The jobs are either replacing existing jobs, in which case no net jobs are being created. Or they are additional jobs, in which case more jobs are required for the same benefit, the jobs are less efficient and by implication more expensive than the replaced jobs.
Great info Hannah. Another point is that since American labor is much more expensive than Chinese labor (about 4-7x), whatever manufacturing is brought to America by taxing imports will likely involve much more automation and robotics to be financially feasible.
"Every gigawatt of solar PV generates around 12,000 full-time jobs in deployment". How does this compare to, for example, hydro, natural gas, and nuclear? While more jobs may sound better, that's only true if you want to pay more for your energy. Cheap energy is the key to healthy economies and high standards of living.
Does not necessarily follow because of differences in cost structure. For instance, a technology for generating electricity that requires no fuel might have a higher labour component of costs but still have lower total costs.
Well historically, in the era before privatisation 1GW of Coal generation directly employed a total of about 500-600 people, plant operations and maintenance on shifts, with engineering offices & admin on day work. In addition there would be another 20 on site contractors like scaffolders etc on day work.
I can’t recall historically what the figures for Drax at its peak were, somewhat higher than now, but as a ‘modern’ data point Drax at 3GW operational 4GW installed directly employs 1074, indirectly 3440, and 2620 ‘induced’ whatever that actually means in practice.
Why would making one's energy sector less productive be a sensible goal for any country? The UK's net zero experiment surely serves as a warning of what happens when that is tried?
In any case, if one's objective is to 'create jobs' in the energy sector why stop at switching from cheap and productive sources to expensive and unproductive sources such as solar? If the creation of jobs is the main thing, then why not simply ban those things that destroy them?
Power tools for the installation of solar panels can go for a start. Maybe also ban the use of motorised delivery vehicles too - more jobs are 'created' if the panels are delivered on bicycle-drawn trailers, after all. You could perhaps also add a requirement for multiple inspections - by three different teams of experts, naturally - of each installation once complete, and before it can be turned on. Maybe also insist that the inspections are repeated every year. Heck, that might not create enough jobs. Make it monthly.
The whole 'renewables create jobs and therefore are good' argument is so trivially easy to refute that it boggles my mind that serious people engage with it at all.
Im fine with all this as long as it doesn't involve any subsidies but it does just look at the amount of solar CfDs awarded under AR6 despite China virtually giving away the solar panels. Also these jobs are largely gone once the installation is complete as solar panels needs very little input to run it unlike a fossil fuelled power stn. Then there is expansion of the grid which does generate some local installation jobs but the high value jobs are in the high voltage transformers, switchgear and HVDV valves and cables which is largely sourced from European countries. None of this is lowering the cost of our electricity and we can't continue to blame it all on gas the renewable subsidies are a big contributor as well.
Hannah, I like your articles/newsletters but this one is missing a major issue.
There are companies in the US that want to be in the polysilicon manufacturing industry but they are closing down or running on skeleton crews. China is 'selling' the product in the states for about 1/4 the cost to 'manufacture' solar grade polysilicon in the US. They are subsidizing the industry and using cheap labor to undercut local US manufacturing.
Shouldn't local US manufacturing be acceptable, encouraged?
Shouldn't we want to manufacture locally and not encourage more shipping?
Shouldn't we want to encourage ethical manufacturing and employment practices around the globe?
This manufacturing process, like many others, is dangerous. Safety standards are important and should be complied with thus adding $$ no matter where the product is made. It makes one wonder how safety is being addressed elsewhere.
I believe it might be time to dig a little deeper into the polysilicon manufacturing/market. There is a definite place for solar and the US should not be edged out of producing their own technology.
Creating new jobs solely to replace an existing, more efficient power supply is an ideologically driven agenda that no rational person would support. It implies that anyone employed in the installation of photovoltaic panels is being diverted from a more productive (or potentially more productive) role within the economy, thus weakening our economy.
For example, I already have a highly suitable, dispatchable power supply that meets my needs. It is easy to operate, cost-effective to maintain, and the infrastructure is already in place. The problem arises from misguided and ill-informed politicians artificially increasing the cost of my electricity supply, based on a false premise.
At some point, reality will reassert itself, but not before many people have been needlessly impoverished.
Yes, those tried and trusted types of supply that at this time are the cheapest and most reliable means of producing electrical power, using abundant resources that are literally under our feet. Add nuclear base load to the mix and frack for gas, and we could have an abundant and cheap electrical energy supply. Fully synchronised dispatchable electricity and lots of gas for conventional central heating boilers. This is what would make our economy boom, in a way that net-zero Unicorns never will.
I understand. I think the reaction to this article will largely hinge upon a person’s starting point on the climate debate. If you think climate change is not due in some part to the burning of fossil fuels, it’s reasonable to support the combustion of coal and NG to support electricity production. Coal, and to a lesser degree NG, is plentiful and infrastructure exists to support their use. On the other hand, if you believe climate change is due in large part to fossil fuel use, you will support solar electrification of the grid. I am in the latter camp so would like to see less reliance on coal. It’s complicated though. China is adding coal fired electricity capacity at an alarming rate. So how “clean” are Chinese solar panels that are produced using “dirty” electricity? It’s complicated.
When a significant proportion the entire economy is devoted to ‘clean energy’ we no longer have a functional economy, rather than one which inherently and effectively funds absolutely everything else.
And what this article omits (having said that it is beyond its scope) is the ongoing benefit to the consumer of the power that solar panels plus batteries provide.
The world is on the cusp of a revolution comparable to (arguably greater than) the one in which American cities went from zero to 75% utilization of automobiles in 15 years. Solar and batteries at Chinese prices can put European and maybe even American levels of household electricity into virtually every household in the world.
We live in a complex, interdependent world, and you can’t intervene perfectly. Adaption with a focus on collective resilience is the approach to take. Asking those questions on cost benefit are part of it. So is a willing to risk and experiment because we are in such a meta crisis, learning from your mistakes and being willing to own up to what doesn’t work and try the next thing is essential an entrepreneurial risk factor has to be incorporated into collective resilience.
The focus on jobs is wrong, we should be trying to increase productivity and wages, but not create jobs for the sake of work alone. Especially with declining population of working age people. If you just want to create the most clean energy jobs, fill some warehouses with stationary bicycles hooked up to generators and pay people to supply the grid. This creates lots of jobs and despite the CO₂ emissions from heavy breathing, this will also somewhat reduce obesity problems in society.
Thanks Hannah, important to talk about this. Just as important, solar creates far more jobs than other fossil fuel per $ paid by the customer (and also far more than wind except offshore), even if solar panels and other components are imported.
Energy security-wise, there's no contest - panels last 20 years or more, whereas OECD oil-importing countries (except U.S.) struggle to keep their 6-month worth of storage, to which they are in principle committed as part of the IEA membership.
That being said, solar construction jobs are not for everyone - you must travel far from family to remote sites most of the year.
"This is one of several arguments that countries make for protectionist trade policies such as tariffs, local production mandates, and import quotas." Worst is yet to come. Donald "The Beast" Trump is building a wall once again. Colossal tariff wall that is the beginning of the end for the system of down. At first the beast will pull the plug out of the global economy. The worst financial crisis of human history will pull a swarm of the banks underwater and the bank run begins. Then the beast will collapse a mountain of debt shattering the backbone of the monetary system causing a systemic risk to realize. Finally the beast will cast American citizens into a system slavery under the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan, just to "honor his legacy" count the number. After the destruction a new world order will be established in the US. And the Golden Age begins from the ruins of the world wide collapse. All of the system slaves will love it. No more cash - just digital transactions. No more traditional criminal activity. No more tax evasion. No more transactions without the "all seeing eye". Outcasts will hate the world without freedom, hope and privacy. To cover up the mess and distract the public by smoke and mirrors, the beast will engage in a war with Iran. Lies and deceit, corruption and decay, dancing on the graves will continue. Until; Black hole sun, won't you come, won't you come... I want to play a game. Time has come to opt out of the empire of filth. Live or die...
This is a great piece helping explain the tradeoffs! I also wonder how deploying less clean energy overall would hurt the economy through higher energy prices (since solar is by far the cheapest option out there for new build energy)
jaberwock
jaberwock’s Newsletter
Mar 31, 2024
The whole "job creation" concept is nonsense.
The jobs are either replacing existing jobs, in which case no net jobs are being created. Or they are additional jobs, in which case more jobs are required for the same benefit, the jobs are less efficient and by implication more expensive than the replaced jobs.
Great info Hannah. Another point is that since American labor is much more expensive than Chinese labor (about 4-7x), whatever manufacturing is brought to America by taxing imports will likely involve much more automation and robotics to be financially feasible.
"Every gigawatt of solar PV generates around 12,000 full-time jobs in deployment". How does this compare to, for example, hydro, natural gas, and nuclear? While more jobs may sound better, that's only true if you want to pay more for your energy. Cheap energy is the key to healthy economies and high standards of living.
Does not necessarily follow because of differences in cost structure. For instance, a technology for generating electricity that requires no fuel might have a higher labour component of costs but still have lower total costs.
Well historically, in the era before privatisation 1GW of Coal generation directly employed a total of about 500-600 people, plant operations and maintenance on shifts, with engineering offices & admin on day work. In addition there would be another 20 on site contractors like scaffolders etc on day work.
I can’t recall historically what the figures for Drax at its peak were, somewhat higher than now, but as a ‘modern’ data point Drax at 3GW operational 4GW installed directly employs 1074, indirectly 3440, and 2620 ‘induced’ whatever that actually means in practice.
https://www.drax.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Drax_UK_Power_Station_.pdf
Gas fired stations of around 1GW are typically sub 50 employees. Maybe 10 per shift or less, with some daytime admin staff.
Why would making one's energy sector less productive be a sensible goal for any country? The UK's net zero experiment surely serves as a warning of what happens when that is tried?
In any case, if one's objective is to 'create jobs' in the energy sector why stop at switching from cheap and productive sources to expensive and unproductive sources such as solar? If the creation of jobs is the main thing, then why not simply ban those things that destroy them?
Power tools for the installation of solar panels can go for a start. Maybe also ban the use of motorised delivery vehicles too - more jobs are 'created' if the panels are delivered on bicycle-drawn trailers, after all. You could perhaps also add a requirement for multiple inspections - by three different teams of experts, naturally - of each installation once complete, and before it can be turned on. Maybe also insist that the inspections are repeated every year. Heck, that might not create enough jobs. Make it monthly.
The whole 'renewables create jobs and therefore are good' argument is so trivially easy to refute that it boggles my mind that serious people engage with it at all.
Im fine with all this as long as it doesn't involve any subsidies but it does just look at the amount of solar CfDs awarded under AR6 despite China virtually giving away the solar panels. Also these jobs are largely gone once the installation is complete as solar panels needs very little input to run it unlike a fossil fuelled power stn. Then there is expansion of the grid which does generate some local installation jobs but the high value jobs are in the high voltage transformers, switchgear and HVDV valves and cables which is largely sourced from European countries. None of this is lowering the cost of our electricity and we can't continue to blame it all on gas the renewable subsidies are a big contributor as well.
Hannah, I like your articles/newsletters but this one is missing a major issue.
There are companies in the US that want to be in the polysilicon manufacturing industry but they are closing down or running on skeleton crews. China is 'selling' the product in the states for about 1/4 the cost to 'manufacture' solar grade polysilicon in the US. They are subsidizing the industry and using cheap labor to undercut local US manufacturing.
Shouldn't local US manufacturing be acceptable, encouraged?
Shouldn't we want to manufacture locally and not encourage more shipping?
Shouldn't we want to encourage ethical manufacturing and employment practices around the globe?
This manufacturing process, like many others, is dangerous. Safety standards are important and should be complied with thus adding $$ no matter where the product is made. It makes one wonder how safety is being addressed elsewhere.
I believe it might be time to dig a little deeper into the polysilicon manufacturing/market. There is a definite place for solar and the US should not be edged out of producing their own technology.
Creating new jobs solely to replace an existing, more efficient power supply is an ideologically driven agenda that no rational person would support. It implies that anyone employed in the installation of photovoltaic panels is being diverted from a more productive (or potentially more productive) role within the economy, thus weakening our economy.
For example, I already have a highly suitable, dispatchable power supply that meets my needs. It is easy to operate, cost-effective to maintain, and the infrastructure is already in place. The problem arises from misguided and ill-informed politicians artificially increasing the cost of my electricity supply, based on a false premise.
At some point, reality will reassert itself, but not before many people have been needlessly impoverished.
Which more efficient power supply are you referring to? Coal? Natural gas?
Yes, those tried and trusted types of supply that at this time are the cheapest and most reliable means of producing electrical power, using abundant resources that are literally under our feet. Add nuclear base load to the mix and frack for gas, and we could have an abundant and cheap electrical energy supply. Fully synchronised dispatchable electricity and lots of gas for conventional central heating boilers. This is what would make our economy boom, in a way that net-zero Unicorns never will.
I understand. I think the reaction to this article will largely hinge upon a person’s starting point on the climate debate. If you think climate change is not due in some part to the burning of fossil fuels, it’s reasonable to support the combustion of coal and NG to support electricity production. Coal, and to a lesser degree NG, is plentiful and infrastructure exists to support their use. On the other hand, if you believe climate change is due in large part to fossil fuel use, you will support solar electrification of the grid. I am in the latter camp so would like to see less reliance on coal. It’s complicated though. China is adding coal fired electricity capacity at an alarming rate. So how “clean” are Chinese solar panels that are produced using “dirty” electricity? It’s complicated.
Can I just say how refreshing it is to have a reasoned disagreement over an issue. So often, people just scream at each other or, worse, hurl abuse.
We don't agree, but we can be civil about our disagreement.
For you to point out the contradiction in the net-zero argument with regard to China is very honest of you. Chapeau.
When a significant proportion the entire economy is devoted to ‘clean energy’ we no longer have a functional economy, rather than one which inherently and effectively funds absolutely everything else.
As published elsewhere, https://davidturver.substack.com/p/astronomical-cost-of-green-jobs green’ jobs are quite possibly the most highly subsidised jobs…ever.
And what this article omits (having said that it is beyond its scope) is the ongoing benefit to the consumer of the power that solar panels plus batteries provide.
The world is on the cusp of a revolution comparable to (arguably greater than) the one in which American cities went from zero to 75% utilization of automobiles in 15 years. Solar and batteries at Chinese prices can put European and maybe even American levels of household electricity into virtually every household in the world.
We live in a complex, interdependent world, and you can’t intervene perfectly. Adaption with a focus on collective resilience is the approach to take. Asking those questions on cost benefit are part of it. So is a willing to risk and experiment because we are in such a meta crisis, learning from your mistakes and being willing to own up to what doesn’t work and try the next thing is essential an entrepreneurial risk factor has to be incorporated into collective resilience.
The focus on jobs is wrong, we should be trying to increase productivity and wages, but not create jobs for the sake of work alone. Especially with declining population of working age people. If you just want to create the most clean energy jobs, fill some warehouses with stationary bicycles hooked up to generators and pay people to supply the grid. This creates lots of jobs and despite the CO₂ emissions from heavy breathing, this will also somewhat reduce obesity problems in society.
Thanks Hannah, important to talk about this. Just as important, solar creates far more jobs than other fossil fuel per $ paid by the customer (and also far more than wind except offshore), even if solar panels and other components are imported.
Energy security-wise, there's no contest - panels last 20 years or more, whereas OECD oil-importing countries (except U.S.) struggle to keep their 6-month worth of storage, to which they are in principle committed as part of the IEA membership.
That being said, solar construction jobs are not for everyone - you must travel far from family to remote sites most of the year.
Hello Hannah,
I hope this communique finds you in a moment of stillness.
Have huge respect for your work, specially the unique reflections.
We’ve just opened the first door of something we’ve been quietly handcrafting for years—
A work not meant for markets, but for reflection and memory.
Not designed to perform, but to endure.
It’s called The Silent Treasury.
A place where judgment is kept like firewood: dry, sacred, and meant for long winters.
Where trust, patience, and self-stewardship are treated as capital—more rare, perhaps, than liquidity itself.
This first piece speaks to a quiet truth we’ve long sat with:
Why many modern PE, VC, Hedge, Alt funds, SPAC, and rollups fracture before they truly root.
And what it means to build something meant to be left, not merely exited.
It’s not short. Or viral. But it’s built to last.
And if it speaks to something you’ve always known but rarely seen expressed,
then perhaps this work belongs in your world.
The publication link is enclosed, should you wish to experience it.
https://helloin.substack.com/p/built-to-be-left?r=5i8pez
Warmly,
The Silent Treasury
A vault where wisdom echoes in stillness, and eternity breathes.
"This is one of several arguments that countries make for protectionist trade policies such as tariffs, local production mandates, and import quotas." Worst is yet to come. Donald "The Beast" Trump is building a wall once again. Colossal tariff wall that is the beginning of the end for the system of down. At first the beast will pull the plug out of the global economy. The worst financial crisis of human history will pull a swarm of the banks underwater and the bank run begins. Then the beast will collapse a mountain of debt shattering the backbone of the monetary system causing a systemic risk to realize. Finally the beast will cast American citizens into a system slavery under the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan, just to "honor his legacy" count the number. After the destruction a new world order will be established in the US. And the Golden Age begins from the ruins of the world wide collapse. All of the system slaves will love it. No more cash - just digital transactions. No more traditional criminal activity. No more tax evasion. No more transactions without the "all seeing eye". Outcasts will hate the world without freedom, hope and privacy. To cover up the mess and distract the public by smoke and mirrors, the beast will engage in a war with Iran. Lies and deceit, corruption and decay, dancing on the graves will continue. Until; Black hole sun, won't you come, won't you come... I want to play a game. Time has come to opt out of the empire of filth. Live or die...
This is a great piece helping explain the tradeoffs! I also wonder how deploying less clean energy overall would hurt the economy through higher energy prices (since solar is by far the cheapest option out there for new build energy)
Well researched article with good insights.