3 million people with jobs to blow really hard to turn the turbines?

Because by spending money on it now, we make the technology cheaper down the road.

By spending money on coal, we keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing.

You know, like the Republican senate wants us to do? They want 4 more years of the same.

No real new ideas at all. Except from Snow and Specter.

It won’t. And people tend to forget that even if it does create jobs, it is only offsetting the other industry jobs lost as a result. (remember his intent to bankrupt coal industry?)

yes coal is cheaper but wind is more “green”, not choosing just pointing out a fact.

With a lot of hot air

They do not get built by themselves

More production will reduce costs

Last I looked wind was free

This is long term project……….and we are in the 21st century time to move on and must start sometime

T. BOONE PICKENS disagrees with you. ever heard of him?

building them…creating a larger grid reaching into the areas of best wind mill locations….the workforce to build it and maintain it

if you are an engineer, then I would expect you to want all sorts of energy and understand that coal is dirty and that oil is a political problem…..wind power, even if more expensive that coal or oil gives us flexibility and a way to keep our waters clear of mercury.,…the same can be said of ethanol…right now it’s not a lot better than oil, but in time it could be a real advantage

If it were cut our need for coal by 25% that would put about 25% of our coal miners out of work and that is more high paying jobs lost than created in manufacturing, installing and maintaining wind driven turbines

Wind mills don’t magically appear out of thin air. They might pay themselves back.

Yea, I know that it is not as easy a message as LOW TAXES, duh and SMALL GOVERNMENT, UH, AND UH,,,,,,, UH,,,,,, UMMMMM

YUP………. YEA TRADITIONAL VALUES BUT

JEEZE LOUISE.

Stevie Wonder can see that.

You talking about atmospheric wind, or that coming from the Whitehouse? One is a force of nature, the other a farce of nature.

It’s not, Liberals lie.

There’s a simple answer and then the long winded answer I’ll give you both.

Any time a new industry is started or enhanced there will be a net job increase. That is factual dating back to when we first started requiring energy source conversion in the US like whale oil conversion to ground oil. Even though the whaling industry technically provided enough oil for burning and use in US homes, the oil industry started in Pennsylvania had a boom experience creating three times as many jobs as were lost during the same period due to whaling, and the costs to create that industry were much greater than the costs to continue whaling. However costs eventually decreased for oil and increased dramatically for whaling. As one industry replaces another, the initial costs will be greater for the newer industry because costs have not been adjusted over as long a period.

There is also a correlation to productivity. As productivity outside of the worker increases employment decreases. As it decreases employment increases. A factual example of this is the conversion from by hand industry to automation. In some cases this increased the number of employed people, but in most cases the more the system becomes automated (productivity increases) the fewer employed workers are needed. Take the auto industry. Initially the number of workers to produced auto was so high that it was nearly a 1 to 1 ratio. As the automation of the industry occurred. More autos were produced, the number of workers to produced auto decreased dramatically. Nowadays the number of workers to autos produced is miniscule. There is something to note here. As production cheapened, the desire for cheaper goods increased and the number of jobs sum total in the industry increased. However to a certain point those jobs were just ones taken from the carriage business and shodders and blacksmiths so there was a net decrease in jobs initially. On the other hand as is exemplified in helicopter forestry, as the automation decreases (they stopped clear cutting) the number of employed lumberjacks increased and in addition you also needed to employ the services of the FAA and a helicopter pilot. So in this question by representation of past examples I would always expect decreased non-worker productivity to be in line with increased employment.

As for the creation of jobs here is the brunt of it, long term, wind power does not increase the number of jobs. Heck it will probably decrease the number of jobs in two industries. Cleaner fuels will decrease healthcare visits meaning fewer nurses needed. People in the coal industry might feel a job loss although really the coal industry in terms of employment is so efficient that for every job lost there we will probably see a net increase of .2 across the board in energy production. By the time the short terms jobs as well as health care losses are met consumption of both will reach a point where the loss of short term jobs will not be that great of an impact. As it stands though, cleaner energy does not equate to longterm job gain, but it does equate to extensive short term job gain. The question really is how much. And how beneficial

According to figures released by energy experts (quoted in the deliberations for the stimulus package), wind energy companies expect to increase the use of energy from wind at an astounding rate. nearly doubling each of the next three years and then dipping till about 2020. Many plants can only produce 100 turbines a year currently, so almost all wind farms are utilizing a hundred percent of factory capacity. In order to match the needs and desires of wind production nearly one hundred factories will need to be built or refurbished. A plant build takes one to two years and creates temporary jobs. A refurbish job requires an equal number of temp construction but requires a shorter time period. Each one of those plants will employ up to 300 workers. About 3/4 of those workers will be retrained from failing industry so are not considered job creation, but 1/4 of them will be. from a very basic community planning viewpoint at a low end pay of 20,000 a year 500 new jobs equals 3 new businesses (besides the plant) in the community who will each employ up to 20 individuals. Doing the math to figure this out the higher paid tech jobs at a turbine plant will generally be at a boom rate around 40,000 a year, which means you roughly only have to have 250 employees. So each plant will probably allow one new business to be created in the commmunity as well as guarantee that others will not fail because the failing plants stay open. Then there is materials. to even fabricate the turbines and blades requires gold, copper, platinum, tantalum as well as aluminum and steel. All of those industries will see a general increase in sales. And in those industries that equates to a stop-loss, because many of those industries are belching workers into unemployment