Skip to main content

Green jobs!

Nuclear energy produces 75 only jobs per TWh per year; oil and gas around 250 jobs; wind produces up to 2,400 jobs. If we invest properly in renewables, then we will insure ourselves against unemployment.
Yet some nay-sayers say that all this statistic tells you is that wind power is 'inefficient' and that we should be investing in nuclear power stations instead.

But what is their definition of efficiency? It is apparently how economical in labour-power an industry is. But that is an utterly bankrupt edition of 'efficiency'. In today's world, we have no shortage of labour-power; what we have a shortage of is oil and gas and climatic space for any more carbon emissions.
Relative to those shortages, providing lots of jobs (which is what people want, and gives them an income) is efficient. [Read Herman Daly, if you want to learn more on this.]
Except, I guess, if you really want nuclear power, then it is true, you can guarantee lots of jobs: i.e. a never-ending toxic-waste clean-up...
 
Of course, the really big potential for renewables in this country is in water power, and especially tidal power (I mean tidal range and tidal lagoons, not tidal barrage). A mixed basket of renewables, to insure against intermittency of supply -- that is the way forward; that is how we may yet save ourselves, and prosper...

Comments

Joe Otten said…
Agriculture prior to the seed drill generated more jobs per tonne of grain than after.

So was it better to use the seed drill or not?
23 September 2008 at 00:46
weggis said…
The figures you quote for jobs per TWh do not seem to me to be credible. Where did they come from and have they been checked and peer reviewed?
23 September 2008 at 13:30
Rupert said…
The figures are from Jean Lambert's 'Green work' report:
http://www.jeanlambertmep.org.uk/news_detail.php?id=354
Check it out.
23 September 2008 at 13:49
weggis said…
Ah. I’m afraid I got to the words “job creation” in the second para and switched off. I hate that phrase. What I want is to enable individuals to participate in a healthy economy on worthwhile and productive activities such that they are not dependent upon the State or anyone else. I suppose I will have to revisit it and grit my teeth and if necessary take it up with Jean.
23 September 2008 at 16:06
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

Post a Comment
Read more

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...
2 comments
Read more