aside Breaking News: President Can Create More Jobs Via Solar Power

Image result for photos of solar energy jobs

Dear President Donald Trump, Why are you singularly favoring the expansion of the fossil fuel industry over that of solar power, when there is so much more potential of good paying jobs with the increase of solar power? Or do facts still not matter?

As per 1/25/17 Forbes article, Niall McCarthy challenges the president’s administration’s singular love affair with the oil companies’ promise for more jobs in his following report, “Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined:

” In the United States, more people were employed in solar power last year than in generating electricity through coal, gas and oil energy combined. According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy, solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation sector’s workforce in 2016, while fossil fuels combined accounted for just 22 percent. It’s a welcome statistic for those seeking to refute Donald Trump’s assertion that green energy projects are bad news for the American economy.”Image result for photos of solar energy jobs

“Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000. The boom in the country’s solar workforce can be attributed to construction work associated with expanding generation capacity. The gulf in employment is growing with net generation from coal falling 53 percent over the last decade. During the same period, electricity generation from natural gas increased 33 percent while solar expanded 5,000 percent.”

“Fuel production and electricity generation together directly employed 1.9 million workers last year, according to the report, with 55%, or 1.1 million, working with fossil fuels. The DOE identifies another 2.3 million jobs associated with energy transmission, distribution and storage.”

“Solar energy added 73,615 new jobs to the U.S. economy over the past year while wind added a further 24,650.”

(charted by Statista)


  1. Because oil is a geopolitical weapon that can be used to enslave ppl and nations. Solar is FREE, unlimited and allow ppl to be independent and self sustaining. God forbid gov’ts allowing that to happen!

    • Dear 1EarthUnited,

      This is almost a no brainer. Why isn’t this a national security issue in that it helps US to be less dependent on foreign supplies of fossil fuel energy, mitigate harm from climate change.

      Ciao, Gronda

      • Great point, it should be a no-brainer. But since international oil is priced in US dollars, this creates a built in demand when the world purchase oil… first they must convert their own currency into dollars. Thus buying dollars on the FX currency markets support the dollar, which is the world’s reserve currency. Having that distinguished status allows the US to live beyond it’s means, increased trade deficits, printing more money from thin air (Quantitative Easing), huge budget deficits, 20 trillion in national debt.
        Our balance sheets are horrible, and yet the world is forced to buy more worthless dollars for international commerce. It’s a racket the mob would be proud of. That’s the main reason US will not allow alternative clean energy, it’s not that we don’t have the technology, it’s about world dominance, hegemony, and nation building. This was discussed extensively in the webinar… there are solutions however, to transition into green energy…

  2. Great post, Gronda. Three comments.

    Cost – We are passed the tipping point on renewable energy and Trump can only slow it down, not alter the move. The cost has declined and is on par from a production standpoint. If the present value of all costs are contrasted (maintenance, environmental degradation, healthcare, transportation, and litigation), solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuel sources.

    The Virtuous Cycle – Solar and wind energy do not require manual energy to create energy. Nothing has to be burned to create steam to turn turbines to turn generators. Coupled with the present value cost above, utilities will stop building major coal-fired plants and eventually natural gas because the return will diminish.

    Water – This is the understated impact. Acquiring natural gas through fracking and burning coal, steam and using a nuclear reaction requires water. And, the number one long-term risk per the World Economic Forum ahead of climate change is our global water crisis. Fracking takes 2 to 4 million gallons per frack, which cannot be reused due to chemicals. Duke Energy estimates they lose between 1% and 2% of the water a day used for fossil fuel and nuclear energy (note they recycle the river water twice, but when it goes back to the river it is less). By the way, it should be noted the Koch Brothers are buying up water rights. Why?

    This last issue is critical and our government and politicians do not even talk about it.

    Thanks, Keith

    • Dear Keith,

      I so appreciate the added info you provide.It helps to provide context.

      Logic tells us that one of the fall outs from climate change will be diminishing resources which will make the world less safe bur the US congress has blocked the military from doing research on this subject.

      Ciao, Gronda

Comments are closed.