Climate Tech companies have lots of jobs, are not laying people off, have financial tailwinds behind them thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, and, crucially, don’t derive their revenue from the adtech/digital media/ecommerce/developer tooling industry that’s getting shredded right now.
Top comment on this post right now is a dumb, dismissive joke. Personally, I don’t think an addressable market size in the trillions of dollars is a joke, but you do you.
> Top comment on this post right now is a dumb, dismissive joke.
Is it fair to call it the top comment if it's the only comment? And downvoted, nonetheless.
And while it was a joke, I actually think it makes a valid point. As an individual, I'm incredibly wary whenever I see these "Field X is going to explode with jobs!" announcements, because they analyses are usually quite simplistic.
I mean, we were saying the same things about solar jobs 10 years ago, and there was a ton of excitement. That was then followed by tons of companies going bankrupt and jobs disappearing because they couldn't compete with "the China price". With globalization slowing down and decoupling I'm not saying that fate will repeat itself, but I still think some healthy skepticism is warranted.
The solar industry did explode with jobs ten years ago, and has kept growing since.
The thing that didn’t work out were some high profile panel manufacturing plays, but the solar industry as a whole has grown and employs more people than the oil and gas industry.
In fact, the “China price” is responsible for a lot of that growth, because it’s made the economics of solar irresistible in many places.
Cheating on both carbon emissions and slave labor practices is a giant way that China was able to bring down costs compared to competitors in the US and EU.
Don't count on it. The fabs currently being invested in are designed for high-tech chips, they are completely unsuitable for solar panels. Solar panel factories are a completely different beast, and labor cost is probably the biggest factor when it comes to choosing a factory location.
Cheap and inefficient panels are usually exactly what you want. You are rarely space or weight limited, so it is all about getting the highest power capacity for your money. Why spend twice as much for 10% more capacity when you can get 100% more capacity for the same money by simply placing more panels?
Yes and no. In a commercial context, with installation at ground level, space isn't an issue. On commercial buildings, again roof space is often plentiful, and not an issue.
But for residential, with pitched roofs, often pitched it the wrong direction, space is a major factor.
Alas residentials are also the most price-sensitive.
And this is before we discuss the assumption that US panels would be "better". In truth they are likely to be less effecient, not more effecient. Chinese factories spen a lot on updating equipment and processes. By contrast most US industries don't spend a lot upgrading factories - especially in the short term.
>Why spend twice as much for 10% more capacity when you can get 100% more capacity for the same money by simply placing more panels?
Because panels are a small portion of the overall installed capacity price. Installation labor, inverters, racking, wiring, mounts, and other parts account for most of it.
It depends on which kind of solar installation you're talking about. In utility scale projects, modules are still the single largest expense though they're now less than 40% of the total. In residential projects they're also the single largest expense but less than 20% of the total.
See pages 22 and 30 of this 2022 NREL solar cost report:
"U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks, With Minimum Sustainable Price Analysis: Q1 2022"
The residential market has traditionally been where higher-cost, higher-efficiency panels do best. But efficiency has risen so much across the board in recent years that it appears difficult to run a solar manufacturing business targeting the rooftop market alone. The bigger manufacturers that service all markets have panels that can match or nearly match the efficiency of specialty manufacturers and they have better economies of scale.
A big benefit of the energy transition is that a lot of the jobs are by definition very local. You can't really outsource solar panel installation to China.
Everyone keeps going on about lithium and cobalt shortages, but in The Netherlands the biggest shortage is in laborers - and I bet it's the same story in other places.
Hi there, software engineer here. I was laid off from a climate tech (solar) company in December ‘22. Bonus points for doing it a week out from christmas!
Sorry to hear that, hopefully you find another job soon. If you’re in the Bay Area I’d be happy to buy you lunch and chat with you about where you’re trying to go next.
friend of mine owns a small roofing company that has almost 100% pivoted to solar installs and only does a new roof if the old roof needs to be replaced before panels can be put on.
He has jobs booked out 8 months now. Its funny because he tells me his parents were so upset he started a roofing company and didn't go to college and now he makes more per year then most software engineers even at large tech companies.
He also said he's having issues hiring dependable people even though he says he's offering a really good salary+benefits.
> He also said he's having issues hiring dependable people even though he says he's offering a really good salary+benefits.
It is evidently not good enough. Can you share how much he is offering for back breaking outdoor labor that has a high likelihood of causing musculoskeletal healthcare problems by one’s 50s, and cannot screw around on HN during the day?
It was 'dependable', not 'in general'. That makes a big difference. Subcontractors or people working out of sight on installation work are difficult hires because you need to inspect the work after it has been done and that can be very tricky once it's all sewn up. It also requires people to be there on time and to not cause damage. Hiring for such roles is very difficult, typically you try a large number of people and you end up finding some fraction of that (not a very large fraction) that works out over the longer time.
As for the effects of physical labor on the body: that is true for many industries and occupations. It certainly doesn't give solar a pass but this is not a problem that is exclusive to solar installations (though the risk of injury is high this is in part because the people that try to do the work aim to get it done as quickly as possible and safety be damned). Have a look at the building trades for small time contractors, the situation is quite comparable (especially the roofing part). But don't underestimate the wear and tear of any one of a large number of other 'blue collar' jobs on the body.
I do not see the difference. He wants a worker of certain quality, and apparently is not offering or able to offer sufficient pay to attract said worker from other options they have.
As for the second paragraph, I never meant to imply roofing or solar was special. As the proportion of younger age population declines, prices for work with lower quality of life will need to rise to compete with work that offers a higher quality of life.
Pay does not guarantee quality. You may simply not be able to find the people (or at least enough of them) that you need, no matter what you are willing to pay. Not everything is a 'free market' problem.
In solar installations the first filter is 'is comfortable working at heights', the second is 'can deliver quality work', the third is 'is able to represent the company well', the fourth is 'will take good care not to damage the clients property' and there are probably others. Within a given region there may simply not be enough people left over in the intersection of all those sets that you are able to supply the companies with sufficient people. There are quite a few industries with similar shortages. Usually over time these even out as industries mature but during a growth spurt (which is exactly what has been happening for the last decade or so) the market may not be able to solve the shortfall by offering more cash, for that to work enough people actually need to exist in that bracket.
>Pay does not guarantee quality. You may simply not be able to find the people (or at least enough of them) that you need, no matter what you are willing to pay. Not everything is a 'free market' problem.
It is obvious there are no guarantees in life. But over the long term, quality correlates with price of the goods are limited in quantity.
It is obvious over the past many decades that the pay to quality of life at work ratio for manual labor has lagged far behind “office”. Therefore, to attract the best or even above median young people to manual labor jobs, they will need to offer a commensurate price to overcome that reputation.
Yes, but you are missing out on the whole economics of solar power. Anyway, I think I've done enough to try to explain why your base assumption that 'quality correlates with price of the goods are limited in quantity' doesn't always hold. What is happening here: there is a backlog for those that are willing to work for a rate that makes the economics of solar work (both for them as subcontractors/employees, their employers and the customers) and outside of that envelope (which is a filter I really should have mentioned) people may be available but unable to get jobs.
If you're arguing that solar power installations are too cheap then you may well have a point but that isn't going to convince a lot of people to change to the point where it is no longer viable. If anything the market is getting more and more competitive as more people enter it. In 2005 I paid about $30,000 for a solar power system that produced 3200 Watt on a good day in March, today I paid about $12000 for a system that produces well over 10KW. Installation costs as a fraction of the total bill has gone up, not down during that time, but in an absolute sense they've gone down because installations are now much simpler and far more routine. Back then every installation was an experiment, now it is routine.
It always seems nice to be able to simplify things to the point where they become soundbites but reality is rarely that simple.
Anyway, I repeat: the accent was on dependable. That does not necessarily correlate with price (though it would nice if it did...).
Parent post said former roofer now makes more than software developer but can't find workers. If they made less(took less for themselves) and offered more to workers they would have a larger pool to hire from. They might even pull in workers from out of state or sponsor someone for a greencard
"Comfortable working at heights" feels like the only part that's somewhat unique, but quality work, friendly and won't trash the place applies to lots of people in lots of industries and trades, and surely you could attract some of them if you paid more.
When someone claims they can't get anyone to work for them "no matter what they are willing to pay", it often turns out they weren't willing to pay all that much. Which solar installation company offers FAANG level total compensation?
I think you're missing the bit that this is a rather competitive market and that if you offered 'FAANG' kind of compensation that nobody would be able to afford solar installations to begin with. The resulting power will have to compete with that generated by the utility company and if the payback time > the lifespan of the installation then it's a no-go.
Sure, but that's a very different discussion, isn't it? It reminds me of restaurants after the lockdowns were lifted who found that their staff had moved on. Turns out, people who are good in a customer facing role and able to handle stress and multi-task and prioritize tasks on the fly are sought after in many industries, and when restaurants said "you can come back now", they didn't much care for it. "I'm ready to pay anything, up to minimum wage" just wasn't able to compete with other companies happily paying more than that.
> back breaking outdoor labor that has a high likelihood of causing musculoskeletal healthcare problems by one’s 50s,
Are you sure about this, I mean non-anecdotally? Much might depend on the type/repetitiveness of the labour, etc,etc, but in general I suspect most HN-fiddlers are (mutatis mutandis)in poorer physical shape than labourers. There's little more dangerous to a mammalian frame, designed for a life of outdoor physical activity, than hours of inactivity. The sofa and car are probably the two most physically dangerous items we've come up with. I started to notice most of my peers having become functionally disabled by car and sofa abuse by about their late 20s.
I think much of that has to do with how you work and maintaining good health. Plus modern tech has helped
For example they small lifting devices that attach to ladders to bring roofing material up, think like a flat elevator that goes up and down. That takes alot of heavy lifting and climbing.
Nail guns and other power tools also reduce exertion in general. I'm not saying it's easy but it's better
We had our solar inverter fail (again, it under warranty but a pain). Our original installer is out of business, and a couple companies we talked to said it’s probably a year our before they could send someone. We have someone coming this week (fingers crossed)
The weak points in cheap inverters are the relays that switch the inverter from offline to online mode. It may well be a matter of just replacing that one relay.
So climate tech is great and very important (have been in the industry for a long time) - it isn't a huge money maker. Margins are thin - companies are lean and historically you are competing against future cheaper prices (e.g. Solar). It's called the Solar coaster for a reason. Energy Storage assets have a 10 year life and are essentially arbitraging energy demand or providing grid services for the IESO.
Hopefully the IRA can translate into a lot of productive asset growth in North America - at the very least we can translate the GDP / CO2e to be more efficient. It isn't clear that it will be a huge success but it is important goal to pursue.
That said there are many humorless climate zealots out there that are problematic that get in the way of progress.
Regulation isn’t a good moat. Solar panels are a commodity- it’s a race to the bottom. Solar looks like (and has been) the storybook case of a positive trend that makes for a poor investment.
You could say the same thing about almost any mature technology though. Meanwhile there are incredible amounts of money being made in solar. A friend has a solar installation business, he's been hiring more people year after year and is doing very well for himself and his co-founders.
What a strange question. Yes, of course I understand that. But the two, even though they are 'very different things' are also intricately related in that if the one doesn't work neither does the other.
That's not true at all, just because one individual person can make a temporary, big profit in an industry, that does not mean that the industry itself is profitable. Industry has large investment costs and takes time to become profitable, sometimes it never does.
I think that many of the most visible parts of the solar value chain (the panels and the installers) are very competitive industries that are going to be poor investments. However, there's always some segment of the value chain that is condensed into a few technologically-advanced and capital-intensive companies. I think we'll see this with solar as well, and there will be trillion-dollar companies that come out of it.
What percentage of Hacker News users are Software Developers? Climate Tech sounds great for a variety of engineers, but software jobs are going to be quite limited. Plus when you compare these more non-fungible industries where software gets paid really well, I imagine many of these climate tech jobs will be quite a hair cut for many devs.
I am a software engineer who spent last summer interviewing at climate tech companies. I found that there are two categories of software jobs in climate tech: A) jobs building tools to support R&D or operations at climate hardware companies, and B) jobs building software that purports to add value to various aspects of the carbon offset economy. I personally am not interested in the latter, as the entire carbon credit system is more effective at corporate greenwashing while enabling the status quo than it is at reducing emissions. As a web developer, it was very hard to find opportunities in climate hardtech, especially ones that could come close to FAANG compensation. I did find what I was looking for, but can confirm that there aren't many opportunities like this.
There is also a lot of work in developing tools for district and grid scale energy modelling, prediction and balancing to find the optimal ways to combine all the different green energy solutions.
No, software jobs in climate are not limited. Take a look at the job board at https://climatebase.org. There’s a lot of work to do, and a lot of it is software.
There is little chance these governments can finance this adoption rate while funding wars against parts of the world that will continue to flood the market with cheap fossil fuels as a result. Long term, technology will move away from fossil fuel but not with brute force fiat on weak tech and bad politics.
My company’s revenue mostly comes from people paying for services, the IRA is mainly good for helping some of these new technologies reach economies of scale.
After the GFC I thought the smart move was to generate a massive renewable industry, Manhattan project style. Growth, new jobs, energy independence, a new direction and possibly dominance in renewables. There are probably reasons why it was too early but I still think we’d all be in a better world if that was the choice.
I don't think "manhattan projects" are a good idea anymore.
Maybe during a war, when the best people could be drafted and put together for a common goal.
But now, it seems to be "the government picks a winner", which historically they have been bad at.
Examples I remember are paying ISPs to wire schools, and the early funding for solar companies. The government just dissipated billions of dollars with little to show for it.
I think the real answer might be to eliminate externalities via taxation and let market forces solve the problem. (admittedly a hard problem when pollution is global). But from what I recall, cap-and-trade worked to solve the acid rain problem pretty well.
Your anecdote doesn't directly contradict his statement. It would be like if the president decided that he will spare no expenses to personally install GWH of solar and that was his project. Your example is if the government just paid a bunch of subcontractors to do it.
I believe his statement is true. If some strong willed president came in, declaredd that it was a national security issue to have energy independence and utilized miltary resources to start construction on federal lands of massive solar farms, I would applaud such effort.
Technically the president is commander and chief and although limited in his ability to expend funds, there are appropriations through which he could funnel resources, like the Air Force red horse construction units. Granted, we'd have to stop building so maany bases in the middle east for that to happen; but that's aa feature not a bug.
Yes, I think an effective leader could make a difference.
I just am skeptical when I read "manhattan project". I guess my way of thinking about it isn't - have the government solve the problem hands-on from the top, but instead lead and empower people to solve our shared problems.
I remember talking with a pool guy once, where we talked about an ultraviolet water cleaning system vs chlorine. He basically told me, the ultraviolet cleaning system sounds cool, it's electronic and has no chemicals. But it cleans a just small amount of circulating water in front of it, while chlorine cleans all the water, thousands of gallons, everywhere at once.
Externalities are hard to move fast on because you just can't get the populace excited by charging more for something, over time or suddenly. E.g. cheap fuel - good luck getting that past anyone without being thrown out of office.
The government just needs to line up the incentives with what's good for the country on many axes. Just some examples that seem fairly rational:
- 50 points for reducing carbon
- 10 points for leveraging local resources
- 10 points for technical innovation
- 10 points for jobs growth
- 10 points for defence benefits
- 10 points for foreign sales benefits
Iterate to refocus on what produces the most points, or update points and categories if you have better suggestions.
(Edit: in the spirit of actually looking for a rational outcome, it's possible you could reduce support for externalities over time, e.g. X% per year. But EU is usually better at that than US for some reason.)
We, the USA, have had energy dependence for decades now. Renewable especially with how the tech has advanced would have been one of the worst things in the world to do this with. You'd have dumped tons into factories and manufacturing that was obsolete before it even finished being build.
For fields with this kind of rapid iteration jumping in hard but later is the better move.
It's called monocrystalline capacity, why not at least be explicit?
> "However, China currently represents more than 80% of the solar PV manufacturing supply chain and is expected to increase in the coming years."
China has invested a lot over the past decade in figuring out how to pump out monocrystalline silicon wafers at scale, and the USA has not, resulting in a massive advantage for Chinese companies in the sector. They've been extremely secretive about the technology, see this from 2018 and there's not been a whole lot since:
1) You can install solar panels yourself [1]. Most of the cost today is installation not the panels. You don't necessarily have to put them on the roof of your house. Installation on e.g. a car port or just on the ground is usually much easier.
2) You can save money by building your own battery from B-grade (safe but not good enough for electric cars), LifePo4 3.2V cells, and a BMS (battery management system) sourced directly from China.
He built a 10kW solar plant with a 11kWh LifePo4 battery for no more than 7'000 USD. He's using that power in part to heat is home with AC and estimated that it will amortise within a handful of years.
I'm currently building a van for remote work. Already live and work in it full time for a few months now. I have 5.5kWh of LifePo4 battery that cost me about 1'500 USD. Bought in Germany, incl. housing and BMS, not DIY. Would already be much cheaper now, just half a year later. I currently have 200Wp solar on the roof, which is enough for work. Planning to upgrade to 900Wp soon, to also run AC and cook via induction instead of gas. AMA.
[1] You might want to check the building codes in your area. Like many here, I'm more of a EAFP guy.
No judgement on the productive value of these modeled jobs, but it’s worth remembering that all else being equal we want to generate or store any given quantity of energy with less labor input rather than more.
The good news is that utility scale solar farms require less labor per megawatt hour generated than legacy sources like coal. The current jobs boom is because installation is rapidly increasing. See this post of mine from 2017 for a comparison of labor to operate already-built generating facilities:
Currently CA residential customers get paid retail rates for excess energy they produce and send back into the grid.
In the near future they'll get wholesale rates.
A big chunk of that retail vs wholesale rates difference is the cost of maintaining the grid infrastructure; a residential user isn't paying that cost in the first place, and IMO makes more sense to pay them as a pure "power generator" vs as a retail grid-provider.
If you have excess power, get some storage, use it overnight, get some of that money back on the retail rates you are otherwise paying at night currently. And that's a greener, more economic system anyway.
When I looked into battery storage a couple of years ago to go along with rooftop solar, it was still far from making sense economically. The number of years it would take me to recoup my investment on a battery was something like 15 to 20 years - longer than the typical warranty on a battery. (Note that I don't live in sunny California).
With electricity prices increasing, and many power companies paying less for electricity fed back into the grid, it will certainly make storage batteries more appealing. But I suspect they are still too expensive to make financial sense in many regions.
And once a significant percentage of households have installed battery storage, I expect power companies will start raising their flat service fees to ensure they can keep earning their sweet, sweet profits.
I would suggest not looking at new battery tech, and instead look at far more mature (but bulkier) storage tech.
Just get a bank of AGM batteries for your wall. 12V, 100+Ah. That's 1,200w per battery. To match a 13.5kWh Powerwall, you need 12 (you'll slightly-exceed the Powerwall.) Renogy 100Ah 12V batteries are ~$200, so $2400 total for the required 12. Tesla Powerwall is almost $13,000. You can get 4-5,000 0-100-0 cycles with the AGMs, The Powerwall gets you about 3,000. 12 batteries doesn't take up a huge amount of space, either.
Inverters/charger/instant-switchover systems run around $3-5K depending upon solar array power (up to 20kWh.)
B-grade panels still last 30 years until 70% output, produce all the same power as their a-grade brethren, yet only cost about $80 for a 310w panel in bulk (and that was5-ish years ago when I was manufacturing them) so ~$320 in solar to generate 1.2kWh at full tilt. $3,840 to be able to refill your entire battery bank in one hour in full sunlight in optimal conditions.
For not even the price of the Powerwall alone, you can have power self-sufficiency. Dump that saved money into basically doubling your storage, and never worry about energy again, in reality. ~1% degradation per year on the solar panel means even in 50 years you're still pushing ~7kWh full-tilt, that's around what most current residential systems push today. You're actually ahead of the game using older tech.
Your calculation on AGM batteries is false, AFAIK.
AGMs (basically lead acid batteries) have a much lower lifetime (about 300 cycles, not 5'000 [1]) versus LifePo4 (Lithium iron phosphate, ~2'000 cycles [1]), to the point where it doesn't make economical sense to buy an AGM today [1].
As an example, you could get six 12.8V, 200 Ah LifePo4 incl. BMS from a US supplier for 3'5000 USD [2]. That will give you 15kWh (not w) of storage, so, more than the 'Powerwall' you cite and much more than your AGM batteries.
Your calculation has another mistake, I think. With AGM batterie, you can only use 50% of the labeled energy [2], so your calculation is off by another factor of two. With LifePo4 you can use about 80% of the labeled capacity, if you want to get a long lifetime out of your LifePo4 battery.
From another Source [1]:
[LifePo4] Up to 6 time the cycle life
AGM Deep cycle – 300 cycles @ 100% DoD
LiFePO4 – 2'000 cycles @ 100% DoD
Benefits:
Lower total cost of ownership (cost per kWh much lower over life of battery for LiFePO4)
Reduction in replacement costs – replace the AGM up to 6 times before the LiFePO4 needs replacing
I have Trojan AGMs that are well over 20 years old in my Golf Cart. They've had well over 2,000 charges and are still pushing nearly 90% capacity. No swelling, no leakage, nothing.
My grandfather's old flood-chargeable lead-acid golf cart batteries were double that age, or more, and had an easy 10K deep cycles on them when he passed. That cart went two rounds of 18 holes, plus fishing at the water traps afterwards, daily. He would change the fluid in them monthly.
Typical unsealed lead acid batteries can be maintained to last a long time. We used those to power an old warehouse with a solar array for a natural living commune in Memphis for over a decade. I can't tell you exactly how long they lasted as I had moved away from there while after that tenth year. Now once the plates have totally sulfated over, yes you aren't getting power unless you strip the sulfates away to reveal the plates again, but until then, acid refreshes work just fine, and you're looking at about 15 years before needing to replace the batteries due to sulfur coating if you only bother doing acid refreshes. You can get far longer if you know how to remove the sulfur off the lead plates.
The days of sub-1000 cycle deep-cycle lead-acid batteries have long gone. All it takes is knowing how to maintain them. Nobody seems to do that any longer. Most of these were made with maintenance cycles in mind. (Not AGMs, obviously, they're totally-sealed.)
California is adopting NEM 3.0 for new installs: "Customers using solar panels can receive an average rate of 30 cents per kilowatt-hour under NEM 2.0, but under NEM 3.0, this rate would be reduced to only 8 cents per kilowatt-hour." Note that current systems (and those installed before the deadline) are covered under a legacy law and don't have to worry just yet.
Personally I think this is an incentive to build solar + storage, so that during peak generation (early afternoon) you store your power rather than selling it back, and at peak usage (evenings) you use that. From the grid's perspective, this is much better than what has been happening. But from the public's $$ perspective, not quite as enticing.
>Personally I think this is an incentive to build solar + storage
It's been explicitly stated by the state agencies.
I like my NEM2 pricing because it means I can charge the battery at night when power is cheapest, and sell back what I generate during the day. Also means I have a full battery most of the time in case the power goes down. This would be a way less attractive option under NEM3, and I don't quite understand why this isn't what people are being instructed/incentivized to do generally. I would think the utility would love the flexibility that offers.
The power generators have discovered that they would like to be making the profits from installing solar rather than their customers. It's all just a margin grab typical of the customer/supplier relationship.
Or maybe it is because power generation is only a small part of the cost in delivering electricity to homes. Grid maintenance is typically factored into your price per kWh, and under the old NEM those costs get shifted to your neighbors. Technology Connections has done a recent video about this on their second channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4cNnVK412U
And many expected the demise of office jobs in the 90s as computers took over. What actually happened is that companies leveraged the respective strengths of both automation and labor to increase growth.
I did CapEx at Tesla. Almost no human intervention is required for the solar line in buffalo; I.E. Completely automated.
The jetsons made us think there will be some use to general, bipedal robots. Turns out the robots are just giant machines that pushes a panel through, applys a special glue, and stacks the metals, glass and silicon.
There's some general assembly at the end, but the amount of people on the line is a rounding error to what it takes to keep that line running. It takes hundreds of people to ensure that automated line doesn't stop. Just because we reached automation, doesn't mean we need less people.
With automation comes scale. With scale comes new problems and new needs. As robotics takes over, giga factorys will become terafactorys. where factorys used to have thousands of employees, we now have hundreds of thousands. Imagine the terrafactory of the future that employes millions of people, from supply chain to robot whispers and prompt engineerss.
well, solar roofs? not really. Depends on your definition of scale...
I guess i should had said the 'energy line'. Tesla produces a number of products including charging infrastructure, solar (Roof, and panels), and has a very large fab capability there.
They probably will be. Solar manufacturing productivity per full time employee has grown rapidly in the last 7 years and I expect the same in the next 7 years. That said, total solar equipment output is growing even faster so I think that projections of robust job growth are correct.
Maybe not robotic, but traditionally the US has ALWAYS (~1776) had labor shortages/expensive labor. So it has always expanded manufacturing from via efficiency instead of using more workers. So automation of all sorts.
What is the plan to offset this increase in solar energy with enough non intermittent production and storage to cope with low probability winter with long Dunkelflauten and who is paying for it?
So an industry trade group funded by the renewable energy industry, dependent on government spending by government parties that "represent labor", say they are going to create a shit ton of jobs(of undescribed income and duration) at some point in the future...if they get more subsidy. Got it.
What makes you say that? There's so much research that flies in the face of this sentiment. Solar on rooftops alone has the potential to supply a fourth of the current US energy consumption [1]. Other studies estimate that solar could grow to supply between 30-50% of our energy consumption in the future [2]. Solar represents a near limitless supply of energy, and can be harvested in a decentralized fashion (allowing homes to directly power themselves).
Furthermore, EVs have shown that advancements in tech can mitigate concerns around material availability and sustainability (while also increasing efficiency).
Top comment on this post right now is a dumb, dismissive joke. Personally, I don’t think an addressable market size in the trillions of dollars is a joke, but you do you.