|
Post by lazarus on Sept 10, 2010 0:52:45 GMT 1
For example could it be expected that the replacement of the old energy inefficient incandescent bulbs for the new fluorescent bulbs which last ten time longer drive growth or reduce it?
Will the adoption of alternative energy generation also generate jobs and improve the economy on the whole?
Has the rise of the internet and email created more high-tech careers or put more postal workers out of work?
I suppose these questions go back to the original Luddites, so has the replacement of old technologies by new ones been a good thing?
I would suggest that it has and the adoption of carbon neutral / carbon reduced technologies are the next big thing with a whole new gang of Luddites trying to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by pumblechook on Sept 10, 2010 1:04:58 GMT 1
The adoption of alternative generation will drive many firms out of business or drive them to relocate elsewhere in the World. That is the CBI line.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 10, 2010 1:56:52 GMT 1
Do you have a link for the CBI statement? How long ago was it? There is plenty of disagreement about this, the wind power industry looks particularly promising; Increasingly, says Kjaer, as old power plants fired by coal and natural gas reach the end of their lives, they are being replaced by wind and solar power. The economic benefits of this transition, says Kjaer, are indisputable, with nearly 200,000 people currently employed in the European wind power sector. By 2020, Kjaer estimates 450,000 Europeans will have jobs in the wind power industry.
There are about 190,000 people employed in the European wind energy sector. This is the employment that can be attributed to the manufacture of the turbines installed in Europe, plus the maintenance of those turbines. So, for instance, the world's largest wind energy company is a Danish company called Vestas. This doesn't include jobs created in Europe from wind turbines put up in the United States. So the turbines put up in the 27 member states of the EU, that's about 190,000 jobs. The majority of those are in onshore, of course. In the past five years we have created approximately thirty new jobs every day of the year. So that's the level of employment we're talking about. We expect with the 2020 targets — if we're meeting those targets, we would be employing about 450,000 people in the European Union. And almost 300,000 of those would be in onshore and the rest in offshore.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/09/wind-power-growth-europe-green-coalsAnd Hydro (and wind) in Scotland looks good to; "Scotland has a wealth of renewable energy opportunities and we are keen to see the country fulfil its renewables potential. Investment from both the public and private sector will be critical in achieving this." Both these were in yesterdays press and somewhat prompted the thread.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 10, 2010 7:40:07 GMT 1
"Scotland has a wealth of renewable energy opportunities and we are keen to see the country fulfil its renewables potential. Investment from both the public and private sector will be critical in achieving this."
Yes, we've poured hundreds of £millions into this farce and have produced next to nothing. This scam will make endowment and pension mis-selling look like a lunch money heist.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 10, 2010 8:33:11 GMT 1
For example could it be expected that the replacement of the old energy inefficient incandescent bulbs for the new fluorescent bulbs which last ten time longer drive growth or reduce it? Will the adoption of alternative energy generation also generate jobs and improve the economy on the whole? Has the rise of the internet and email created more high-tech careers or put more postal workers out of work? I suppose these questions go back to the original Luddites, so has the replacement of old technologies by new ones been a good thing? I would suggest that it has and the adoption of carbon neutral / carbon reduced technologies are the next big thing with a whole new gang of Luddites trying to stop it. The big difference with two of the examples you have quoted - long-life bulbs and 'alternative' power generation and the other technologies is that those two are not 'natural' market-driven technologies, but government-diktat driven technologies that possibly would not exist without the massive government support that they receive. It is difficult to think of a really profitable technology that has been entirely dependent upon government funding - I suppose that defence projects are possibly the major ones, but government -funded technologies have generally been well-intentioned disasters, Mao's Steel-producing initiative was the worst, but here at home we have had De Lorean and the very short-lived UK integrated circuit production facility I suppose latent socialist will welcome this blundering government initiative into 'green' power generation, but I think it will be an unmitigated disaster
|
|
|
Post by pumblechook on Sept 10, 2010 10:50:41 GMT 1
It was Ruth Lea on Radio 4 some weeks ago who said that insistance of pursuing wind and solar would push up the cost of electricity quite a bit and drive many firms to relocate. More jobs would be lost than gained. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Lea
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 10, 2010 12:40:28 GMT 1
Yep, there won't be much happening in this country when electricity prices reach 47.25p/unit (the amount paid per unit to wind generators...at least)
Starvation and hypothermia probably.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 16:15:38 GMT 1
As if we hadn't lost enough industry already! This would finish off the rest. But that is what some greenies want. I don't know how they think this country will pay its way in world trade. But perhaps world trade has to stop, too?
I have heard that the world's merchant fleet uses more fuel oil than the all the cars on the planet put together. So it could be good thing in their mangled worldview.
|
|
|
Post by pumblechook on Sept 12, 2010 12:41:57 GMT 1
Looks like Denmark now regrets pushing forward wind power and it may stagnate from now on. Electricity is double in price compared to other European countries
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 12, 2010 17:54:48 GMT 1
Yes, we've poured hundreds of £millions into this farce and have produced next to nothing. . Poured it into what? Hydro power? Any chance of addressing the points in the post or did you think you had?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 12, 2010 18:01:05 GMT 1
The big difference with two of the examples you have quoted - long-life bulbs and 'alternative' power generation and the other technologies is that those two are not 'natural' market-driven technologies, but government-diktat driven technologies that possibly would not exist without the massive government support that they receive. I believe that both these technologies receive incentives from the government. The upcoming ban on filliments must be one of the greatest to drive a switch over to that tech. But most industries receive government tax breaks including the fossil fuel industry that alternative power generation may take some market share from; www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/03/fossil-fuel-subsidies-renewables
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 12, 2010 18:11:45 GMT 1
More jobs would be lost than gained. Did she actually predict this? I imagine energy prices will go up - they will with or without alternative energy production, but I would think it would be very difficult to determine if most companys closed or moved solely due to energy prices.
|
|
|
Post by pumblechook on Sept 12, 2010 18:18:55 GMT 1
If you insist on very expensive means of generation obviously prices will rise more steeply than if you didn't and many companies will vote with their feet. She was pretty clear about it.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 12, 2010 18:19:25 GMT 1
If electricity prices reach the level paid for renewables already (45p+/unit) the whole country will go down the tubes. If you don't realise this, then you're a bigger idiot than you displayed over ocean acidification.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 12, 2010 18:20:43 GMT 1
Looks like Denmark now regrets pushing forward wind power and it may stagnate from now on. Electricity is double in price compared to other European countries Any links to what you mean? It looks fairly positive to me; The job potential in the global wind energy sector ranges from operating wind turbines to manufacturing blades and developing floating wind turbines. The US, the UK and Denmark have taken significant strides in training in order to meet the spiraling demand in this sector. www.economywatch.com/renewable-energy/jobs/wind-power-jobs.htmlThe Danish component industry includes LM Glasfiber, which is the world's largest rotor blade manufacturer, with an employment of more than 1,000. Danish manufacturers of electronic wind turbine controllers likewise have a very large market share world wide. The Danish wind turbine manufacturers presently employ some 2,200 persons, in Denmark, while domestic component and service suppliers employ another 10,000 people (1997). In addition, another 4,000 - 5,000 jobs are created abroad through deliveries of components, and installation of Danish turbines. These figures do not include assembly work etc. done in foreign subsidiaries or licensees of Danish firms. www.talentfactory.dk/media%28487,1033%29/The_wind_turbine_market_in_Denmark.pdf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark
|
|