar with the Heartland Institute, it's the Koch Brothers lobby organization for all their oil and gas investments.
 
Another "What's up with that" link, Jack? You sure like your bias websites. Here's a Fact Check of the organization.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Watts Up with That is a 100% climate denial website. They cite junk science and reject the consensus of climate scientist globally in the pursuit of their denial.


And here's information of the founder and funding of What's up with That. Do you like big corporate money?

https://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

According to leaked documents released in 2012, Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute.

If you're not familiar with the Heartland Institute, it's the Koch Brothers lobby organization for all their oil and gas investments.

Solar has sufficient merits to stand on it's own, it really no longer needs to have people making claims to make it look better than it is.
A home solar system could be justified at the current prices even without the tax credits.
I could not find the actual comment about the oil and gas workers, but the number of 187,000 in the us is way too low.
Solar energy is almost there, what they really need is a unifying federal regulation, about how homeowners are allowed to attach
to private electrical grids. (the agreement needs to offer some benefit to both the utility and the homeowner.)
 
Last edited:
Solar has sufficient merits to stand on it's own, it really no longer needs to have people making claims to make it look better than it is.
A home solar system could be justified at the current prices even without the tax credits.
I could not find the actual comment about the oil and gas workers, but the number of 187,000 in the us is way too low.
Solar energy is almost there, what they really need is a unifying federal regulation, about how homeowners are allowed to attach
to private electrical grids. (the agreement needs to offer some benefit to both the utility and the homeowner.)

If you're not aware, Tax Credits are being phased out. They will expire completely after 2019. Because of the enthusiasm for the 2008 Tax Credit increase, there was a bipartisan extension of the current plan, that was passed in 2015.
Production Tax Credit

With bipartisan support, the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC) phasedown is a done deal.
These tax credits have benefited American consumers by growing our economy, creating jobs, improving energy security, saving money for families and businesses, and supporting a new U.S. manufacturing sector. They have driven tens of billions of dollars into rural and Rust Belt America, and brought new jobs right to the places where they are needed the most. They are now being phased out on an 80-60-40 schedule, ending after 2019
 
Of course this kind of dishonesty will come as no surprise to the skeptics , oh whoops I mean deniers( snicker) here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...n-deception-false-comparisons/2/#23d2f1da709f

Comparing solar industry jobs to conventional energy jobs, Hoffman writes, “How do these numbers compare with numbers in the fossil fuel industries? In 2015 workers employed directly in oil and natural gas extraction numbered about 187,000.”

Hoffman then takes his comparison into the political realm, writing, “The U.S. Congress must recognize this and put policies in place that accelerate their [wind and solar energy] growth.”

At first glance, Hoffman’s claims appear to be a powerful argument in favor of preferential government policies for wind and solar power. Hoffman is not alone making these claims. In appearances at legislative hearings throughout the 50 states, I often encounter renewable energy advocates making the same jobs-based appeal to government policymakers. But are the claims true? The answer is no.

Did you notice anything different about Hoffman’s verbiage when comparing solar industry jobs to conventional energy jobs? Hoffman doesn’t put any qualifiers on “solar industry” jobs, while he limits conventional energy jobs to “workers employed directly in oil and natural gas extraction.” Let’s look at the specifics of how this language impacts the number of reported jobs in each industry.


comments like yours are pointless, the industries will do as they do
 
Another "What's up with that" link, Jack? You sure like your bias websites. Here's a Fact Check of the organization.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Watts Up with That is a 100% climate denial website. They cite junk science and reject the consensus of climate scientist globally in the pursuit of their denial.


And here's information of the founder and funding of What's up with That. Do you like big corporate money?

https://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

According to leaked documents released in 2012, Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute.

If you're not familiar with the Heartland Institute, it's the Koch Brothers lobby organization for all their oil and gas investments.

I'm aware of the smears against WUWT. The site receives no corporate funding.
 
Another "What's up with that" link, Jack? You sure like your bias websites. Here's a Fact Check of the organization.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Watts Up with That is a 100% climate denial website. They cite junk science and reject the consensus of climate scientist globally in the pursuit of their denial.


And here's information of the founder and funding of What's up with That. Do you like big corporate money?

https://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

According to leaked documents released in 2012, Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute.

If you're not familiar with the Heartland Institute, it's the Koch Brothers lobby organization for all their oil and gas investments.

From WUWT's "Frequently Asked Questions:"

Q. Are you paid to blog?
A. No. There are some people who have this idea that because I put so much effort into WUWT that I must be on somebody’s payroll and that my stories are “pay for play” or something like that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Being a broadcaster, the surest way to kill a career is to run afoul of the FCC’s payola laws, and because I see blogging as just another style of broadcasting, I’d never consider “pay for play”. Besides, most people don’t know how I abhor “dead air”, be it on radio, TV, or in blogging. I’m self motivated to keep it interesting and fresh. Plus, WUWT’s reach gives me a larger sense of purpose.
WUWT doesn’t run articles for hire, it is not nor has it ever been on the payroll of any company or organization (and that goes for me personally too), and it is managed mostly by myself with the help of about half a dozen volunteer moderators. . . .
Q. Do you accept paid advertising?
A. Generally no, as it conflicts with the wordpress.com ad sharing program. There are some ads on WUWT’s right sidebar for my own business interests and for some Amazon books. Occasionally WUWT may highlight a product or service of interest, or promote a cause that needs funding such as the 50 to 1 project, but WUWT takes no portion of these promotions and they are done as a community service.
Q. What about that $44,000 that supposedly came from the Heartland Institute that was written about by document thief Dr. Peter Gleick?
A. First, that didn’t come from Heartland, it came from an independent donor that Heartland helped me find through their networking.
Second, that was specifically for a special project my company is doing to make data from the Climate Reference Network more widely available and easier to view for the layman. Currently NOAA does not include the state of the art Climate Reference Network data in their monthly State of the Climate Reports, even though it is a superior system. More about this here.
The project was to be funded to completion in 2012, but due to interference by Gleick, that second phase funding seems unlikely to materialize. . . .
Q. Aren’t you paid to go to Heartland conferences?
A. Yes, and that’s nothing any different from what any other organization does. Like any other invited speaker at a conference, trade show, or conclave, Heartland pays a small honorarium and travel expenses for people they invite to speak at their conferences. For example, Dr. Scott Denning, a scientist who is on the opposite side of the climate debate from me who has spoken at Heartland conferences, got the same honorarium and travel reimbursements that I did.
 
If you're not aware, Tax Credits are being phased out. They will expire completely after 2019. Because of the enthusiasm for the 2008 Tax Credit increase, there was a bipartisan extension of the current plan, that was passed in 2015.
Production Tax Credit

With bipartisan support, the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC) phasedown is a done deal.
These tax credits have benefited American consumers by growing our economy, creating jobs, improving energy security, saving money for families and businesses, and supporting a new U.S. manufacturing sector. They have driven tens of billions of dollars into rural and Rust Belt America, and brought new jobs right to the places where they are needed the most. They are now being phased out on an 80-60-40 schedule, ending after 2019

I knew there was an end date, I think the tax credits did a good job.
Since 2009 the prices of home solar have dropped lower than the credit covered,
the credit may still be useful going forward, I think the government could justify if like the interstate highway system.
A widely distributed electrical grid, may have strategic value.
The main problem for solar today is the grid attach rules, this is a weakness that must be addressed if solar is to move forward quickly.
 
Solar has sufficient merits to stand on it's own, it really no longer needs to have people making claims to make it look better than it is.
A home solar system could be justified at the current prices even without the tax credits.
I could not find the actual comment about the oil and gas workers, but the number of 187,000 in the us is way too low.
Solar energy is almost there, what they really need is a unifying federal regulation, about how homeowners are allowed to attach
to private electrical grids. (the agreement needs to offer some benefit to both the utility and the homeowner.)

Solar is great for me. It did not cost me a dime, and I save money - ~ $50 a month in the summer -, compliments of the taxpayers of California. I could easily afford to have paid for it myself, but there was a free option. Is this a great country, or what?

And to force more people into solar, they keep jacking up the required amount of electricity to be generated from renewables, creating an artificial higher price to make solar competitive. Soon, they are going to use "peak pricing" where rates for 4 PM to 7PM will be upwards of .30 cents a kilowatt. I really think the state is trying to thin out the ranks of the poor and elderly by over heating them during our common 100 degree days, so there is that.

Oh well, "Sometimes it sucks to be me, sometimes it sucks to be you"
 
Could you explain this statement?
Sure! I will use Scientific American as a reference.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/
According to Scientific American in 2009 the total cost of a home solar system was just over $8 per watt.
But that cost had dropped to below $4 a watt by 2015.
So, a 3000 watt system in 2009 would cost $24,000, with a tax credit of $8000, for a net cost of $16,000
By 2015, the same system would cost the homeowner only $12,000 before the tax credit.
Before the credit the 2015 person would pay less than the 2009 person with the credit!
And the price has come down more since 2015.
 
From WUWT's "Frequently Asked Questions:"

Q. Are you paid to blog?
A. No. There are some people who have this idea that because I put so much effort into WUWT that I must be on somebody’s payroll and that my stories are “pay for play” or something like that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Being a broadcaster, the surest way to kill a career is to run afoul of the FCC’s payola laws, and because I see blogging as just another style of broadcasting, I’d never consider “pay for play”. Besides, most people don’t know how I abhor “dead air”, be it on radio, TV, or in blogging. I’m self motivated to keep it interesting and fresh. Plus, WUWT’s reach gives me a larger sense of purpose.
WUWT doesn’t run articles for hire, it is not nor has it ever been on the payroll of any company or organization (and that goes for me personally too), and it is managed mostly by myself with the help of about half a dozen volunteer moderators. . . .
Q. Do you accept paid advertising?
A. Generally no, as it conflicts with the wordpress.com ad sharing program. There are some ads on WUWT’s right sidebar for my own business interests and for some Amazon books. Occasionally WUWT may highlight a product or service of interest, or promote a cause that needs funding such as the 50 to 1 project, but WUWT takes no portion of these promotions and they are done as a community service.
Q. What about that $44,000 that supposedly came from the Heartland Institute that was written about by document thief Dr. Peter Gleick?
A. First, that didn’t come from Heartland, it came from an independent donor that Heartland helped me find through their networking.
Second, that was specifically for a special project my company is doing to make data from the Climate Reference Network more widely available and easier to view for the layman. Currently NOAA does not include the state of the art Climate Reference Network data in their monthly State of the Climate Reports, even though it is a superior system. More about this here.
The project was to be funded to completion in 2012, but due to interference by Gleick, that second phase funding seems unlikely to materialize. . . .
Q. Aren’t you paid to go to Heartland conferences?
A. Yes, and that’s nothing any different from what any other organization does. Like any other invited speaker at a conference, trade show, or conclave, Heartland pays a small honorarium and travel expenses for people they invite to speak at their conferences. For example, Dr. Scott Denning, a scientist who is on the opposite side of the climate debate from me who has spoken at Heartland conferences, got the same honorarium and travel reimbursements that I did.

I call this financial green-washing. You actually believe this nonsense? Sounds like this entire dissertation was an attempt to defend the emails that were accidentally leaked. The Heartland Institute connections should be enough to tell you that something is amiss, and that they are in the hip pocket of the Koch brothers and big oil.
 
I call this financial green-washing. You actually believe this nonsense? Sounds like this entire dissertation was an attempt to defend the emails that were accidentally leaked. The Heartland Institute connections should be enough to tell you that something is amiss, and that they are in the hip pocket of the Koch brothers and big oil.

Silly conspiracy theorizing.
 
Sure! I will use Scientific American as a reference.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/
According to Scientific American in 2009 the total cost of a home solar system was just over $8 per watt.
But that cost had dropped to below $4 a watt by 2015.
So, a 3000 watt system in 2009 would cost $24,000, with a tax credit of $8000, for a net cost of $16,000
By 2015, the same system would cost the homeowner only $12,000 before the tax credit.
Before the credit the 2015 person would pay less than the 2009 person with the credit!
And the price has come down more since 2015.

Thanks, I see what you're saying now. The numbers look pretty good. I paid about the same for my wind turbine (2.4kW) and solar panels (2.8kW), about $19K each. This was in 2011. Much of the cost was Engineering and Construction. Building permits are required in Colorado. The panels are relatively cheap, but for both the wind and the solar, there is a lot of concrete and rebar for stability (excavation was 4'x4' x 10' deep for wind) . Construction costs may have come down a little, as there is more competition. Maybe a little higher than the SA numbers of 2015, but could be because the permits are tighter here.
 
Thanks, I see what you're saying now. The numbers look pretty good. I paid about the same for my wind turbine (2.4kW) and solar panels (2.8kW), about $19K each. This was in 2011. Much of the cost was Engineering and Construction. Building permits are required in Colorado. The panels are relatively cheap, but for both the wind and the solar, there is a lot of concrete and rebar for stability (excavation was 4'x4' x 10' deep for wind) . Construction costs may have come down a little, as there is more competition. Maybe a little higher than the SA numbers of 2015, but could be because the permits are tighter here.
If they anticipate a large increase in home generators, it would be best if they (local/state government) standardized the requirements.
Pre engineered designs,that any contractor can do, if you follow their plans, the permitting is easier/cheaper, ect.
 
I suggest you review your claims. They are all your suppositions, without facts to support.

And yet, you believe an organization that goes against more than 90% of scientists, and is on the take from the Oil and Gas Industry.
 
If they anticipate a large increase in home generators, it would be best if they (local/state government) standardized the requirements.
Pre engineered designs,that any contractor can do, if you follow their plans, the permitting is easier/cheaper, ect.

Engineering requirements are different for different areas. I am guessing that our pedestal mounted solar PV panels has more concrete and rebar than some areas, due to the high winds. New Mexico doesn't have the stringent permitting that Colorado has. We looked at a few green homes there, that had solar panels falling apart, hanging from supports, with wires dangling. We often get winds in excess of 80 MPH.
 
And yet, you believe an organization that goes against more than 90% of scientists, and is on the take from the Oil and Gas Industry.

WUWT is not on the take from anyone. Indeed, the big money is on the side of the AGW "consensus."
 
And yet, you believe an organization that goes against more than 90% of scientists, and is on the take from the Oil and Gas Industry.

And there it is. >90% ... took long enough.
It explains a lot that you seem to accept it without knowing how numbers like that were derived.
I always look to see who repeats it so I know if they should be taken seriously.
 
And there it is. >90% ... took long enough.
It explains a lot that you seem to accept it without knowing how numbers like that were derived.
I always look to see who repeats it so I know if they should be taken seriously.

Not sure what you're saying. Your comments are a little confusing. Here is some back up for my ">90%" claim.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
 
WUWT is not on the take from anyone. Indeed, the big money is on the side of the AGW "consensus."

Do you not see the parallel between the big tobacco junk science of the '60s to the junk science of the oil industry today?
 
Back
Top Bottom