Green jobs growing even as economy wilts

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Last month's bleak jobs report is a reminder of just how deep our economic troubles are: With only 18,000 jobs created and the unemployment rate creeping up to 9.2 percent, the hangover from 2008's financial implosion is still with us. But a look at the increase in postings for clean energy and sustainability-related jobs anecdotally suggests that the "sustainability" sector is faring better than most, according to the Wall Street Journal:

In the past two years, the number of online job postings containing the keyword "sustainability" has more than quadrupled to 8,245 in May, according to Indeed.com, which aggregates online job postings. The number containing "wind" and "solar" more than doubled in the same time period.

Some of that growth might have come from the $800 billion economic stimulus package, about $100 billion of which was devoted to green-related projects, said Robert Pollin, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Much money was devoted to helping companies retrofit buildings to be energy efficient, and according to Mr. Pollin's research, every $1 million devoted to that task created about 17 jobs for the life of the project, he said.

The government estimates that around 68,000 jobs have been created or saved through just the loan guarantee program, which has helped manufacturers and project developers build large facilities. And the advocacy organization Environment America says that 59,000 U.S. jobs were created through the grant program, which made project financing much easier after the financial collapse.

Tracking those jobs is difficult, however. Because many of the jobs are cross-sector, we can't be exactly sure how many were created for what reasons. But it's clear that tens of thousands of Americans are being employed in the clean energy field who might otherwise not have jobs. This rough analysis from the Wall Street Journal illustrates the increase in activity.

The Brookings Institution is coming out with a comprehensive report on the clean energy economy later this week. It'll be interesting to see how their analysis matches up with these figures.

http://www.grist.org...s-economy-wilts

[lostinblue 1,989]

As long as the government supports this green jobs BS you will find all the growth you want. Go to the real world of business and you would fine a massive fail in the accounting numbers . http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110710/BUSINESS/107100312/Dairy-farms-turn-manure-into-power

Here is is a methane project on a dairy farm.

The Zuber farm system cost about $1.5 million with most of that paid by the state and federal governments through programs designed to encourage alternative power generation and reduction of greenhouse gases. Eric Zuber said the brothers never could have afforded the digester system if the grants and forgivable loans hadn't been available.

The system also costs about $100,000 in maintenance each year, Zuber added.

Another catch is that though the manure produces bedding and valuable methane, the Zubers still have a whole mess of manure left over at the end of the process.

"This doesn't make anything magically disappear," Teeter said recently as he showed off the covered, swimming pool-sized lagoon of digesting manure giving off methane. The methane is collected through pipes and burned to make electricity. Heat from that process warms two houses and other buildings on the farm. Electricity runs all the fans that keep the cows cool, as well as the outlets in the homes and four other buildings.

In the end, though, there's still a mess of stinky, watery stuff that the farm pumps into a tanker truck and drives to fields, where it's spread as fertilizer.

"On a farm this size, you can't keep spreading manure," Teeter said. So the manure is trucked as far as 15 miles away to spread on other farms.

That's one of the reasons that Nicolette Hahn Niman, a California rancher and environmental attorney, is opposed to the spread of anaerobic manure digesters. She has argued both in a New York Times opinion piece and her own book that the systems aren't worth the costs, including the expense of trucking manure far away from factory farms to spread it on fields. She suggests the advent of digester systems amounts to taxpayer support for creating larger and larger dairy farms, concentrating the amount of pollutants farms produce.

"Studies show that manure power projects are probably not viable without large public subsidies and are likely to remain so," Niman wrote.

The projects indeed might encourage dairy farms to grow larger, said Thomas Fiesinger, a project manager for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which has provided grants for anaerobic digesters.

"It probably does (encourage larger farms), but I won't buy the premise that it's bad," Fiesinger said. He listed a number of advantages the digesters produce that won't all be found on a bottom line: reduced odors, reduced methane emissions, increased opportunities for disposal of food wastes and possibly new revenue streams.

(Page 3 of 3)

Chris Noble, of the Noblehurst Farm in Linwood, Livingston County, said, "It's really a question of how long do you want the payback period to be? NYSERDA incentives certainly help us along that road to reducing that payback period."

Noblehurst relied on NYSERDA grants to help build the $750,000 to $1 million system it began operating in 2003. A fire destroyed the generator this April and the family farm will apply for state grants again to help rebuild and enlarge its farm power plant.

The Noble family is also partnering with an investment company to build a bigger system at a second location in Wyoming County.

"One of the big things that would really help us as a dairy farm, utilizing gas from our cows and producing some energy, is some sort of incentive to produce green energy," Noble said.

Eric Zuber agreed, saying he gets just 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour for the energy he puts back into the power grid, while he pays about 10 cents per kwh when he buys power.

Several sources said farm power plants in New York aren't getting the money for their excess power that farmers in other states or countries are, but generation prices are higher in some of those areas, changing the economics of such projects.

Fiesinger noted that in Europe, heating districts make sharing power and operating group digesters easier to accomplish.

"We need the infrastructure to take this to a different level," Zuber said.

For now, though, he's happy that his farm's costs have been lowered. The methane-burning generator at the farm heats two homes, a workshop and the water boiler in the milking parlor, and provides more than enough electricity to supply six locations on the farm, including his house, the hired help's house and the cow barns.

"It's a great concept," Zuber said.

DCARTER@DemocratandChronicle

The math is a million and a half dollar project. 100,000 per year to maintain it.108,000 electric savings. total savings $8000 per year in reduced electric bill charged against say a million dollar investment.

This goes on and on and on with all this green jobs bs.....

"Studies show that manure power projects are probably not viable without large public subsidies and are likely to remain so," Niman wrote.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

...the Zubers still have a whole mess of manure left over at the end of the process.

They should turn that into poopets and sell those to help pay for the system and it's maintenance. These babies go for $15.00 each. Imagine the possibilities...

[mawilson 2,133]

They should turn that into poopets and sell those to help pay for the system and it's maintenance. These babies go for $15.00 each. Imagine the possibilities...

I find it deeply disturbing that you would know what a poopet is.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I find it deeply disturbing that you would know what a poopet is.

I remember seeing those in some store out in the Smokey Mountains a decade or so ago. It's disturbing and, hence, not something one easily forgets.