This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

[IOP] A community website from IOP Publishing

environmentalresearchweb blog

Renewable subsidies – and jobs

By Dave Elliott

A report from the Council of European Energy Regulators Status Review of Renewable Support Schemes in Europe puts the weighted average subsidy paid to renewable generators in EU 26 in 2015 as €110 /MWh. The maximum was €184/MWh in the Czech Republic and the minimum €16.2/MWh in Norway, while the UK came in at €75/MWh.

The data is distorted by the fact that in some countries, like Norway, well established hydro is the dominant renewable and no subsidy is involved.  It’s also worth noting that, in many countries, coal still gets a big subsidy, in Germany for example, and global subsidies for fossil fuel have been up to six times that available for renewables: www.odi.org.uk/subsidies-change-the-game and  http://www.odi.org/publications/10058-production-ubsidies-oil-gas-coal-fossil-fuels-g20-broken-promises

In some countries, nuclear also gets a subsidy-with more planned. So we are not talking about a level playing field. Even so, the renewable subsidies can be portrayed as provocative: http://euanmearns.com/the-high-cost-of-renewable-subsidies/ However, they should fall as the technology improves and costs continue to reduce- and if and when subsidies for coal are phased out, they will be needed less. But the subsidies for nuclear will continue to rankle.  

In nearly all cases (21 out of 28), CEER notes that the renewable subsidies are based on Feed-In Tariffs (FiTs). The main exceptions are Norway, Belgium, Poland and Romania, who use green certificate systems, and the UK and Italy, which have a mix of systems, while Finland uses investment grants, as do Sweden (along with green certificates) and Austria and Luxembourg (along with FiTs). However, under the EUs new policies, conventional guaranteed price FiTs are being phased out in preference for competitive market auction based systems. Several countries (Germany, Italy, Finland, Czech Republic, the Netherlands and the UK) have now introduced so-called premium FiT systems (sometimes called FIPs), although it hard to see them (e.g. the UK’s CfD) as FiTs, given the market-based competitive tendering approach. These systems may reduce the subsidy level per project, but they may also reduce the overall amount of new capacity installed, so that the total cost/MW or MWh may not reduce. We shall see.  Certainly some remain strongly opposed: see my next post.

Interestingly however, on grid integration, CEER says that, under the new approaches being adopted, plants ‘increasingly have the same financial responsibility as conventional plants for electricity balancing, at least above a certain threshold of capacity installed’. So its included in the costs, although some will say that doesn’t include the cost faced by rivals who are finding it harder to compete with renewables in key markets. You might see this as just the way markets work, but some of the plants being seen off by marginal cost renewables will be needed for grid balancing, so the cost of capacity balancing is a real one: the balancing plants will need subsidies to stay available, as with the UKs Capacity Market auction system.  CEER doesn’t seem to include that.  www.ceer.eu/eer_publications/newsletters/march_2017?inheritRedirect=true

There are of course some benefits that can be set against the renewable subsidies- the avoidance of climate and air quality impacts. Taking those on board can make them look like very sensible long term investments, although that’s also true of nuclear power. But then that has risks that are not always reflected in the cost.

Some might add job creation as a benefit- in the belief that investment in renewables creates more jobs and better jobs than investment in capital intense nuclear or fossil plants. That’s not at all clear. Biomass growing can certainly be very labour intensive, although the type of jobs involved may not be wonderful or well paid. You can certainly create more jobs for a given investment if you pay workers less, all other things being equal. Installing solar PV can create jobs, but the number per kWh produced may not be high. Wind turbine manufacturing and installation is labour intensive, but wind farms need no on-site staff. You may create jobs quickly in some locations with fast to install renewable energy projects, but a 10 years to complete nuclear project may employ people over a longer period.

In the final analysis, the number of jobs created in an economy as a whole eventually depends on the amount of money invested, regardless of which technology it passes through- where else does investment go other than through wages and salaries at some stage? So if its more expensive it creates more jobs. The money can be invested more or less productively, for example to create higher profits, but the profits will eventually get spent on other products and services and providing these will create more jobs.  

So the jobs argument has some problems. There are also transitional problems. See this interesting analysis of the issues in the USA – a transition to solar and wind and away from coal won’t be easy in employment replacement terms: https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/benefiting-from-green-jobs/

That may all sound gloomy, but it is still obviously the case that jobs will be created if you invest in renewables, replacing those lost as other energy options die or are shut down. Nearly 10 million jobs had been created in renewables worldwide by 2016: www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141&SubcatID=3852

It’s a matter of political, economic and environmental choice. With cost falling, at present in the USA solar employs near 3 times more people in power generation than fossil energy and over 5 times more than nuclear. In all, renewables employ about half a million people: www.ecowatch.com/solar-job-growth-2197574131.html and www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017 US Energy and Jobs Report_0.pdf

Interestingly, Wyoming, the largest coal producer in the US, is among several major coal-producing and Trump-voting states which are actually leading in adding new renewable energy capacity: www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/increase-renewable-energy/momentum 

While it will fight back, coal is obviously on the way out everywhere, and other employment options may also disappear, with automation maybe soon eliminating many jobs in conventional manufacturing, and some retail jobs. It may be that green energy jobs will be one of the few areas of growth: there will be a lot of work in making the transition from fossil and nuclear power. Indeed at present in the USA, with costs falling, it seems that green energy technical servicing and system installation (of wind and PV solar system) are some of the largest sources of new jobs, along with human personal services: www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm and http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/04/13/energy-industry-automation-wind-solar-mining-jobs/ Moreover, if done right, it can lead to good, well paid jobs: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-link-between-good-jobs-and-a-low-carbon-future/

Longer term, after the energy transition has been made, and we have a sustainable energy system established, then there will be less need for workers in this sector- just for maintenance and replacement, assuming a roughly steady state economy. That is very far off for any country at present, and there would be a boom in employment in the intervening time- well worth subsidising, for social and environmental reasons. So maybe it’s fair to point to that as an option now, at a time of cut backs. But it’s not fair to say renewables will necessarily give you more jobs net, either now or long term.

This entry was posted in Renew your energy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author 

Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.

Guidelines

  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="http://www.google.com">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="http://iop.org/">IOP</blockquote>
IOP
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text