Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Solar power could add 123,000 new jobs by 2020
Business Wire ^ | 7/3/2007 | Staff

Posted on 07/03/2007 1:32:27 PM PDT by P-40

Development of the solar energy industry in Texas would have a significant economic impact for consumers, the environment and workers, according to a study released by the IC2 Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.

Opportunity on the Horizon: Photovoltaics in Texas finds the benefits of nurturing the solar energy industry will stimulate the state's economy, reduce the cost of power for consumers and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.

"Worldwide, the cost of converting sunlight to electricity is rapidly decreasing. The right public policies, combined with emerging and increasingly efficient technologies in solar power, would create a solid opportunity for Texas to build an economic engine on this non-polluting resource," Joel Serface of Clean Energy Incubator said.

The paper cites a recent University of California-Berkeley study that finds the solar industry produces seven to 11 times as many jobs on a megawatt capacity basis as coal-fired power plants and has a larger positive trickle-down effect than wind energy.

Estimates suggest Texas could generate 123,000 new high-wage, technology-related, advanced manufacturing and electrical services jobs by 2020 by actively moving toward solar power. It is predicted these jobs would be created across the entire state as large solar farms grow in West Texas, silicon plants develop along the Gulf Coast and manufacturing centers appear in Central Texas.

The report evaluates the competitive benefits Texas has in the worldwide market and compares the overall results of Texan efforts against other states and international competitors. The study notes that although Texas consumed more energy than any other state and has the best overall climate for producing solar energy year-round, it ranked 8th in solar adoption in 2006, producing just 1/100th of the solar energy of California.

Texans pay about 13 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. It is believed that the production of photovoltaics, like other semiconductors, would follow a predictable decline in costs. Analysts predict this cost decline will translate to between 10 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour as early as 2010.

In 1999, the Texas Legislature adopted a bill that introduced the retail competition in the sale of electricity and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) to consumers. Since 2002, electricity-users in deregulated markets have been able to choose their power providers from a multitude of retailers. The legislation requires energy providers to increase the amount of renewable energy produced through a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, hydro wave, tidal, biomass-based waste products or landfill gas.

To date, energy producers have chosen to focus on wind energy for a multitude of reasons, including federal tax incentives for producers, the large amount of wind resources in the state and the scalability of large wind projects. The report concludes that the legislation has brought many benefits to consumers across the state and can be used as a roadmap for the successful expansion of solar power across the state.

Worldwide, investors are confident in the future of solar power. The solar industry grew to $10.6 billion in revenues in 2006 and is estimated to be greater than $30 billion, with some analyst estimates as high as $72 billion for the entire solar value chain by 2010.

The report outlines several recommendations to strengthen the state's solar strategy. Starting with leadership to create the policies necessary for success, Texas could leverage its natural resources, skilled workforce, existing industries and entrepreneurial spirit to create a new energy industry, the report says.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: brokenwindows; energy; jobs; renewenergy; solar; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-173 next last
A lot of these jobs will be in areas of Texas where there is no economy to speak of.
1 posted on 07/03/2007 1:32:30 PM PDT by P-40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: P-40

Very cool. Hope it takes off.


2 posted on 07/03/2007 1:36:49 PM PDT by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40

123,000 new jobs huh. How many will be paid for in total with tax dollars or heavily subsidised? 122,000?


3 posted on 07/03/2007 1:37:47 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

246,000


4 posted on 07/03/2007 1:39:12 PM PDT by Ragnar54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Solar power could add 123,000 new jobs by 2020

...pedaling those little bicycle generators after the conversion to make up the shortfall and keep the lights on.

5 posted on 07/03/2007 1:40:48 PM PDT by SergeiRachmaninov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40

In the western part of Texas, there’s not much of anything to speak of. They could cover most of west Texas with solar cells and power the rest of the country. Not like there’s anything else to do with it.


6 posted on 07/03/2007 1:42:48 PM PDT by GBA (God Bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SergeiRachmaninov
I think what they have in mind is more something like this:


7 posted on 07/03/2007 1:43:17 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GBA
They could cover most of west Texas with solar cells and power the rest of the country.

And California only wants to buy 'green' power but I doubt you can build anything there in the way of production facilities....so we'll sell them power.
8 posted on 07/03/2007 1:46:02 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: P-40
I think what they have in mind is more something like this:


Why would they put a snow plow storage yard in Texas?

9 posted on 07/03/2007 1:51:28 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: P-40

Gee, West Texas has hail storms. I am sure someone has thought of that.


10 posted on 07/03/2007 1:56:03 PM PDT by hadaclueonce (shoot low, they are riding Shetlands..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

It does look like a bunch of snow plows. Shiny ones at that. :)


11 posted on 07/03/2007 1:56:25 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: P-40

utter baloney. imho.

solar is hyped by greenies but we could serve the entire nation with nuclear power with far less costs and far less numbers of workers...

123,000 people ??? $6-12 billion in employee costs alone just for Texas for electricity generation? They are on crack. That number of people would be enough to staff 200-300 nukes which in turn could power half the nation.


12 posted on 07/03/2007 2:11:29 PM PDT by WOSG (thank the Senators who voted "NO": 202-224-3121, 1-866-340-9281)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

And then there is this article currently on Drudge describing a recent study claiming we use to much of the sun.

Solar ‘Greed’? Humans accused of overusing the Sun!

ROFLMAO


13 posted on 07/03/2007 2:15:45 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

Sorry, can get the link from drudge to hear on us using to much son.


14 posted on 07/03/2007 2:18:47 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

sun that is sorry


15 posted on 07/03/2007 2:19:25 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: crazyshrink

You take Drudge seriously regarding this? Try independent thinking instead of allowing yourself to be pulled into demagoguery.


16 posted on 07/03/2007 2:29:44 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Truth : Liberals :: Kryptonite : Superman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
That number of people would be enough to staff 200-300 nukes which in turn could power half the nation.

And you would store that waste....where? That is the problem I don't think we are ever going to get worked out.

And I think the greenies gave up on solar power...now that too many people are using it and getting paid for it. :)
17 posted on 07/03/2007 2:30:23 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hadaclueonce
Gee, West Texas has hail storms.

It would take some pretty serious hail to damage those things. It looks frail but I'd bet it could take a good pounding without damage.
18 posted on 07/03/2007 2:32:03 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: P-40

How many jobs could be added to the U.S. economy if we drilled in ANWR and off the coast of Florida?

Just curious.


19 posted on 07/03/2007 2:35:40 PM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40

“And you would store that waste....where? That is the problem I don’t think we are ever going to get worked out. “

It’s a solved problem. Nulcear used fuel is a valuable resource that should be recycled, just like aluminum cans. It’s easier to recycle if the short-lived radioactivity dies down. so ... You store it on site at the nuclear power plant site for 50 years (dry cask storage, been doing that for the last 40 year laready no problem), at which point it is a lot cooler. Store it another 50 years at Yucca Mountain and/or then reprocess it as Mox-type fuel for another go around.

by 2050, we should have lead-bismuth fast reactors that can use up this stuff and burn it completely so there is zero real nuclear waste ove time.

“And I think the greenies gave up on solar power...now that too many people are using it and getting paid for it. :)”

People are paid for solar because it is a taxpayer-funded boondoggle. yet solar gives us less than 1% of our energy. meanwhile nuclear generates 20% of our power.

With all the money we waste on ‘alternative energy’ and ethanol subsidies, we could redirect is on cost-effective nuclear power and end forever the ‘threat’ of global warming.


20 posted on 07/03/2007 2:40:47 PM PDT by WOSG (thank the Senators who voted "NO": 202-224-3121, 1-866-340-9281)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby
How many jobs could be added to the U.S. economy if we drilled in ANWR and off the coast of Florida?

Probably more than we have workers for. We may soon find out. I don't know about ANWR but some of the other areas of the 'No Zone' are supposedly going to be drilled soon.
21 posted on 07/03/2007 2:46:53 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: P-40

I remember the last great Solar Power “Surge”...

Many of what the door-to-door salesman sold still sit unused on rooftops on nearly every road I drive...


22 posted on 07/03/2007 2:48:47 PM PDT by tcrlaf (VOTE Democrat! You don't those stinkin' Freedoms anyway!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40

I remember the last great Solar Power “Surge”...

Many of what the door-to-door salesman sold still sit unused on rooftops on nearly every road I drive...


23 posted on 07/03/2007 2:49:34 PM PDT by tcrlaf (VOTE Democrat! You don't those stinkin' Freedoms anyway!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Store it another 50 years at Yucca Mountain

And the fight at Yucca Mountain has been going on for how long? No one wants the stuff in their back yard.

yet solar gives us less than 1% of our energy.

That is a lot of energy. Now that we have abandoned the Carter-era rules and you can have solar concentrator facilities of substantial size, it will play a larger role. It is cheap, reliable, and waste-free.
24 posted on 07/03/2007 2:50:46 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
still sit unused on rooftops on nearly every road I drive...

How do you know they are unused?
25 posted on 07/03/2007 2:54:01 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: P-40

Neighbor hadn’t used his since it broke down in the late 70’s,

It was finally removed last summer with the new roof.

Maybe 1 of 100 of these things are still being used.


26 posted on 07/03/2007 2:56:24 PM PDT by tcrlaf (VOTE Democrat! You don't those stinkin' Freedoms anyway!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Worldwide, the cost of converting sunlight to electricity is rapidly decreasing

I have seen no evidence of this. On the contrary, costs of photovoltaic cells seem to be increasing.

27 posted on 07/03/2007 2:58:25 PM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40

Solar is the most expensive, least reliable and generally ridiculous energy source availble and you know it. Yet you just keep trolling for suckers and supporters unceasingly!!!


28 posted on 07/03/2007 2:59:27 PM PDT by SierraWasp (SIERRA REPUBLIC!!! (our 51st united state)(all of CA excluding coastal counties))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

We’ve been using it for millions of years. I’d say it works quite well.


29 posted on 07/03/2007 3:04:01 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: P-40

The same place FRANCE, JAPAN, and several other industrialized nations store theirs! You just hype the nuclear fear like the anti-nuke-nazis like Jane Fonda, et al


30 posted on 07/03/2007 3:05:45 PM PDT by SierraWasp (SIERRA REPUBLIC!!! (our 51st united state)(all of CA excluding coastal counties))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
costs of photovoltaic cells seem to be increasing.

I guess it would rise and fall with the price of silicon...which is high right now. Except for small uses, I can't see that type of usage being a major player for a long time to come. Solar concentrator facilities on that other hand, that is a whole different ballgame.
31 posted on 07/03/2007 3:06:48 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Wow. Talk about jumping to negative opinions about someone w/o due consideration. Did the amnesty thing bother you that much? I am glad it died.

IMO, the gov’t boondoggle with the solar stuff & the solar use study both continue to keep me ROFLMAO. That and lots of other posts and links I read on the net.

Comic relief is good for the soul.


32 posted on 07/03/2007 3:06:51 PM PDT by crazyshrink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: P-40

“No one wants the stuff in their back yard. “

A remote mountain is in nobody’s ‘backyward’, and the Congress has resolved it. Yucca Mountain has been chosen.
nevertheless, used nuclear fuel can be recycled to minimize waste streams and eliminate completely the ‘long-lived waste’ that is a concern.

“yet solar gives us less than 1% of our energy.

That is a lot of energy.”

LOL. ‘less than 1%’ as in a fraction of even that.

Nuclear power generating capacity is 105,585 MWs, enough for 50 million homes. THAT IS A LOT OF POWER.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

Go find out how much solar contributed and report on it.

“It is cheap, reliable, and waste-free.”
Nuclear power can make that claim, not solar.
Solar power remains hugely expensive, not competitive with
other forms of energy production and only put in place where massively subsidized.


33 posted on 07/03/2007 3:07:13 PM PDT by WOSG (thank the Senators who voted "NO": 202-224-3121, 1-866-340-9281)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: P-40

Well, of course! For fantastic industrial uses like getting sun burns, etc. I’d say get real, but I’ve watched your ridiculous relentless replys long enough to know better!!!


34 posted on 07/03/2007 3:08:18 PM PDT by SierraWasp (SIERRA REPUBLIC!!! (our 51st united state)(all of CA excluding coastal counties))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
You just hype the nuclear fear like the anti-nuke-nazis like Jane Fonda, et al

No idea what that was supposed to mean but I'm assuming you are saying that we are somehow going to overcome the bad rap that nuclear power has in most parts of this nation. Good luck with that.
35 posted on 07/03/2007 3:09:13 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Solar concentrator facilities on that other hand, that is a whole different ballgame.

Even more expensive and nobody wants that in his yard frying his pets and garden vegetables.

36 posted on 07/03/2007 3:09:17 PM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Yucca Mountain has been chosen.

You bet it has been chosen. But what is stored there? That place will be in litigation for the next hundred years.
37 posted on 07/03/2007 3:11:24 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

They are quite welcome here. Where they will be going there are no pets or vegetables to speak of.


38 posted on 07/03/2007 3:12:49 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
I’ve watched your ridiculous relentless replys long enough to know better!!!

Glad you are still paying attention then.
39 posted on 07/03/2007 3:14:00 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Study: Solar power could add 123,000 new jobs by 2020

A study of "free enterprise" in total creating jobs is out of the question via PC directive however, right?

40 posted on 07/03/2007 3:23:34 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Plenty of studies already exist by whatever category one could want.


41 posted on 07/03/2007 3:27:39 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: P-40

You continue to flog a dead horse. Nuclear used fuel is a non-issue and is only been used as an ‘issue’ by anti-nuclear activists to gull the uninformed into thinking there is a problem, where there is not.

Waste stream volumes are small, the methods to store it safely are known and used, etc.
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=62

court challenges are pretty much resolved, its going ahead:
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=310

Again, we dont even need long-term storage. Nuclear used fuel could be recycled until there are no actinide elements at all.


42 posted on 07/03/2007 3:31:25 PM PDT by WOSG (thank the Senators who voted "NO": 202-224-3121, 1-866-340-9281)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Nuclear used fuel is a non-issue

You are talking 'non-issue' from a technical standpoint. I am addressing the political standpoint. That is far, far, far from being solved. 'Pretty much solved' is being incredibly optimistic and I don't put that much faith in the American public nor our elected officials.
43 posted on 07/03/2007 3:42:04 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: P-40; SierraWasp

Nuclear power does not have a bad rap, it polls very well.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/opinion-polls/nuclear-energy/two-thirds-support-nuclear-energy.htm
“Survey Finds Two-thirds of Americans Support Use of Nuclear Energy”

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=503
July 2005:
“Record-High 70 Percent Favor Nuclear Energy; Public Supports Planning for More Plants”

I think what sierraWasp is telling you is that you shouldn’t be peddling the discredited talking points of the anti-nuclear left. After almost 40 years of safe commercial electricity generation in the US, nuclear energy has gained a lot of credibility as an environmentally friendly, non-GHG-emitting, safe and economical source of energy. it can and should be part of our future energy mix, and people in the US agree with that view.

We can and we should increase our use of nuclear energy significantly in the future as we get beyond the fossil fuel age.


44 posted on 07/03/2007 3:44:06 PM PDT by WOSG (thank the Senators who voted "NO": 202-224-3121, 1-866-340-9281)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: P-40
Plenty of studies already exist by whatever category one could want.

Thats my point, free Enterprise needs no study for it in itself has created the greatest, most powerful, most respected and most desired sovereign nation on earth.

It "ain't" so bad living in the USA!

Unless you want to prove me wrong, then perhaps we need a study. ; )

45 posted on 07/03/2007 3:44:27 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: P-40

“You are talking ‘non-issue’ from a technical standpoint. I am addressing the political standpoint.”

See above post. it’s a non-issue politically as well, nuclear energy has wide support.


46 posted on 07/03/2007 3:45:43 PM PDT by WOSG (thank the Senators who voted "NO": 202-224-3121, 1-866-340-9281)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: P-40

That would be nice — along with better use of coal and more drilling in Alaska and the Gulf (and such things as hydrogen from sea water, etc.).


47 posted on 07/03/2007 3:46:06 PM PDT by unspun (Acknowledgment of God affords life, popular & national sovereignty, liberty, responsibility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Nuclear power does not have a bad rap, it polls very well.

Nuclear power polls very well...so long as the nuclear plant is nowhere near the person being polled. Here in Texas we are building nuclear plants again. I even have property near one and it does not bother me a bit.

We can and we should increase our use of nuclear energy significantly

I'm all for it, but it is going to be a fight. I am also for a mix of energy generating sources for both domestic and transportation uses distributed country wide.
48 posted on 07/03/2007 3:49:17 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
We can and we should increase our use of nuclear energy significantly in the future as we get beyond the fossil fuel age.

It's safe, environmentally not intrusive, very efficient, and yet it is undesirable politically.

Go figure....

49 posted on 07/03/2007 3:54:06 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: P-40
I am also for a mix of energy generating sources for both domestic and transportation uses distributed country wide.

A mix?

How about what's best for us in total as a nation mixed or not?

50 posted on 07/03/2007 3:56:14 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-173 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson