Really? Even once it’s running? Coal stans in Australia winge about solar not creating any jobs and I believed them.
EDIT: could those numbers be because renewables are a growing sector? Or are they just that inefficient. Also wind and solar don’t need any material input aside from construction and maintenance. Shouldn’t the labour required to extract and transport the coal be included.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf this is my source, afaik it includes that labor for coal calculations, same with solar. all the little bits that go into it, including auxiliary services.
they are extremely labor inefficient. just think about it. you need to hire people to fix panels, go out and drive to maintenance, clean them, and you can have random panels fail at any point so you need to constantly be ordering new ones. they slowly grow more inefficient as time goes on, too. nuclear is a very controlled environment and each plant hires around 500-1000 people. the upfront costs are big but labor cost and maintenance arent huge.
Huh ok, thanks for the source. The Australian government has looked into the feasibility of nuclear multiple times and decided its not economical viable, but I think a large contributing factor to that would be the lack of skills, knowledge and equipment in the country already.
there are some places where wind and solar make more sense with current nuclear tech, i dont think australia would fall into that category. places that are very remote and are not connected to a grid currently are the best options for wind/solar. with australia they might just be jerking it to coal though. wind is also highly unavailable for the vast majority of global south nations. whitey is hogging all the good wind spots.
also, whoever is downvoting me: show yourself, coward.
Really? Even once it’s running? Coal stans in Australia winge about solar not creating any jobs and I believed them.
EDIT: could those numbers be because renewables are a growing sector? Or are they just that inefficient. Also wind and solar don’t need any material input aside from construction and maintenance. Shouldn’t the labour required to extract and transport the coal be included.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf this is my source, afaik it includes that labor for coal calculations, same with solar. all the little bits that go into it, including auxiliary services.
they are extremely labor inefficient. just think about it. you need to hire people to fix panels, go out and drive to maintenance, clean them, and you can have random panels fail at any point so you need to constantly be ordering new ones. they slowly grow more inefficient as time goes on, too. nuclear is a very controlled environment and each plant hires around 500-1000 people. the upfront costs are big but labor cost and maintenance arent huge.
Huh ok, thanks for the source. The Australian government has looked into the feasibility of nuclear multiple times and decided its not economical viable, but I think a large contributing factor to that would be the lack of skills, knowledge and equipment in the country already.
there are some places where wind and solar make more sense with current nuclear tech, i dont think australia would fall into that category. places that are very remote and are not connected to a grid currently are the best options for wind/solar. with australia they might just be jerking it to coal though. wind is also highly unavailable for the vast majority of global south nations. whitey is hogging all the good wind spots.
also, whoever is downvoting me: show yourself, coward.
it’s not me! not sure why I’m being upvoted when you clearly know a lot more about the subject than me.