I see the Solartopians have learned from the Warmers how to adjust and be deceptive about their numbers to best sell their agenda. It was clever how they admitted that most of the solar jobs were installers and then listed a median income for the whole industry of about $26. Solar installers earn about ten dollars/hour about the same as burger flippers because it is a low skill job..
Mining, power plant work and oil/gas work are all high skill high pay occupations and pushing prosperous people into this low paying solar work will destroy their livelyhood and some of them also get to be gypsies so they won't need that foreclosed on home.
Solar is going to continue growing but Trump is making certain that the government doesn't force the growth at the expense of the reliable dense energy sources we now use or load the actual costs of forced conversion onto ratepayers or taxpayers.
Keep in mind that solarpanels produce useable power for about 7 hours a day so a fossil fuel power source is needed to cover the other 17 hours at least.
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 05/21/2017 - 8:52pm
There are what, 20,000 total coal jobs east of the Mississippi, and no useful coal veins left? It's over. A drag if solar installation is only $10, thus afar need for higher minimum wage, but alternative is unemployment or a new strategy - nothing's reviving coal.
Well at least your arguments have turned realistic that this industry is over.
Convince me, how exactly is Trump doing the following?
Trump is making certain that the government doesn't force the growth at the expense of the reliable dense energy sources we now use or load the actual costs of forced conversion onto ratepayers or taxpayers.
P.S. You realize that in the country in general, unemployment figures are getting quite low? I read the other day about how in Utah, where it's 3.1%, that that figure is starting to cause the "logjam" of employers not wanting to pay higher wages to break. If you're as truly for the government not interfering in these things like your comment suggests, this is how it works, that's all you got: people suffer as the world changes and the market finally adjusts. And people have to be either smart enough to move to where the jobs are or train for a new high skill high pay occupations as you put it, You yourself are admitting here that workers have to learn skills to earn good pay.When simple change (call it progress if you like, or not) happens, I would presume you don't think the government should subsidize old skills that are no longer needed?
If, on the other hand, if you are for the government supporting skills that are out of favor, I'd like to see some help for art appraisers of 19th century art now that the market has decided that contemporary art is what it wants.....
P.S. I'm serious on the "convince me" part. I'm seeing lots of ads allover the place suggesting homeowners consider putting solar panels on their roof.There is the suggestion that there is some government subsidy involved. Did Trump stop something along these lines?
Most of our wars and defense spending the last 40 years has been a subsidy for cheap gas out of the Mideast, especially after the Soviet Onion peeled apart. But spend a few bills on something that we won't die for, and people get suspicious and persnickety - not the American Way, we need body count or it didn't happen.
Adding a related personal history story. From recently learned genealogical research (used to presume they were all peasant farmers, found different.)
Great grandpa and his brother had a thriving horse and buggy supplies business in the center of Manistee, Michigan in the late 19th century and early years of the 20th after immigrating from the old country. Manistee then was a very prosperous growing town with a lot of wealth in it from the lumber industry. As Henry Ford's machine started to become popular, and as the lumber business in Manistee contracted at the same time (for reasons I do not know,) grandpa's business went belly up and everyone in the family moved across Lake Michigan to the bigger town of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Great grandpa opened a small dry goods store there, but the already grown kids chose not to work in it, or he chose not to employ them, whatever, I don't know, I wasn't there.
Grandpa took a job as a machinist in a big manufacturing corporation. When he got sick of being stuck in a dank factory, he quit and took a job driving a delivery truck so he could be out and about. (Dad was the first to go to college and white collar job, on the GI Bill. Many other relatives went into being truckers.)
Manistee is still there, a shrunken charming old town with few jobs. There is a big cemetery plot there with a tall obelisk on it with my family's name, as if they were going to be there forever. Only one person is buried there, the rest of the plots are empty. I was born in Milwaukee but live in NYC. Siblings live in CA and FL.
Why do all the coal mining people stay in coal mining country as if the jobs there will be passed down through eternity? Why do they expect the same as in a centrally planned (i.e., communist) country?
This has been a telling display of Clintonites disregard for working class Americans especially the coal miners of Appalichia however small their numbers. These people have kept the fires of our civilization stoked through war, depression and disaster. The Red Queen and her followers publicly called for destroying their livelyhoods and dispersing them into the new green agenda where they would become dependent on the state for survival.
It's no wonder they reacted positively to Trump's message because he responded to their needs as a friend. Trump may not be able to grow the coal industry or increase the jobs but he has already stopped the direct government mandated attacks on these working people, by scrapping the CPP.
The towns in Michigan that depended on logging ceased to prosper and expand whan all the trees were cut. The state was stripped of its primeval forest to build the houses of the eastern US. My grandfather sold trainloads of supplies to the logging camps in the late 1800's then returned to Alabama with a Wisconsin bride when the bonanza ended. My family returned to Michigan in 1950 to seek opportunity but some people want to remain where they are with all their family history and friends.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 11:12am
As PP noted, the loss of jobs in coal is due to market forces
As the coal industry is squeezed, the most productive mines employ huge machines and relatively few people.
If Appalachians want to continue to work in coal, they need new skill sets and to move to Wyoming.
Edit to add: my great grandpa probably could have stayed in Manistee if he had taken up auto mechanics. But he was also looking at the contraction of the population there, and chose to leave.
Assume you've read The Road to Wellville then. Yes, the equation is as ancient as the prodigal son and Exodus... Those who have to move move, those who can't see nuttin to gain stay put.
TPM/TerraJoule.us:Manifest Destiny - Modern Day...
This is a partial copy written by a highly respected oil analyst and energy sector investor, who also focuses on the coming transition to alternatives.
Part Two of a five-part series: Behind the pay-wall at TPM
Part One: The New Kids In Town Part Two: Remaking the Map of U.S. Energy Production
Part Three: Case Study: Los Angeles
Part Four: Making Gains, But A Need For a Grid Storage Solution
Part Five: Winners and Losers
The Renewables: Remaking the Map of U.S. Energy Production
The coal belt of America is a zigzag of mining towns and power plants that runs along Eastern rivers and mountainous states, from Kentucky and West Virginia down through Tennessee into Georgia. The mining of coal has been in a terrible slump the past few years, as the ripples of softening global demand have bankrupt several coal companies, putting many out of work. But it’s the burning of coal also that’s being hit hard now, as aging plants die.
Built as far back as fifty years ago along great rivers, these giant furnaces were fed a constant stream of thermal coal, ferried by barge upon the waters of the Ohio, Muskingum, and Susquehanna. This year alone, according to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), 13-15 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. coal-fired capacity will retire. That’s roughly enough electricity to power 6 million homes. By the time this decade is through, over 60 GW of coal-fired capacity will have retired, mostly throughout the Mid-Atlantic states, according to the EIA.
The question arises: what’s going to replace this lost capacity? The economy may be growing slowly, but not enough to handle an actual decline in electricity output. Interestingly, as the coal belt becomes a retirement belt, there’s rapid buildout of new energy infrastructure, and it’s not taking place in the East.
A Westward Shift to Wind and Solar
In a decidedly westward shift, to the mighty wind corridors of the Great Plains, and the sunshine belts of the American southwest, and into California, broad new capacities in solar and wind power are being constructed and plugged in to the national grid. More powerfully: combined wind and solar have started to dominate new, marginal additions to the national system of U.S. power generation.
To be sure, both wind and solar enjoy an ongoing suite of tax credits and other incentives. This is especially true in California where rooftop and also big grid solar are benefitting from the state’s aggressive renewable energy standard (RES). California is truly reaching for the stars in this regard, as it hopes to derive 50% of its total energy from renewables by the year 2030. Despite the legacy of incentives, however, rapidly declining costs are now more of a driver of the recent boom.
Consider the growth. In 2005, combined wind and solar power provided a statistically insignificant 18 terawatt hours (TWh) of power, less than a half of one percent of total U.S. electricity generation. Last year, however, the two renewables together provided 200 TWh, which, in a power grid that has seen no demand growth in a decade, accounted for 4.8% of total generation. (Wind power alone, which has grown fast enough to become an important component of U.S. power generation, is forecasted to account for a full 5% of total U.S. power generation in 2016, according to the EIA.) Amazingly, as existing power generation flattens or even declines, combined wind and solar account for the majority of new power generation. The U.S. energy mix is starting to change.
Modern-day Manifest Destiny
Perhaps it was another example of manifest destiny, but the shift from the tired, played-out coal mines of the east to the roaring wind supply in Oklahoma, Iowa, and Kansas, and the ascent of massive solar power in southwestern U.S. deserts, has started to dislodge the center of gravity in U.S. power production.
Many of America’s legacy utility companies began in the east. Duke Energy of Charlotte, North Carolina; Southern Company of Atlanta Georgia; and AEP of Columbus, Ohio all were established or have roots in the early days of the 20th Century. Most of these eastern-based utility companies are having to grapple with a difficult array of problems as U.S. coal and nuclear fleets reach the end of their lifecycle; as legacy transmission infrastructure is costlier to maintain; and finally as efficiency gains start to hit the entire system—adding to the challenge of zero, overall demand growth for electricity. Last year, the U.S. produced at total of 4093 TWh of electricity, barely 1% more than the 4055 TWh produced in 2005 (EIA).
The hot utility companies of today are instead names like Berkshire Hathaway Energy of Omaha Nebraska—Warren Buffet’s utility arm that is either gobbling up or building out wind and solar assets from the American Midwest to California. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) also, due in part to the state of California’s RES, now oversees the largest collection of rooftop solar; and along with Southern California Edison, is helping to integrate utility-grade solar into the power grid by entering into the long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) on which new solar capacity depends. Unlike many Eastern utilities, saddled with old capacity, these utilities are clearly chasing the rapidly declining cost curve of solar. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) solar photovoltaic (PV) system prices dropped a huge 12%-19% in 2013 alone. Solar’s cost declines have taken the world by surprise, especially in the last five years.
The swing from old power to new power also means a shift in jobs. In conjunction with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), EIA shows that from 2011 through 2014, the U.S. power sector lost 5,800 jobs mostly due to nuclear and coal shutdowns, but actually gained 1,800 non-hydro renewables jobs—mostly due to wind and solar. But these are merely the jobs associated with power generation, and do not account for the tens of thousands of jobs associated with the manufacturing, deployment, and construction of new renewable power facilities or rooftop solar. The largest installer of residential solar, Solar City of San Mateo, California, now employs over 6,000 people, for example. And according to the Solar Foundation, and their 2014 solar census, the U.S. now employs over 173,000 people in the solar industry, with another 40,000 workers to be added over just the next 12 months. As a kicker, they note, this well exceeds today's U.S. coal sector employment.
The Utility Death Spiral
Political blowback, as you might expect, now stalks the land in the coal retirement belt. Ohio was the first out of the gate last year, as the state legislature froze its own renewable energy standard in place. An RES essentially mandates that a state guide higher to a target, over time, the portion of electrical power generation it will source from renewables. West Virginia passed a bill this year, not to freeze, but to completely kill its own renewable energy standard.
Sadly, there is a kind of tragedy in these reactionary moves.. The coal industry is beset on all sides these days, from the price competition coming from cheap natural gas, to the flattening of global demand as China's coal super-cycle—its huge systemic impact on the global coal market since the year 2000-- tails off. Worse, coal-fired plants are among the nation's oldest, with an average age over 40 years, and have grown woefully inefficient with the passing of time. Few financiers are eager to provide the capital to build new ones. Consequently, foreclosing on new job opportunities in the construction and deployment of wind and solar power in the coal belt will do nothing to revive the fortunes of coal.
The clash between outdated beliefs and new realities becomes more interesting in a wind corridor state like Iowa where presidential candidates, primarily Republicans who are not in favor of renewable tax credits, must thread a tricky, political needle. Iowa derived over 27% of its total power generation in 2013 from wind. And more capacity is on the way. Warren Buffett, an Iowa neighbor, has teamed up with Google to build 407 megawatts (MW) of new wind power as part of a larger portfolio of over 1000 MW to be completed this year. Where tensions run even higher, however, is in a state like Arizona—the top state in the country for solar power potential, and, host to a giant solar manufacturer like Tempe-based First Solar—but which maintains a very weak RES, aiming for only 15% renewable generation by 2025.
To illustrate, Arizona utilities like Arizona Public Service (APS) initially worked to undermine the spread of rooftop solar, pushing back against this rapidly spreading form of energy by proposing homeowners pay surcharges to cover their cost of maintaining the grid. "The utility war on customer solar is particularly intense in Arizona,” notes Christian Roselund, a longtime solar analyst in Boston, Massachusetts, and currently with SolarPVTV. "Salt River Power is notable for its attempt to kill rooftop PV in its service territory, by doing what APS tried to do and only partially succeeded."
Indeed, Solar City has just recently filed an antitrust lawsuit against Salt River Power (SRP), after SRP announced in December it would levy a fee on solar customers. These attempts mirror the pressure utilities are facing across the country, and what is sometimes referred to (if somewhat hyperbolically) as the utility death spiral. In the death spiral, utilities face declining revenues as customers either go independent with rooftop solar, or source power from wind, while the overall cost to the utility of maintaining the grid and servicing existing customers stays the same, or even rises. Utilities then try to recover this squeeze on margins by levying fees, charges, or rates—thus driving more customers off the grid, in a quest for independence.
SolarPVTV's Roselund, however, observes that while utilities are perhaps not willing to back down just yet to the threat from rooftop solar, they are starting to change tactics. "Utilities, particularly in the south, are shifting from opposing solar to embracing utility-scale solar and other forms of solar they own, while still opposing customer and third-party owned solar. Big moves on that front by Xcel and Southern."
To the extent utilities are starting to capitulate to renewable realities, it's likely the utility death spiral will be something power sector analysts will worry about, but perhaps will never come to full fruition. Importantly, Roselund pointed out to TPM that, "the larger story here is that red-state constituencies are starting to split, with a lot of Republicans embracing renewable energy as a means for energy self-sufficiency, in opposition to monopoly utilities."
Reversing the Trend
The EIA has recently published their annual look-ahead map, which covers the coming year in new power generation. 2015's map is no surprise. While new natural gas-fired power plants mostly in the in the east will provide a meaningful 6.3 GW of new capacity, the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota are all lit up with imminent, new wind power. Wind corridor states, according to the EIA, will add 85% of new U.S. wind power this year—a whopping 8.4 GW of new capacity. Meanwhile, Utah, Nevada, and California are as usual dotted with pending new solar. The U.S. will add at least 2.2 GW of new utility-grade solar this year.
But there are surprises to behold in the redrawn map of us energy production. Challenging California's usual top solar ranking is North Carolina, which will build 0.4 GW of new utility grade solar this year compared to the Golden State's 1.4 GW of planned additions. And these national totals do not include, as always, yet another robust year to come in the rollout, in many states, of rooftop solar.
But if the migration from east to west has defined the changes in U.S. power production and infrastructure in the first half of this decade, the trend may reverse over the next five years. Ron Pernick, founder and managing director of CleanEdge in Portland, Oregon, a renewable energy data provider and advisory firm to the clean tech market, thinks the next steps in the renewable rollout will be much more diffuse, showing up in many states not normally associated with wind, or solar--or both. "Yes, there’s a lot more coal in the east, but in the east there are solar gains as well,” Pernick says. “Solar is just at the beginning of its growth.”
This will trigger deployment, and job gains, across a much broader swath of the United States. Noting the most up-to-date trends, Pernick says “Look at the recent EIA data: solar is no longer a rounding error and is showing up along with wind and natural gas as a major contributor to new generation capacity additions. But the smaller, distributed stuff, which doesn’t get accounted for in the EIA generation numbers, tells an even more expansive picture; the growth of regional energy and employment impacts associated with distributed PV—that can be anywhere.”
And this really points to bifurcation now showing up between utility scale solar, which has prominently shown up in the deserts, versus domestic and business solar, which is showing up in cities. “As solar becomes increasingly cost competitive, as costs come down, solar could be everywhere,” says Pernick
CleanEdge, in its 2014 Clean Tech Leadership Index report, tracks the buildout of renewables in the United States, adjusting for population, and notes that although Hawaii and California are number one and two in solar PV capacity, respectively, they are followed by New Jersey, Arizona, Nevada and, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Colorado, and Delaware. The population-adjusted figure is an important statistic: it provides a useful lens to consider the scale of the economic impact on jobs and business expansion, of a state's renewable growth.
"If you ask Americans if they support clean energy they overwhelmingly say yes—so it's no longer a right or left issue."
Pernick goes on to point out that although California currently has the most aggressive RES, targeting the 33% level by the year 2020 (with a proposed 50% level by 2030), other states like New York are starting to take significant action to overhaul policies related to power. States like New York of course have older power grids, so there's some benefit in tilting policies away from centralized generation (the legacy configuration) to local power generation. In short, New York recently took steps to protect distributed solar—the kind that's endured moderate attacks in Arizona—from incumbent utilities.
"New York is a great example—they don’t have great power grids to ship all these electrons,” Pernick says. “So, New York is going to give California a run for its money. But they're going to do so in a different way. New York is more dense, with aging infrastructure—so they are trying to completely re-envision energy, and they’re going to do it differently: a green bank, energy storage and demand response initiatives, and more."
A cultural shift may ultimately drive these policy changes. Echoing the remarks of SolarPVTV's Roselund, Pernick observes that there's an emerging solar constituency that can't be easily pigeonholed. "If you ask Americans if they support clean energy they overwhelmingly say yes—so it's no longer a right or left issue. And when you ask questions about the rights of utilities to block things, you get a very clear, hey ‘don’t touch my power’ response. It crosses states, regions, politics. I think this bodes very well."
--end snip-
For additional reading from Gregor Macdonald's site:
Beautiful, thank you. Took the liberty of changing the title to also give more credit to TPM & TerraJoule.us (you give it elsewhere, but since it's an expensive pub....). 2 years old at this point, but still very relevant in terms of trends & regional juggling for position.
Corporations bought 2.5 gigawatts of clean energy last year
Fortune 500 companies saving $3.7 billion with clean power
Almost half of the biggest U.S. companies have established clean-energy targets for themselves, according to a report Tuesday from sustainable investors and environmental groups including the World Wildlife Fund.
It’s not just the biggest U.S. companies -- 44 percent of the smallest 100 members of the Fortune 500 have also set goals, up from 25 percent in 2014, and 48 percent of the entire list.
Many are finding that renewable energy isn’t just cleaner, it’s also often cheaper. About 190 Fortune 500 companies collectively reported about $3.7 billion in annual savings, according to Power Forward 3.0, a report by WWF, Ceres, Calvert Research & Management and CDP.
“We’re not talking about anecdotal information anymore,” Marty Spitzer, a WWF senior director of climate and renewable energy in Washington, said in an interview. “We’re talking about large, large savings.”
Potential savings and sustainability goals prompted corporations to buy almost 3.7 gigawatts of power generated by clean-energy projects in 2015, and another 2.5 gigawatts last year, almost all from wind and solar, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
--snip--
The 190 Fortune 500 companies reported emission reductions equivalent to mothballing 45 coal-fired power plants for a year, according to the report. It also found that 23 of Fortune 500 companies have 100 percent renewable-energy targets.
Renewable energy provides five times more jobs than coal mines
The renewable-energy industry has a message for the Trump administration about bringing energy jobs to rural communities: get out of the coal mines and look to the sky.
U.S. wind-farm developers and suppliers had more than 100,000 workers at the end of the year and the solar industry had more than double that, and they’re a significant source of employment in many of the rural red states that supported Donald Trump’s campaign. That compares to 65,971 coal mining jobs at the start of last year, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
Leaders of the solar and wind industries say the rural areas that missed out on economic growth under President Barack Obama are benefiting from the expansion of clean energy. And that growth isn’t driving the collapse of coal mining, according to Abigail Hopper, the recently hired chief executive officer of the Solar Energy Industries Association.
“I reject the idea that there has to be a winner and a loser,” Hopper said in an interview Tuesday at the trade group’s Washington headquarters. “These are good paying, local jobs that the solar industry is creating everywhere.”
Hopper is urging the Trump administration to continue to support pro-solar policies, which helped create more than 200,000 jobs in the past decade, with more than 9,000 mostly small businesses that deliver and install panels.
“They did it for economic reasons, for consumer choice and for energy independence,” said Hopper, who joined SEIA this month after serving as director of the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. “These are all things that conservatives support.”
Comments
I see the Solartopians have learned from the Warmers how to adjust and be deceptive about their numbers to best sell their agenda. It was clever how they admitted that most of the solar jobs were installers and then listed a median income for the whole industry of about $26. Solar installers earn about ten dollars/hour about the same as burger flippers because it is a low skill job..
Mining, power plant work and oil/gas work are all high skill high pay occupations and pushing prosperous people into this low paying solar work will destroy their livelyhood and some of them also get to be gypsies so they won't need that foreclosed on home.
Solar is going to continue growing but Trump is making certain that the government doesn't force the growth at the expense of the reliable dense energy sources we now use or load the actual costs of forced conversion onto ratepayers or taxpayers.
Keep in mind that solarpanels produce useable power for about 7 hours a day so a fossil fuel power source is needed to cover the other 17 hours at least.
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 05/21/2017 - 8:52pm
Automation is killing the jobs
https://thinkprogress.org/drilling-experts-explain-why-trump-cant-bring-...
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/21/2017 - 9:50pm
There are what, 20,000 total coal jobs east of the Mississippi, and no useful coal veins left? It's over. A drag if solar installation is only $10, thus afar need for higher minimum wage, but alternative is unemployment or a new strategy - nothing's reviving coal.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 12:47am
Well at least your arguments have turned realistic that this industry is over.
Convince me, how exactly is Trump doing the following?
Trump is making certain that the government doesn't force the growth at the expense of the reliable dense energy sources we now use or load the actual costs of forced conversion onto ratepayers or taxpayers.
P.S. You realize that in the country in general, unemployment figures are getting quite low? I read the other day about how in Utah, where it's 3.1%, that that figure is starting to cause the "logjam" of employers not wanting to pay higher wages to break. If you're as truly for the government not interfering in these things like your comment suggests, this is how it works, that's all you got: people suffer as the world changes and the market finally adjusts. And people have to be either smart enough to move to where the jobs are or train for a new high skill high pay occupations as you put it, You yourself are admitting here that workers have to learn skills to earn good pay.When simple change (call it progress if you like, or not) happens, I would presume you don't think the government should subsidize old skills that are no longer needed?
If, on the other hand, if you are for the government supporting skills that are out of favor, I'd like to see some help for art appraisers of 19th century art now that the market has decided that contemporary art is what it wants.....
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 8:12am
P.S. I'm serious on the "convince me" part. I'm seeing lots of ads allover the place suggesting homeowners consider putting solar panels on their roof.There is the suggestion that there is some government subsidy involved. Did Trump stop something along these lines?
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 8:19am
Most of our wars and defense spending the last 40 years has been a subsidy for cheap gas out of the Mideast, especially after the Soviet Onion peeled apart. But spend a few bills on something that we won't die for, and people get suspicious and persnickety - not the American Way, we need body count or it didn't happen.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 11:06am
Adding a related personal history story. From recently learned genealogical research (used to presume they were all peasant farmers, found different.)
Great grandpa and his brother had a thriving horse and buggy supplies business in the center of Manistee, Michigan in the late 19th century and early years of the 20th after immigrating from the old country. Manistee then was a very prosperous growing town with a lot of wealth in it from the lumber industry. As Henry Ford's machine started to become popular, and as the lumber business in Manistee contracted at the same time (for reasons I do not know,) grandpa's business went belly up and everyone in the family moved across Lake Michigan to the bigger town of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Great grandpa opened a small dry goods store there, but the already grown kids chose not to work in it, or he chose not to employ them, whatever, I don't know, I wasn't there.
Grandpa took a job as a machinist in a big manufacturing corporation. When he got sick of being stuck in a dank factory, he quit and took a job driving a delivery truck so he could be out and about. (Dad was the first to go to college and white collar job, on the GI Bill. Many other relatives went into being truckers.)
Manistee is still there, a shrunken charming old town with few jobs. There is a big cemetery plot there with a tall obelisk on it with my family's name, as if they were going to be there forever. Only one person is buried there, the rest of the plots are empty. I was born in Milwaukee but live in NYC. Siblings live in CA and FL.
Why do all the coal mining people stay in coal mining country as if the jobs there will be passed down through eternity? Why do they expect the same as in a centrally planned (i.e., communist) country?
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 9:14am
This has been a telling display of Clintonites disregard for working class Americans especially the coal miners of Appalichia however small their numbers. These people have kept the fires of our civilization stoked through war, depression and disaster. The Red Queen and her followers publicly called for destroying their livelyhoods and dispersing them into the new green agenda where they would become dependent on the state for survival.
It's no wonder they reacted positively to Trump's message because he responded to their needs as a friend. Trump may not be able to grow the coal industry or increase the jobs but he has already stopped the direct government mandated attacks on these working people, by scrapping the CPP.
The towns in Michigan that depended on logging ceased to prosper and expand whan all the trees were cut. The state was stripped of its primeval forest to build the houses of the eastern US. My grandfather sold trainloads of supplies to the logging camps in the late 1800's then returned to Alabama with a Wisconsin bride when the bonanza ended. My family returned to Michigan in 1950 to seek opportunity but some people want to remain where they are with all their family history and friends.
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 11:12am
As PP noted, the loss of jobs in coal is due to market forces
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/10/debate-and-energy-donald-trump-ignores-wh...
Any change that Trump makes to the CPP will be challenged in court.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/trump-is-killing-obamas-clean-power-plan-...
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 11:25am
Same thing as lumber in Michigan:
Appalachia comes up small in era of giant coal mines analysis via graphs, maps and photos @ WaPo, May 5
As the coal industry is squeezed, the most productive mines employ huge machines and relatively few people.
If Appalachians want to continue to work in coal, they need new skill sets and to move to Wyoming.
Edit to add: my great grandpa probably could have stayed in Manistee if he had taken up auto mechanics. But he was also looking at the contraction of the population there, and chose to leave.
Assimilation to reality, that's the thing.
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 11:47am
Wind Project in Wyoming Envisions Coal Miners as Trainees @ NYT Business, May 21
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 11:47pm
Just for you, Peter (not verified):
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 11:12am
Assume you've read The Road to Wellville then. Yes, the equation is as ancient as the prodigal son and Exodus... Those who have to move move, those who can't see nuttin to gain stay put.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 11:48am
and those who believe in an alternate reality screw up the world.
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 11:56am
everyone screws up the world. some use alternate means, some use direct means.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/22/2017 - 1:50pm
TPM/TerraJoule.us: Manifest Destiny - Modern Day...
This is a partial copy written by a highly respected oil analyst and energy sector investor, who also focuses on the coming transition to alternatives.
Part Two of a five-part series: Behind the pay-wall at TPM
Part One: The New Kids In Town
Part Two: Remaking the Map of U.S. Energy Production
Part Three: Case Study: Los Angeles
Part Four: Making Gains, But A Need For a Grid Storage Solution
Part Five: Winners and Losers
The Renewables: Remaking the Map of U.S. Energy Production
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Tue, 05/23/2017 - 3:26am
Beautiful, thank you. Took the liberty of changing the title to also give more credit to TPM & TerraJoule.us (you give it elsewhere, but since it's an expensive pub....). 2 years old at this point, but still very relevant in terms of trends & regional juggling for position.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/23/2017 - 4:23am
Peracles... No matter what Trump sold his coal base . . .
April 25, 2017 | Bloomberg
Biggest U.S. Companies Setting More Renewable-Energy Targets
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Wed, 05/24/2017 - 4:46am
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Wed, 05/24/2017 - 4:57am