The whole “clean energy will take your jobs” rhetoric was indeed complete BS.
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
333 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
59377 readers
3239 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Automation already took most of the mine jobs. The majority of US coal comes from the west where mines are on the surface, equipment is larger, and the coal has lower sulfur. If coal ramped up back to full production, the mines would hire back only a small fraction of the displaced workers.
Clean energy took their jobs...
And the workers....
And moved them to safer, cleaner, and generally better environments
So this is how you make America great again.. why didn’t the pumpkin guy think of that…
Because he was being paid not to
Because it was Hillary's platform, and he hates her more than he hates Eric.
Because it was Hillary’s platform
If only. Hillary and Obama both ran on the "All Options On The Table" platform, which mostly meant a transition to natural gas as a cheaper alternative to coal mining.
Relatively recent innovations in wind and solar tech have made these modes of production even more profitable (on a slightly longer time scale) than natty gas. But even then, that's contingent on regional energy grids set up to receive periodic gluts of wind/solar peak energy. The current fight over US energy policy revolves around where and when we build out new power lines, as their distribution heavily impacts which regions of a state will be the cheapest sources of energy production.
Since these decisions are heavily influenced by lobbyists of the various energy companies, and since Hillary has been in bed with Wall Street banks her entire adult life, her platform has never been particularly green. Its simply been chasing the highest bidder. Sometimes that means going with a Goldman Sachs wind power play. Other times, it means sponsoring an insurgency in Libya in hopes of getting multinationals back in control of their oil fields.
That's all very true but doesn't really address what I said. A solid plan for what to do with workers displaced by the transition away from coal (to whatever came after) was always an explicit part of her platform. This NPR article breaks it down.
Your screen name brings this whole conversation to a whole new level…
Mine work has been miserable and largely unprofitable for decades. Mine workers routinely get screwed out of their final paychecks when a mine closes. Some of the bigger recent labor actions in coal mining have been in response to companies trying to truck the last round of rocks out of the ground before covering what they owe to the locals.
Glad to see a transition is happening, but I haven't seen a ton to suggest firms running renewables have been any better to their workforce than the dodgy, scammy, coal bosses. In more than a few cases, its the same folks running the show.
Hillary todaso
Does coal have any place in the future? I guess what I mean is, does it have any use beyond burning it?
Yeah, coal and it's biproducts are used in the production of various materials. Unfortunately it all involves burning it. It's just that the burning itself isn't really the purpose of it.
When people talk about not using coal it's mostly about not using it for production of electricity and heat. Steel production also needs to find alternatives.
It's also used in electronics though those tiny amounts can easily be found in coal waste or produced for the purpose, so it's not a reason to keep a coal mine open.
Now the reason why coal is even a topic is that it plays a comically large part of politics too..
Just keep in mind that when certain politicians talk about the loss of jobs, it's fewer than 40000 jobs across the USA. That's a large number, but it's still fewer than there are people born every week. So basically, every week, there are more people getting old enough to apply for jobs than there are coal jobs. All these kids needs jobs too. You won't notice those 40000 coal people lining up in employment queue. At all. They can all find other jobs easily. The unemployment rate is lower than ever. "Nobody wants to work" and "we can't afford to lose 40000 jobs". Make up your mind, please.
Steel production also needs to find alternatives.
At least one steel company is on it: https://www.ssab.com/en/fossil-free-steel
When people talk about not using coal it’s mostly about not using it for production of electricity and heat.
I do know that much. I thought it was used in asphalt or tar for paving roads.
Steel production also needs to find alternatives.
You can make steel without coke. I'm sure no one wants to pay for the retooling though.
Stocking stuffers, I suppose.
A backup energy supply in case we bomb ourselves back to the stone age
And oil wells? And oil wells?