[HN Gopher] U.S. solar and storage manufacturing jobs expected t...
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. solar and storage manufacturing jobs expected to grow to
115,000 by 2030
Author : hasseo
Score : 74 points
Date : 2023-03-09 20:41 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ieefa.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ieefa.org)
| richardw wrote:
| After the GFC I thought the smart move was to generate a massive
| renewable industry, Manhattan project style. Growth, new jobs,
| energy independence, a new direction and possibly dominance in
| renewables. There are probably reasons why it was too early but I
| still think we'd all be in a better world if that was the choice.
| m463 wrote:
| I don't think "manhattan projects" are a good idea anymore.
|
| Maybe during a war, when the best people could be drafted and
| put together for a common goal.
|
| But now, it seems to be "the government picks a winner", which
| historically they have been bad at.
|
| Examples I remember are paying ISPs to wire schools, and the
| early funding for solar companies. The government just
| dissipated billions of dollars with little to show for it.
|
| I think the real answer might be to eliminate externalities via
| taxation and let market forces solve the problem. (admittedly a
| hard problem when pollution is global). But from what I recall,
| cap-and-trade worked to solve the acid rain problem pretty
| well.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| We did but not with renewable energy. You're describing:
|
| 1: The fracking boom 2: The bike explosion and zoning reform in
| American cities
| [deleted]
| seydor wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| [dead]
| cdnsteve wrote:
| Solar is not an economical or environment friendly mechanism to
| produce energy. This is a house of cards.
| admax88qqq wrote:
| Really? Most of the numbers I've seen suggest solar is the
| cheapest energy production there is, so it certainly seems
| economical.
| S201 wrote:
| [citation needed]
| gknapp wrote:
| What makes you say that? There's so much research that flies in
| the face of this sentiment. Solar on rooftops alone has the
| potential to supply a fourth of the current US energy
| consumption [1]. Other studies estimate that solar could grow
| to supply between 30-50% of our energy consumption in the
| future [2]. Solar represents a near limitless supply of energy,
| and can be harvested in a decentralized fashion (allowing homes
| to directly power themselves).
|
| Furthermore, EVs have shown that advancements in tech can
| mitigate concerns around material availability and
| sustainability (while also increasing efficiency).
|
| [1]: Rooftop Photovoltaic Technical Potential in the United
| States, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1575064
|
| [2]: The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate
| climate change, https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2017140
| fuddle wrote:
| "Solar is now the cheapest energy in history" -
| https://www.zmescience.com/science/solar-is-now-the-cheapest...
| jlmorton wrote:
| I'd invite you to review the US DOE Levelized Costs of New
| Generation [1], which includes both subsidized, and
| unsubsidized costs.
|
| [1]
| https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....
| natch wrote:
| One would think new manufacturing jobs in the US would be
| increasingly robotic over that timeframe.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _would think new manufacturing jobs in the US would be
| increasingly robotic over that timeframe_
|
| We're a long way from robots that can look at my roof, climb
| it, install solar panels and hook them up to my power supply.
| natch wrote:
| You call that manufacturing?
| philipkglass wrote:
| They probably will be. Solar manufacturing productivity per
| full time employee has grown rapidly in the last 7 years and I
| expect the same in the next 7 years. That said, total solar
| equipment output is growing _even faster_ so I think that
| projections of robust job growth are correct.
| kube-system wrote:
| And many expected the demise of office jobs in the 90s as
| computers took over. What actually happened is that companies
| leveraged the respective strengths of both automation and labor
| to increase growth.
| quadrifoliate wrote:
| Someone needs to bring in, control, service, and oil the
| robots, and take them off the assembly line when they
| malfunction.
|
| Thinking of new jobs as _anywhere_ close to 100% robotic is a
| misunderstanding.
| mbgerring wrote:
| Climate Tech companies have lots of jobs, are not laying people
| off, have financial tailwinds behind them thanks to the Inflation
| Reduction Act, and, crucially, don't derive their revenue from
| the adtech/digital media/ecommerce/developer tooling industry
| that's getting shredded right now.
|
| Top comment on this post right now is a dumb, dismissive joke.
| Personally, I don't think an addressable market size in the
| trillions of dollars is a joke, but you do you.
| shaburn wrote:
| There is little chance these governments can finance this
| adoption rate while funding wars against parts of the world
| that will continue to flood the market with cheap fossil fuels
| as a result. Long term, technology will move away from fossil
| fuel but not with brute force fiat on weak tech and bad
| politics.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Regulation isn't a good moat. Solar panels are a commodity-
| it's a race to the bottom. Solar looks like (and has been) the
| storybook case of a positive trend that makes for a poor
| investment.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You could say the same thing about almost any mature
| technology though. Meanwhile there are incredible amounts of
| money being made in solar. A friend has a solar installation
| business, he's been hiring more people year after year and is
| doing very well for himself and his co-founders.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Regulation is a great moat.
|
| I think that many of the most visible parts of the solar
| value chain (the panels and the installers) are very
| competitive industries that are going to be poor investments.
| However, there's always _some_ segment of the value chain
| that is condensed into a few technologically-advanced and
| capital-intensive companies. I think we 'll see this with
| solar as well, and there will be trillion-dollar companies
| that come out of it.
| jeffbee wrote:
| > poor investment
|
| https://www.google.com/finance/quote/ENPH:NASDAQ?sa=X&window.
| ..
| boringg wrote:
| So climate tech is great and very important (have been in the
| industry for a long time) - it isn't a huge money maker.
| Margins are thin - companies are lean and historically you are
| competing against future cheaper prices (e.g. Solar). It's
| called the Solar coaster for a reason. Energy Storage assets
| have a 10 year life and are essentially arbitraging energy
| demand or providing grid services for the IESO.
|
| Hopefully the IRA can translate into a lot of productive asset
| growth in North America - at the very least we can translate
| the GDP / CO2e to be more efficient. It isn't clear that it
| will be a huge success but it is important goal to pursue.
|
| That said there are many humorless climate zealots out there
| that are problematic that get in the way of progress.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > it isn't a huge money maker. Margins are thin
|
| You mean, like most of the real economy? In which people
| produce stuff and provide the services everybody needs? ...
| kneebonian wrote:
| > have financial tailwinds behind them thanks the Inflation
| Reduction Act
|
| I'm just saying if your financing and backing has come to pass
| because of government fiat, it can just as easily be removed by
| government fiat.
| mbgerring wrote:
| My company's revenue mostly comes from people paying for
| services, the IRA is mainly good for helping some of these
| new technologies reach economies of scale.
|
| Good luck out there!
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Top comment on this post right now is a dumb, dismissive
| joke.
|
| Is it fair to call it the top comment if it's the _only_
| comment? And downvoted, nonetheless.
|
| And while it was a joke, I actually think it makes a valid
| point. As an individual, I'm incredibly wary whenever I see
| these "Field X is going to explode with jobs!" announcements,
| because they analyses are usually quite simplistic.
|
| I mean, we were saying the same things about solar jobs 10
| years ago, and there was a ton of excitement. That was then
| followed by tons of companies going bankrupt and jobs
| disappearing because they couldn't compete with "the China
| price". With globalization slowing down and decoupling I'm not
| saying that fate will repeat itself, but I still think some
| healthy skepticism is warranted.
| crote wrote:
| A big benefit of the energy transition is that a lot of the
| jobs are _by definition_ very local. You can 't really
| outsource solar panel installation to China.
|
| Everyone keeps going on about lithium and cobalt shortages,
| but in The Netherlands the biggest shortage is in laborers -
| and I bet it's the same story in other places.
| mbgerring wrote:
| The solar industry _did_ explode with jobs ten years ago, and
| has kept growing since.
|
| The thing that didn't work out were some high profile panel
| manufacturing plays, but the solar industry as a whole has
| grown and employs more people than the oil and gas industry.
|
| In fact, the "China price" is responsible for a lot of that
| growth, because it's made the economics of solar irresistible
| in many places.
|
| More info on jobs and industry size:
| https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| I can only hope with investments for fabs here in the US we
| can bring back production of solar panels.
|
| Would be great to stop importing cheap, inefficient panels
| from abroad and instead have out tax dollar subsidize a
| higher quality domestic product.
| crote wrote:
| Don't count on it. The fabs currently being invested in
| are designed for high-tech chips, they are completely
| unsuitable for solar panels. Solar panel factories are a
| completely different beast, and labor cost is probably
| the biggest factor when it comes to choosing a factory
| location.
|
| Cheap and inefficient panels are usually exactly what you
| want. You are rarely space or weight limited, so it is
| all about getting the highest power capacity for your
| money. Why spend twice as much for 10% more capacity when
| you can get 100% more capacity for the same money by
| simply placing more panels?
| beebmam wrote:
| The "China price" is more than just the cheap cost of the
| product.
|
| It is also the carbon cost of the coal that is used to
| produce solar panels, and the human forced labor: https://w
| ww.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/05/19...
|
| Cheating on both carbon emissions and slave labor practices
| is a giant way that China was able to bring down costs
| compared to competitors in the US and EU.
| hijinks wrote:
| friend of mine owns a small roofing company that has almost
| 100% pivoted to solar installs and only does a new roof if the
| old roof needs to be replaced before panels can be put on.
|
| He has jobs booked out 8 months now. Its funny because he tells
| me his parents were so upset he started a roofing company and
| didn't go to college and now he makes more per year then most
| software engineers even at large tech companies.
|
| He also said he's having issues hiring dependable people even
| though he says he's offering a really good salary+benefits.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > He also said he's having issues hiring dependable people
| even though he says he's offering a really good
| salary+benefits.
|
| It is evidently not good enough. Can you share how much he is
| offering for back breaking outdoor labor that has a high
| likelihood of causing musculoskeletal healthcare problems by
| one's 50s, and cannot screw around on HN during the day?
| jacquesm wrote:
| It was 'dependable', not 'in general'. That makes a big
| difference. Subcontractors or people working out of sight
| on installation work are difficult hires because you need
| to inspect the work after it has been done and that can be
| very tricky once it's all sewn up. It also requires people
| to be there on time and to not cause damage. Hiring for
| such roles is very difficult, typically you try a large
| number of people and you end up finding some fraction of
| that (not a very large fraction) that works out over the
| longer time.
|
| As for the effects of physical labor on the body: that is
| true for many industries and occupations. It certainly
| doesn't give solar a pass but this is not a problem that is
| exclusive to solar installations (though the risk of injury
| is high this is in part because the people that try to do
| the work aim to get it done as quickly as possible and
| safety be damned). Have a look at the building trades for
| small time contractors, the situation is quite comparable
| (especially the roofing part). But don't underestimate the
| wear and tear of any one of a large number of other 'blue
| collar' jobs on the body.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > That makes a big difference.
|
| I do not see the difference. He wants a worker of certain
| quality, and apparently is not offering or able to offer
| sufficient pay to attract said worker from other options
| they have.
|
| As for the second paragraph, I never meant to imply
| roofing or solar was special. As the proportion of
| younger age population declines, prices for work with
| lower quality of life will need to rise to compete with
| work that offers a higher quality of life.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Pay does not guarantee quality. You may simply not be
| able to find the people (or at least enough of them) that
| you need, no matter what you are willing to pay. Not
| everything is a 'free market' problem.
|
| In solar installations the first filter is 'is
| comfortable working at heights', the second is 'can
| deliver quality work', the third is 'is able to represent
| the company well', the fourth is 'will take good care not
| to damage the clients property' and there are probably
| others. Within a given region there may simply not be
| enough people left over in the intersection of all those
| sets that you are able to supply the companies with
| sufficient people. There are quite a few industries with
| similar shortages. Usually over time these even out as
| industries mature but during a growth spurt (which is
| exactly what has been happening for the last decade or
| so) the market may not be able to solve the shortfall by
| offering more cash, for that to work enough people
| actually need to exist in that bracket.
| luckylion wrote:
| "Comfortable working at heights" feels like the only part
| that's somewhat unique, but quality work, friendly and
| won't trash the place applies to lots of people in lots
| of industries and trades, and surely you could attract
| some of them if you paid more.
|
| When someone claims they can't get anyone to work for
| them "no matter what they are willing to pay", it often
| turns out they weren't willing to pay all that much.
| Which solar installation company offers FAANG level total
| compensation?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >Pay does not guarantee quality. You may simply not be
| able to find the people (or at least enough of them) that
| you need, no matter what you are willing to pay. Not
| everything is a 'free market' problem.
|
| It is obvious there are no guarantees in life. But over
| the long term, quality correlates with price of the goods
| are limited in quantity.
|
| It is obvious over the past many decades that the pay to
| quality of life at work ratio for manual labor has lagged
| far behind "office". Therefore, to attract the best or
| even above median young people to manual labor jobs, they
| will need to offer a commensurate price to overcome that
| reputation.
| crispinb wrote:
| * * *
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Where?
| ecshafer wrote:
| What percentage of Hacker News users are Software Developers?
| Climate Tech sounds great for a variety of engineers, but
| software jobs are going to be quite limited. Plus when you
| compare these more non-fungible industries where software gets
| paid really well, I imagine many of these climate tech jobs
| will be quite a hair cut for many devs.
| mbgerring wrote:
| No, software jobs in climate are not limited. Take a look at
| the job board at https://climatebase.org. There's a lot of
| work to do, and a lot of it is software.
| pvarangot wrote:
| There's going to be a lot of jobs for developers when they
| start embedding ads into the solar panels and need to
| optimize distribution and engagement.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Don't forget about when they embed micro-cameras and other
| sensors to track the clients activities and phone home to
| report about it :-)
| [deleted]
| kokanee wrote:
| I am a software engineer who spent last summer interviewing
| at climate tech companies. I found that there are two
| categories of software jobs in climate tech: A) jobs building
| tools to support R&D or operations at climate hardware
| companies, and B) jobs building software that purports to add
| value to various aspects of the carbon offset economy. I
| personally am not interested in the latter, as the entire
| carbon credit system is more effective at corporate
| greenwashing while enabling the status quo than it is at
| reducing emissions. As a web developer, it was very hard to
| find opportunities in climate hardtech, especially ones that
| could come close to FAANG compensation. I did find what I was
| looking for, but can confirm that there aren't many
| opportunities like this.
| shaburn wrote:
| So an industry trade group funded by the renewable energy
| industry, dependent on government spending by government parties
| that "represent labor", say they are going to create a shit ton
| of jobs(of undescribed income and duration) at some point in the
| future...if they get more subsidy. Got it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-09 23:00 UTC)