George Mason University Renewables Study Says Fewer Jobs Would Be Created By Fossil Fuels

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Pursuing a portfolio of renewable power sources such as solar, biomass and wind power to satisfy Virginia's energy appetite through 2035 would create tens of thousands more jobs than relying on either coal or natural gas, a George Mason University study concludes.

The study released Wednesday was prepared for Virginia Conservation Network, a coalition of environmental groups and proponents of renewable energy sources over fossil fuels.

George Mason's Center For Regional Analysis based the study on the 2010 Virginia Energy Plan, which projected a need for an additional 19,448 megawatts of demand over the next 25 years. Half of that demand can be met through biomass, solar and wind, offshore and onshore, the study concludes.

Nathan Lott, executive director of the Conservation Network, said the study illustrates that renewable energy can be competitive with fossil fuels. "This is important for regulators and utilities that must plan today for a safe, reliable electricity system 20 and 30 years into the future," he said.

Researchers developed two scenarios in which energy demand was satisfied by a combination of renewable sources.

They included: biomass, the burning of wood pellets made from sawdust and sawmill waste; solar; and wind power, offshore and onshore.

Under the first scenario, demand met by 50 percent of biomass, 28 percent wind and 22 percent solar would create 172,328 jobs and generate a "gross state product" valued at $20.8 million. The authors of the study define gross state product in the same terms as the gross domestic product — the sum of all goods and services created by those collective energy sources.

The second scenario would trim biomass to 40 percent, up wind power to 51 percent and trim solar to 9 percent. That combination would create 107,890 jobs and generate $13 billion in gross state product.

Coal would create 43,442 jobs and a gross product valued at $5.3 billion, while natural gas would create 20,473 jobs and a gross state product of $2.5 billion.

On the flip side, the study notes, increased electricity generation from renewables would likely mean more costs to ratepayers because of capital costs.

Under the first renewable scenario, for instance, construction costs are pegged at $9.48 billion and $5.94 billion under the second scenario. Coal construction costs are $2.39 billion, while natural gas is $1.13 billion.

The study did not include the North Anna Nuclear Power station in its equations because of questions involving nuclear power following the earthquake in Mineral, which automatically shut down the plant, and the quake and tsunami in Japan that caused the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Dominion Resources has considered adding a third reactor at North Anna.

"We couldn't reasonably expect to have a nuclear reactor up and running and filling this demand gap b 2035," Lott said in an interview. He also said the long regulatory process leading to a new reactor's licensing.

Also on HuffPost:

From our partners

• Oklahoma Tornado Shows Progress In Weather Warnings - Climate Central
• Shopping Accounts For How Many Miles Traveled In U.S.? - Mother Nature Network
• Widespread Greenland Melting A Sign Of Things To Come - Climate Central

Comments

[LiteBrite]

08:43 PM on 04/26/2012

Capital construction costs for nuclear power plants is astronomical.

Add to that the cost to store hazardous nuclear waste for the next 200,000 years, and you see why it's time to phase out nuclear energy.

That doesn't take into account the costs of health effects from nuclear energy from nuclear meltdowns and nuclear effluent.

[markkocaldo]

01:45 AM on 04/27/2012

Capital cost of nuke plants is currently $4B/Gw for first of kind in the US and is expected to drop to half that or current Chinese levels for the same plant with factory production. Cheapest form of power there is.

Nuke waste is fuel for Gen 4 reactors so no need to store it.

There are no such health effects.

[LiteBrite]

08:40 PM on 04/26/2012

Windpower is becoming cheaper than ever!

"JAPANESE BREAKTHROUGH WILL MAKE WINDPOWER CHEAPER THAN NUCLEAR"

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/japanese-breakthrough-will-make-wind-power-cheaper-than-nuclea

[markkocaldo]

01:47 AM on 04/27/2012

The wind/gas backup scam is a dangerous GHG and ai pollution spewer. Costs exceed 30 cents a kwh and are rising.

[LiteBrite]

08:39 PM on 04/26/2012

Huge advances have been made in renewable energies!

Look at this:

"24/7 BASELOAD SOLAR POWER"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonyseba/2011/06/21/the-worlds-first-baseload-247-solar-power-plant/

[markkocaldo]

01:48 AM on 04/27/2012

Cost well over a buck and half a kwh.

[steve11407]

02:49 PM on 04/26/2012

Design a study that gives you the answer you want. So what else is new.

[yeti7]

12:38 PM on 04/26/2012

These type of numbers are always under constant revisions, up then down then up again then down. Hardly worth pay attention to anymore.

Anyone watching the TV show "Turbine Cowboys" ?

[altohone]

12:27 PM on 04/26/2012

The first scenario needs an edit. It should say billion not million.

[Lance Manling]

12:18 PM on 04/26/2012

Under the first scenario, demand met by 50 percent of biomass, 28 percent wind and 22 percent solar would create 172,328 jobs and generate a "gross state product" valued at $20.8 million. The authors of the study define gross state product in the same terms as the gross domestic product — the sum of all goods and services created by those collective energy sources.

I would love to know the real definition of gross state product.

[MrBIgp]

11:19 AM on 04/26/2012

The purpose of energy is to perform work, not make work. The more energy you can produce per worker, the better. That renewable energy systems require more man hours for the same amount of energy is a negative, not a positive.

[mynamesyow]

02:59 PM on 04/26/2012

and the purpose of this type of work is to transform one kind of energy into another. I.e., physical or solar energy into electrical energy which takes considerably less energy going in then having to add heat to burn something to convert chemical energy into electrical energy. Its all what goies into the conversion and whether the thing you're converting is finite or infinite since cost$ ultimately depend on this Factor.

[fuzzychickens]

11:35 PM on 04/26/2012

Capital investments up front (man hours, money, etc) are higher - but costs get lower over time, much lower than non-renewables.

Which also makes the jobs numbers deceptive. Once renewables are built, it seems obvious they would require little more than maintenance - the job numbers would go down.

Of course I'm not advocating inefficiency as job welfare.

The ultimate solution is decentralized energy production anyways (yea, screw the energy companies) - on your own roof or property and that really isn't a huge job booster beyond manufacturing and installation.

[morshan]

01:39 AM on 04/26/2012

According to a Harvard study on fossil fuels the USA pays, annually, with taxpayer money between $300B and $500B to clean the mess in regards to environment, health, and associated costs. These are real monies being spent and they do not show up in anyone's calculations. Why not? Also, the oil and gas subsidies seem to always be missing. You can figure this in for $50B or so a year. Then there is the cost to protect the fossil fuels via military in the middle east and around the world. Figure $200B a year. Now do the math.

[markkocaldo]

02:29 PM on 04/26/2012

Part of the reason why nukes with their negative subsidy are a boon for the states economy.

[FaceReality2]

10:24 PM on 04/26/2012

"on fossil fuels the USA pays, annually, with taxpayer money between $300B and $500B to clean the mess in regards to environment, health, and associated costs."

Externalities are never counted. Our economic system is built around socializing the costs and privatizing the profits.

[marbiol]

11:18 PM on 04/25/2012

this administrayshun WILL lead the way by letting SCIENCE decide what is best!!

"video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers......"

now thats science we can believe in!!!

[JScott]

10:27 AM on 04/26/2012

Oh boo hoo with all the influence and profitability that the oil and gas industry has, it's like so what, who cares.

[KarasudaJay]

10:29 PM on 04/25/2012

So, basically, the study finds renewable energy requires much more labor input.

[VikingQuest]

10:58 PM on 04/25/2012

Correct, hence the higher costs associated with the output.

[Andrew Harvey]

03:23 AM on 04/26/2012

And hence the higher cost of making anything else that requires electricity as an input. Which is why all the "Jobs Created" numbers are garbage, since they don't take into account how many jobs will be lost to China, which makes electricity for half the cost.

[FaceReality2]

10:28 PM on 04/26/2012

If you don't count the external costs and the tax subsidies of fossil fuels.

[JScott]

10:31 AM on 04/26/2012

Yeah so???????

It always baffles me that the RWNM/Chamber of Commerce always touts out thus and such will 'create jobs' and yet on the other hand they don't wanna pay decent wages and benefits for human labor, the always oppose higher minimum wage and national healthcare.......so bottom line 'we want to create jobs but pay/benfit workers as little as possible.

[KarasudaJay]

10:38 AM on 04/26/2012

The point of industrial and commercial output is not to create jobs, it's to create goods and services. The jobs are actually incidental, but are good for the economy in general, except when they're inefficient then it is just wasted output.

[markkocaldo]

10:22 PM on 04/25/2012

Study is bogus as raping the forest to produce biogas is a deadly form of air and groundwater pollution as well a massively destructive to the ecology.

Renewables cost two orders of magnitude more than nukes producing far more GHG;s than they save due to their need for inefficient gas backup run inefficiently.

Virginia will either build nukes or import the nuke power from other more enlightened jurisdictions.

[Andrew Harvey]

03:26 AM on 04/26/2012

It also appears that the authors think that woodchips and sawdust have no alternative uses, when nothing could be further from the truth. That's where particle board comes from. How many cabinet makers are going to be out of work because we suddenly think its better to burn their feedstock?

[JScott]

10:32 AM on 04/26/2012

RWNM talking points.

[Norm Seavey]

08:28 PM on 04/25/2012

Here's a Thought,, Who Actually Benefits More when Renewable Energy is Implemented and put into good use for the common good of all not to mention the new jobs it creates for American People Out of Work and need to feed their families as their Meager Saving Accounts are all but used and closed Out,,, Norm at Americlense Technologies

[grappler1987]

08:23 PM on 04/25/2012

"On the flip side, the study notes, increased electricity generation from renewables would likely mean more costs to ratepayers because of capital costs.

Under the first renewable scenario, for instance, construction costs are pegged at $9.48 billion and $5.94 billion under the second scenario. Coal construction costs are $2.39 billion, while natural gas is $1.13 billion."

In other words, expensive energy is good. Makes perfect sense.

[3 Passports]

08:50 PM on 04/25/2012

delaying the inevitable switch to renewables will cost the tax payers more in the long run i feel. Yes the cheapness of capital costs for gas and coal is attractive, but thats also because the infrastructure for them is already there. As coal and gas runs out the habit of deferring to these sources of energy will become increasingly questionable, i guess its a question of when...

[grappler1987]

01:15 AM on 04/26/2012

No doubt, we had better switch before they run out.

[InLosAngeles]

10:04 AM on 04/26/2012

As gas runs out in approx 300 years. Too bad, since it burns more than 50% cleaner than oil & gas currently, w/o technological improvements. Too bad since it is at historic lows in pricing and would ease the fuel costs in the average families budget by in excess of 30%. Too bad since our domestic availability is almost immeasurable as it is almost too large to quantify. Too bad since Main St. USA would get those trillions of dollars we export to places like Riyadh. Too bad as it would reduce our needs for American troops all over the world.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

09:26 PM on 04/25/2012

Its more a matter of "good energy" being slightly more expensive on the front end of the implementation curve and less expensive thereafter; while dirty energy just gets more and more expensive. What were you saying about "perfect sense"?

[grappler1987]

01:14 AM on 04/26/2012

Hmm ... The quote suggests that the "good energy" is way more expensive on the front end and more expensive thereafter. Sounds good to me.

[Kenz300]

08:07 PM on 04/25/2012

The price of wind and solar have dropped by over 50% in the past few years while oil, coal and nuclear costs keep rising.

[markkocaldo]

10:16 PM on 04/25/2012

Actually the cost of nuke already the least expensive form of energy is dropping rapidly as new plants complete construction and factory production begins.

Wind's price was rising steadily and solar flattened until the chinese started dumping recently. With economies of scale all realized here are the real ones going forward - Toyota Prius MSRP: $19,995 in 2000 when 19K were produced and $23520 for 2011 when production of 404K estimated.

[Dallas Dunlap]

10:22 AM on 04/26/2012

markkocaldo - The price of a car is set by the market, not by the cost of production.
But that aside, per the BLS's handy dandy inflation calculator, $19,995 in year 2000 had a value of $26,635.85 in 2012 dollars. In real terms, the price of the Prius has actually gone down.