|
|
|
|
|
by jnordwick
3344 days ago
|
|
Of course, but that it takes more people is a net negative. I didn't say there aren't any positives to wind power. I think it is a balanced part of an alternative energy solution. That is takes so many people resources is a worry though. |
|
See e.g. my comment here (search for "Nucla"): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13749769
A utility scale solar farm can be more than an order of magnitude more productive per employee than an old coal plant.
So can a utility scale wind farm. MidAmerican's Wind VIII project has 40 permanent jobs and generated 3,622,316 MWh in 2016 (10.33 real annualized megawatts per employee).
https://www.midamericanenergy.com/content/pdf/wind_facts.pdf
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58883/
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58884/
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58885/
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58886/
(The EIA data for Wind VIII is spread across these sub-projects.)
Utility-scale wind and solar are also thriftier with labor than nuclear plants.
Old coal plant: 0.87 real annualized MW/full time employee (0.57 megawatts per employee if you include the fuel mining jobs)
New AP1000 reactors at Vogtle, assuming 90% capacity factor: 2.5 real MW/FTE
Desert Sunlight solar farm: 9.8 real MW/FTE
Wind VIII wind complex: 10.3 real MW/FTE