The "Green Jobs" Fantasy

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And here we have those that consider themselves environmentalists, and they want, ultimately, unbridled political power, and use the environment as a vehicle to get there. So, naturally, (naturally being in the sense typical behavior) they use despotic measures to get there.

Your obsession.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I can understand a little bit of that rationale, especially if you believe the The Population Bomb is your form of Gospel, but that doesn't justify it. Without getting distracted, IF is the Enviro religion equivalent of 7th Day Adventists, who had a date set for the second coming, and nothing happened. Certain Doom was predicted to take place in the early 70's, so we are almost 40 years behind the curve. In fact, population growth in developing countries has tapered off, while agricultural production has greatly outpaced population growth.

What? IF is the Enviro religion equivalent of 7th Day Adventists? What is IF? Me? I don't set specific dates. But I do see trends. The hunger and ambition of man knows no boundaries at this point. The steady movement of the Amazon to savanna status owing to the march of increased population and the hunger for sugar cane based fuel - not an enviro push as much as a way to get energy period - does not look too good.

The health of the world's oceans is also a lousy development that is hard to ignore - except for those with their Pollyanna party hats super glued in place.

I will agree that problems can be involved with imperial edicts as opposed to on the ground individual decisions. Unfortunately, especially in America, individual consumers can get pretty greedy and clueless.

[FastEddy]

" Japanese firms to develop small nuclear reactors " - SOURCE - BreitBart.com (DRUDGE link)

" Japan's major nuclear reactor manufacturers have begun developing small nuclear power systems for both developed and emerging countries, a report said on Saturday.

Toshiba Corp. is developing an ultra-compact reactor with an output of about 10,000 kilowatts and has started procedures for approval in the United States, the Nikkei business daily said.

The new reactor, the Toshiba 4S, is designed to minimise the need for monitoring and maintenance, with an automatic shutdown function to ensure safety in case of problems, the newspaper said.

Toshiba plans to market the reactor first in the United States, while foreseeing demand from emerging countries in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe as well as in Africa, it said.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. has separately completed the concept design for a pressurised-water reactor with a power output of around 350,000 kilowatts, the Nikkei said.

Hitachi Ltd. also aims to develop a boiling-water reactor with a capacity of 400,000-600,000 kilowatts for use in Southeast Asia and other countries, it said.

Demand for nuclear power stations has been growing around the world. A total of 151 were under construction or slated for construction in 27 countries as of the end of 2008, it said. "

[FastEddy]

" ... I dunno, the tail fins on the '59 Chevy were pretty goofy, even the old Caddy fins were a bit much IMO. ..."

You are too young to appreciate 'em ... this was before air dams on BMW's and trunk wings on chinese econo-boxes. ...

Seriously, the '57 T-Bird tailfins were and are just about the best of breed. The last really cool styling / design from Ford with the possible exception on Iacocca's Mustangs (IMO).

[FastEddy]

Definitions:

green jobs: any effort that reduces pollution.

Green Jobs: any cost effective effort that reduces pollution and increases the efficiencies of real world systems (Capital G Green.)

green government jobs: any effort that reduces government influence, machinations and mandates over the private sector's efforts to reduce pollution.

Green Government Jobs: any effort that reduces the pollution generated by the biggest polluters on the planet: governments.

Green Economist: Any one who knows the difference between the above.

[Rifleman]

I explained this, but: The Seventh Day Adventists waited for the second coming that didn;t occur, while the "population bomb believers waited for an apocholypse in the 1970's that never occured.

I refuse to believe that individual actions by individual US consumers do significant damage. We just get the blame so that the government has an excuse to take our liberties and properties away.

FastEddy: " Japanese firms to develop small nuclear reactors "

How ironic would that be? This would be great news, other than being made in Japan. Unlike even Natural Gas, a nuclear plant would be exempt from Crap & Tade taxes.... Of course, with Obama and Bernake and Geihtner, in firm control of finances, energy, and automotive, any gains will not relieve any pressure upon the economy, and I fear that US approval process for new nuclear plants.

FastEddy: "You are too young to appreciate 'em ... this was before air dams on BMW's and trunk wings on chinese econo-boxes. ...

Seriously, the '57 T-Bird tailfins were and are just about the best of breed. The last really cool styling / design from Ford with the possible exception on Iacocca's Mustangs (IMO)."

I agree. The 1958 Cadillac Barritz is about the most beatiful car in history, and the 1959 Chevrolet was an obvious copy. The 1957 T-Bird was also an extremely attractive car. My Father had an all black one, with the "convertable hardtop". In others, which are very attractive cars, I would add: 1967-69 Thunderbird, 1969 Charger Daytonna, the Shelby Daytonna Coupe, (the streamlined version of the Shelby Cobra, about 6 were made for racing) Ford GT, (both versions) 1969 Ford Talledaga and 1969 Mercury Cyclone Spoiler II, 1967-68 Mustang Fastback, 1969 Pontiac Firebird, 1968 Chrysler Imperial, 1968-69 Dodge Charger,

[FastEddy]

" ... 1969 Charger Daytonna ..."

Have you seen the new Dodge Challengers? ... retro '67 = cool.

[Rifleman]

Yes I have, all over the place, they are selling quite well. The Charger 500 had a flush mounted back window, and a flush mounted front grill. The 1969 Charger Daytona 500 was the first "winged car" from Chrysler. There was a nosecone attached to the front, with a large winged spoiler on the back, and the back window was moved from the tunnel of the regular Charger to become flush. The Super bird was made from a Plymouth.

[David]

I guess we are creating green jobs. In China.

Huge Texas Wind Farm's Turbines Will Be Made in China
A Chinese wind-turbine company strikes a deal to become the exclusive supplier for one of the largest U.S. wind farms

SOURCE

[Rifleman]

David wrote: I guess we are creating green jobs. In China.

Huge Texas Wind Farm's Turbines Will Be Made in China
A Chinese wind-turbine company strikes a deal to become the exclusive supplier for one of the largest U.S. wind farms

[FastEddy]

Rifleman: Those streamlining fairings and a bunch of other aerodynamic and mechanical tricks were what I used to win the Skelly (cum Conoco) Economy Run in 1966. ('66 Pontiac 389 cubic inch GTO = 29.6 mpg over 450 miles = 3 mpg ahead of the second place 289 cu. in. Mustang. ... also 1/4 mile, tire burning, B/Stock national record ... held for one week.)

[Rifleman]

Good for you! It shows a few things, one, that cars aren't THAT much advanced over the past 43 years, (actually, if tires + transmissions - economy trashing emmission standards= cars that perform about the same.) and two, large displacement engines don't suffer as much as everyone expects. (and the government imposes.) That is why I tried to explain to IF, that certain emmision controls and governmental imposition of stronger emission standards proportional to engine displacement was NOT progress. Keep that in mind when you evaluate the latest governmental edict to reduce diesel engine size. Similarly, the use of tempered steel for structural componants as opposed to mild steel that only reduces weight incrementally, costs more up front and cost way more to repair, and gives barely significant gains. That is exactly the reason the Shelby Mustangs used in Rally racing to defeat the European best, used rigid axles and cast iron engines, the difference wasn't worth the cost. My 1965 Ranchero, with just a bit of tweaking, and as large as a radial tire as I could cram underneath it, could achieve 35 MPG. Unfortunatley it couldn't overcome the sorry unleaded gasoline.

[FastEddy]

Rifleman: " ... actually, if tires + transmissions - economy trashing emmission standards= cars that perform about the same. ... "

With a very few exceptions, I would say you are correct. A specially modified 70's Maserati Citroen holds both speed records and high efficiencies approaching 30 mpg down the normal highway = aerodynamics & suspension being key. And my wife's Mazda Miata (same bore and stroke of the old Offenhauser) does deliver 240+ tire smoking, 4 cylinder horsepower and 30+ mpg. (She dumped on a Porsche just yesterday through the S's on the coast highway 1.)

Surprisingly the worst performing engines are in small planes, design improvements being almost totally government restricted.

As long as the catalytic converters are on the wrong side of the combustion chamber and the turbo-charger and as long as there are belts, chains and pulleys driving unnecessary pumps and valving, internal combustion engines will continue to improve in only small incremental steps and overall thermal efficiencies will remain below 40%. The good ol' boy SAE still hold sway too, squelching dramatic improvements.

... And these areas represent totally green, high paying jobs going wanting ...

[David]

What a scam this has become. It's not just Dems. McCain kept pushing this crud during his campaign. Pathetic hoax on the tax payer. Even the Wash Post!

Painting a street green hasn't stimulated one new job
Energy-efficiency investments Tangible gains still ahead for $25 billion initiative

SOURCE

[Rifleman]

FastEddy wrote: With a very few exceptions, I would say you are correct. A specially modified 70's Maserati Citroen holds both speed records and high efficiencies approaching 30 mpg down the normal highway = aerodynamics & suspension being key. And my wife's Mazda Miata (same bore and stroke of the old Offenhauser) does deliver 240+ tire smoking, 4 cylinder horsepower and 30+ mpg. (She dumped on a Porsche just yesterday through the S's on the coast highway 1.)

Surprisingly the worst performing engines are in small planes, design improvements being almost totally government restricted.

As long as the catalytic converters are on the wrong side of the combustion chamber and the turbo-charger and as long as there are belts, chains and pulleys driving unnecessary pumps and valving, internal combustion engines will continue to improve in only small incremental steps and overall thermal efficiencies will remain below 40%. The good ol' boy SAE still hold sway too, squelching dramatic improvements.

... And these areas represent totally green, high paying jobs going wanting ...

Exactly Eddy, exactly... More compression is out, the gasolibe is too bad. Smokey Eunich developed an engine that was mechanically low compression, but I believe used heat and turbochargin to both utilize compression efficiency but also dramatically improve combustion efficiency and draw more power from more of the fuel. I think it never was made because of emmission laws. Similarly, two stroke automotive engines have suffered the same fate, and now diesels are "regulated as well." And hybrids represent a step, but not a breakthrough in technology, and "plug-in hybrids" are a scam. Unless the batteries are 100% efficient, the energy losses are compounded. Energy is wasted in the electrical generation process, the electrical transfer process, the charging process, the discharge process. On top of this, unless the generator is driven by a Nuclear power plant, the polution is simply transfered to the power plant. I listened to a "Bill Nye the science guy where "he explained" how atg the power plant, polution could be "capped at the power plant. Of course that episode was before CO2 became "a pollutant, so now the scam is even more evident. And as folks will discover if this scam is ever implemented, there will be no cost savings either.

The article David linked is more of the obvious, another scam. Throwing $25 Billion at "insulation' is another opportunity for fraud, and as can be seen, it's not working either in energy savings nor job creation.

[FastEddy]

RifleMan: " ... exactly... More compression is out, the gasoline is ... bad ... hybrids represent a step, but not a breakthrough in technology, and "plug-in hybrids" are a scam ..."

Ah, yes! Since my wife's car needs the premium stuff, she and I will buy the middle grade if the cost difference is less than 5% ... and the premium if the cost difference is less than 8% over "regular". But not to make too fine a point about fuel costs: National car average is ~ 19 mpg. Our household average is around 25 mpg. BUT over a year of driving (12+k + 12+k) 25+ thousand miles, the savings over regular v. premium is only around 25 cents per gallon ... so that works down to about an annual cost difference of less than $650. Meaning since most of our fuel is deductible, I get to keep the g'ments hands off about a $300 differential = meaning I guess = to heck with it, buy the good stuff if your car needs it, because its greener (better milage) and the cost difference only squeezes some off the g'ment's stack.

Bottom line = if you really need a higher grade gas in your car or small truck, get it = Its greener, better and costs almost the same.

-----

For the purposes of this "Green Jobs" thread: The really green USA jobs are to be found at the raw material sources = the mines and the wells and the forests.

Better forestry ala the Georgia Pacific plan (selective cutting, not clear cutting and planting more than is cut ... Disclosure: My older half brother devised and wrote this G.P forestry book on large scale tree farming.)
Video:

Better oil and gas field management ala El Paso Nat. Gas plans (thanks to T. B. Pickens et al = drill locally, sell globally and be neat).

Better mining technics like the newer Arizona copper mining project where the open pit, mountain take down removes all of the slag along with the copper and leaves behind grazing land (at least that is what the plan is).

There is one huge genuine green job opportunity: fixing the coal mining question ...

[David]

The jury is back. Green job growth is a fantasy. Evidence is overwhelming. I'll tell you what green enterprise would produce jobs-nuclear power. But, libs don't think of nukes as "green" Besides it would take massive catch up construction to get us where we should be if nukes are to make a large difference in our quest for alternative energy. In the meantime, "Drill baby Drill."

Green energy stimulus growing few jobs

Patrice Hill

"Green energy" is proving to be no miracle solution to the nation's monumental unemployment problems, and it is doing little to help the economy emerge from its deepest recession in decades, economists say.

A large part of this year's $786 billion stimulus bill was devoted to green or renewable energy projects, with President Obama, Democratic legislators and their environmental allies repeatedly promising that the money would be used to create an army of home weatherizers, wind-turbine factory jobs and other employment opportunities that would help put to work the nearly 8 million people who have lost jobs during the recession.

The president and his allies have asserted that as many as 5 million jobs would be created by spending $150 billion over the next decade on new technologies such as solar and tidal power while retrofitting buildings and residences to make them more energy-efficient.

"We know the jobs of the 21st century will be created in developing alternative energy," the president said as he campaigned last year. "The question is whether these jobs will be created in America ... or overseas."

But the reality is that after a big dose of spending in the stimulus bill, no more than 100,000 or so jobs have been created, economists say, and the prospects are for only modest growth in alternative energy jobs for years to come.

"This is not the spark" that will pull the economy out of recession and put it in a lasting expansion that creates millions of jobs, said Rajeev Dhawan, director of the Economic Forecasting Center at Georgia State University. "This is not the solution to the current big unemployment problem."

Green-energy industries other than wind and hydropower remain mostly in the experimental stages and are not proven enough technologically or economically to be instrumental in pulling the economy out of recession and putting millions of people to work like the Internet boom of the 1990s or the housing boom of the early 2000s, he said.

"We need to put 7.3 million people back to work, and none of these ideas can make a dent of more than a few hundred thousand at best, and then after only a long gestation time," Mr. Dhawan said.

While green jobs likely are a wave of the future, economists say, most of them will require high levels of education and skills, and they will not be plentiful enough to take care of the millions of unemployed construction workers, retail sales clerks and factory workers who need jobs right now.

Many green industries were set back by the deep recession, despite being showered with additional government subsidies. Ethanol plants struggled to stay afloat after the big decline in oil and gas prices last year, which made it harder to compete with traditional energy sources.

Meanwhile, other projects targeted for funding in the stimulus, such as tidal power and carbon capture, still are not technologically feasible or do not make economic sense at today's energy prices, even with the subsidies.

"For all the talk about green-job creation, there's an unavoidable problem with renewable-energy technologies and the policies that promote them: From an economic standpoint, they're big losers," said Max Schulz, an analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank.

"Renewables can't produce the large volumes of useful, reliable energy that our economy needs at attractive prices. Government subsidizes renewables because -- all things being equal -- the free market won't," he said. Even before the stimulus was enacted, solar and wind projects received more than 16 times the subsidies given to nuclear, coal or oil, and yet still provided only a tiny fraction of the nation's energy, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Mr. Schulz said green-economy advocates use a kind of "fuzzy math" when counting the number of jobs created. While the number of core green jobs such as environmental engineers and wind-turbine and solar-panel factory workers is small, environmental groups and subsidized industries add in support staff such as accountants, computer programmers, sales representatives and truck drivers who deliver the products to users.

"No real standards exist for what constitutes a green job, so these numbers are fuzzy," Mr. Schulz said. "Work in an energy-intensive smelting plant producing steel for a wind turbine, and you might wind up in the green-jobs column, despite the belching pollution."

Determining the number of green jobs created since February is difficult since the economy is still losing more than 200,000 jobs a month, according to economists and the Labor Department's monthly jobs figures. The department does not directly track or even define what green jobs are, but economists who have attempted to make estimates say they probably number in the hundreds of thousands, not millions.

The administration's tracking system claims that the stimulus has saved or created more than 640,000 jobs but does not specify how many of those are "green jobs." Most appear to be in state and local health care and education. Reports from states and contractors have been riddled with mistakes and overestimates, the Government Accountability Office said in testimony Thursday.

A study for the National Governors Association by Collaborative Economics consulting group found that in 2007, just before the recession started, states such as Maryland and California had green jobs numbering from about 11,000 to 110,000 apiece, suggesting a national total of between 500,000 and 1 million. Jobs covered by the study were in a variety of areas from energy generation and efficiency to manufacturing and agriculture and offered salaries ranging from $123,650 for environmental engineers to $27,830 for shipping clerks.

The administration has pointed to studies by the Center for American Progress, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other groups in making its predictions. Conservative critics have countered with studies showing that, even if the government programs create some jobs, those are more than offset by job losses in traditional energy sectors that are displaced by the renewable projects.

One conclusion derived from most of the studies is that the cost per job created is large. A study by the United Nations found that renewable energy projects such as solar are less efficient and more labor intensive than traditional energy, generating as many as nine jobs for each megawatt of electricity produced, compared with one job at existing coal- and gas-fired power plants.

But the cost per job can exceed $700,000, according to a study of Spain's experiment with green jobs frequently cited by conservative groups.

Despite the disappointing performance, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. -- the administration's point man in pushing for green jobs -- proclaimed last month that the U.S. can achieve a "recovery through retrofit" by just adding funds and incentives.

He proffered a report claiming that the main obstacle to creating millions of jobs for people retrofitting homes is a lack of training and financing. Labor unions, including the Service Employees International Union, have started job-training programs to support the administration's efforts and stand to gain from further funding for the programs.

But economists say retrofitting homes, in the deepest recession since World War II, is a low priority for consumers, who are struggling with falling wages and hours, cutbacks in credit and more than one in 10 workers out of jobs.

Hard times have forced consumers to focus on necessities such as food and housing, and most do not have the financial means or inclination to begin major home-renovation projects, economists say. In fact, spending at hardware and home-improvement stores has been one of the weakest areas of retail sales throughout the recession, with sales down 13 percent in the past year.

Economists say lawmakers should be cautious about spending more money to create jobs.

About 3 percent of the first stimulus bill, or $27 billion, was funneled into transportation projects - not enough to prevent more than 1 million construction jobs from being eliminated in the past year.

"The fastest way to employ people is to start paving roads in local neighborhoods," said Mr. Dhawan. "Put the money into projects that can start breaking ground in three days."

But a survey by the Transportation Construction Coalition this month showed that 44 percent of road and transit contractors expect to lay off more permanent employees this year, despite receiving stimulus funds. The group is now pushing for additional funding, this time through reauthorization of the federal highway program, and reportedly is getting a hearing from House Democratic leaders.

SOURCE

[dcannady]

The Progressives are perfectly willing to drag us all through economic hell in order to come out at the end with their utopia dream. The problem is that it won't work and we will have gone through all of this economic misery for nothing.

[David]

The notion the government is going to alter our economy and see us to adding millions of Green Jobs reminds me of those old Soviet five year plans. The arrogance is astounding.

Heavily promoted initiatives to train Massachusetts workers for jobs in the emerging green economy are running head on into an increasingly stark reality:

The recession is making green jobs, like those in many other sectors, stubbornly scarce. And much of the new business is going to workers already trained in existing specialties who are crossing over to pick up the new environmentally friendly work or to workers who have been unable to use their skills full-time.

SOURCE

[Rifleman]

I would also add that the big real Estate loan scam, that provided an overabundance of loans for undeservng people, undermined years of efforts to produce homes that were very energy efficient, Instead, hundreds of thousands of homes were built in a haphazard manner in order to meet demand and price range. Inevitably home prices became inflated. In short, loans were so easy to get, there was little incentive to make them energy efficient. I have seen this time and time again, with wasteful floorplans and little regard to energy efficiency other than the minimum required.

[David]

Yep. It's even reached the NY Slimes. Green job creation on a large scale is a pipe dream.

Notice the writer's surname.

Elusive Goal of Greening U.S. Energy
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

The Great Green Hope for lifting America’s economy is not looking so robust.

President Obama, both during his campaign and in his first year in office, has promoted the promise of new jobs in cutting-edge, nonpolluting industries, and such green jobs will be a major issue at his jobs “summit” meeting Thursday.

But, increasingly, skeptics who point to the need for more jobs are wondering why he is not doing more to create green jobs faster.

Growth in clean energy industries and in green jobs has been considerably slower and bumpier than anticipated, industry experts say.

SOURCE