Inefficient solar energy

Is solar energy the economic saviour some are touting it to be? Given the emphasis being placed on the development of solar energy within the context of a renewable energy industry for Barbados, we reproduce this article which presents a different perspective on the subject. It was taken from the website of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative public policy think-tank in the United States.

In an April 25 New York Times article (Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal), reporter Nadja Popovich wrote that, “Last year, the solar industry employed many more Americans [373,807] than coal [160,119], while wind power topped 100,000 jobs.”

Those energy employment figures are based on a Department of Energy report (US Energy and Employment Report) released earlier this year that provides the most complete analysis available of employment in the energy economy.

But simply reporting rather enthusiastically that the solar industry employs lots of Americans, more than twice as many as the number of coal miners and utility workers at electric power plants using coal, is only telling a small part of the story.

Here are some important energy facts that help provide a more complete picture about how much energy is being produced in different sectors, how many workers it takes to produce a given amount of electric power, and which sectors receive the most generous taxpayer handouts.

To start, despite a huge workforce of almost 400,000 solar workers (about 20 per cent of electric power payrolls in 2016), that sector produced an insignificant share, less than one pervcent, of the electric power generated in the United States last year (EIA data here).

And that’s a lot of solar workers: about the same as the combined number of employees working at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company and Procter & Gamble. In contrast, it took about the same number of natural gas workers (398,235) last year to produce more than one-third of US electric power, or 37 times more electricity than solar’s minuscule share of 0.90 per cent.

And with only 160,000 coal workers (less than half the number of workers in either solar or gas), that sector produced nearly one-third (almost as much as gas) of US electricity last year.

The graphic below helps to quantify the significant differences in electric power output per employee for coal, natural gas and solar workers.

In 2016, the coal sector generated an average of 7,745 megawatt hours of electric power per worker, more than twice the 3,812 megawatt hours of electricity generated per natural gas worker, and 79 times more electric power per worker than the solar industry, which produced only 98 megawatt hours of electricity per worker. Therefore, to produce the same amount of electric power as just one coal worker would require two natural gas workers and an amazingly-high 79 solar workers.

Bottom line: The goal of America’s energy sector isn’t to create as many jobs as possible (as the NYT article would apparently have us believe) especially the politically-favored and heavily-subsidized renewable energy jobs. Rather, the economic goal is to produce as much electric power as possible at the lowest possible cost, and that means we want the fewest number of energy workers!

It’s a common mistake of politicians and the media to treat jobs as an economic benefit, when in fact, jobs are an economic cost or price of production. As Milton Friedman explained nearly 40 years ago, the appropriate economic objective is to have the fewest number of workers producing the greatest amount of output.

When it comes to solar energy, we are employing a very large number of workers who produce a very small amount of electric power – a sure sign of economic inefficiency. As the graphic above clearly demonstrates, today’s most productive energy workers are in coal and natural gas, not solar.

And there’s only one reason that the solar workforce has been increasing so rapidly (25 per cent gain last year) despite its dismal record of worker productivity and minuscule share of US electric power — government policies that have subsidized the solar industry nearly 350 times more than fossil fuels per unit of electricity production.

Only in the fantasy world of the Beltway does it make sense to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to artificially support an energy source that is so labour-intensive that it requires a workforce 79 times greater per unit of energy produced than coal, and nearly 40 times greater than natural gas.

If I could re-title the New York Times article, I think a better choice would be Today’s Most Productive Energy Workers are in Coal and Gas, Not Solar.

(Mark J. Perry is concurrently a scholar at American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.)

4 Responses to Inefficient solar energy

  1. Donald Toppins May 10, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    The American Enterprise Institute is a Washington, DC think tank that has been funded for years by the Oil Industry and the big Republican buisiness houses. It is most natural that their report would be anti the solar industry.
    I would take this report with a grain of salt. Do you think they believe in climate change?

  2. Bill May 10, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    The argument presented here sounds great! However does the unit cost for solar energy production not decrease with expansion! Is the decrease cost not very significant once the infrastructure etc has been established. Example- One man manages one unit while two manages one hundred , but we are only at two units so the industry’s productive when compared with coal and natural gas without taking expansion into consideration might seem dismal.

  3. Tony Gill May 11, 2017 at 9:03 am

    I thought the whole idea was to save the environment and future generations… not generate the highest kWHrs per employee

  4. Jus me May 11, 2017 at 6:02 pm

    Solar power is great for anyone who cant get
    Company power.
    Otherwise than that forget it.
    A modern solo array and electric equipment plus back up generator, will set you back around70,000bajan as yet undevalued
    Dollars,plus maintainence,plus deisel.
    Thats also if you can find a non rip off instalment.
    One who actually understands solar


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *