It's Time to Change the Narrative About Clean Energy
The rapid growth of jobs in renewable energy is a temporary excursion, mostly an artifact of current rapid expansion. At steady-state it will take fewer people to supply electricity from a renewable-heavy electricity system than a coal-heavy system. That&#x27;s one reason that I am bullish on the long term price-competitiveness of renewable electricity but skeptical that there will be enough steady &quot;green jobs&quot; to offset jobs shed from legacy energy technologies.<p>For example, the old coal plant in Nucla, Colorado is going to close by the end of 2022.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cortezjournal.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;20161001&#x2F;News05&#x2F;161009993&#x2F;0&#x2F;FRONTPAGE&#x2F;Coal-fired-plant’s-closing-sends-shockwaves-in-Nucla" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cortezjournal.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;20161001&#x2F;News05&#x2F;1610099...</a><p>...<p><i>the local job options could be pretty limited in far-western Montrose County once two of its major employers close their doors, eliminating what are currently 55 jobs at the plant and 28 at the mine.</i><p>...<p>According to the EIA, the Nucla plant generated 416,150 MWh in 2015 for an average annual power of 47.5 megawatts: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eia.gov&#x2F;electricity&#x2F;data&#x2F;browser&#x2F;#&#x2F;plant&#x2F;527" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eia.gov&#x2F;electricity&#x2F;data&#x2F;browser&#x2F;#&#x2F;plant&#x2F;527</a> That&#x27;s an abysmal productivity per employee (or a fabulous job source, depending on your perspective): 0.86 real annualized megawatts per employee at the plant ; 0.57 megawatts per employee if you include the mining jobs.<p>(Since this article was published, the mine shut down. The coal plant still operates for a few more years. The MWh generated at the Nucla plant also declined sharply in 2016 and 2017.)<p>A well-sited utility scale solar farm like Desert Sunlight can produce an average annualized power of 147 megawatts with just 15 full time employees, for a ratio of 9.8 megawatts per plant employee.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.doi.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;doi.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;migrated&#x2F;news&#x2F;pressreleases&#x2F;upload&#x2F;Desert-Sunlight-fact-sheet.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.doi.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;doi.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;migrated&#x2F;news&#x2F;pressr...</a> (&quot;Expected to create up to... 15 permanent jobs&quot;)<p>If you amortize the labor for construction over the lifetime of a solar farm, it takes up the lion&#x27;s share of labor-years associated with a given facility. It&#x27;s still lower per MWh than for legacy coal plants. It&#x27;s also concentrated up-front. It looks like solar produces a lot of jobs if you measure while new American solar projects are booming and new American coal projects are nowhere to be seen.<p>I don&#x27;t intend any of these observations as a defense of coal or an attack on renewable energy. I am thrilled whenever low-emissions sources displace dirty fossils. But I keep writing comments like this on energy-and-jobs stories because few writers have thought much about the <i>composition</i> of the numbers. The gleeful articles about how many jobs we can create with renewable energy are at least missing some important caveats. The occasional conservative attack on how labor-inefficient renewables are, like <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;timworstall&#x2F;2016&#x2F;06&#x2F;01&#x2F;jobs-are-a-cost-not-a-benefit-yes-even-for-renewables" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;timworstall&#x2F;2016&#x2F;06&#x2F;01&#x2F;jobs-are...</a>, likewise misunderstand the long term labor implications of more renewables than fossils.