PV Gap

Max Said:

What exactly are green jobs?

We Answered:

It is kind of vague, and probably the definition is a little different for everyone. Some jobs are obviously going to be much greener than others.

An entrepreneur who starts his own solar company would probably be considered greener than a materials scientist working on a new polymer for wind turbine blades. And that scientist would probably be considered greener than a mechanical engineer who works on improving energy efficiency in buildings. And then he would probably be considered greener than a bus driver.

Just like there's some overlap between blue and white collar, 'green collar' is not really a very concrete term.

Monica Said:

Is China set to dominate the world in renewable energy industry?

We Answered:

The Chinese are currently doing well at manufacturing, but this is not the best indicator of who will dominate the future renewable energy market. The current manufacturing capacity will supply only about 5% of the total energy market in the next 10 years. The other 95% of the market is still up for grabs. The best technologies are not on the market yet and information about them is not in the public domain. You might get a hint of capabilities by looking at patent filings at
www.uspto.gov
However, you need to know a lot of science to realize that patent on topic A is an enabling (choke point) technology for new technology B which is not directly addressed. People that know about the new technologies are bound by confidentiality agreements. One common clause in confidentiality agreements is that the existence of the agreement itself is confidential. The information that you find on the internet is the information that industry wants you to see. The public can and should be concerned at the macro level about the level of investment in R&D and manufacturing capability. The US is at a disadvantage because
1. the overall level of investment in renewable energy is too low.
2. US investors are at a disadvantage because of the federal failure to regulate the industry. Companies with credible technologies under development tend to be more discrete than Wall St. stock promoters. The result is that some of the investment in renewable energy (and all other industrial sectors) is misdirected to scams whose only purpose is to enrich Wall St. bankers. The US is falling behind because Wall St. scam artists skim $1 trillion annually that would be better invested in R&D and manufacturing capacity. The UK dependence on the financial sector has the same consequence: lack of investment in industry.
3. US labor is overpriced. Human capital is a critical element in the competition for the future economy. The Chinese are playing for the advantage of manufacturing experience by investing now. They hope to persuade companies with the next generation of technologies to locate in their country. The work force in Europe and North America (and Japan) is more skilled than the Chinese workforce at present, but overpriced. The auto sector workers collectively are more skilled than their Chinese competitors and merit more pay than the $2/hr earned by Chinese workers. $20-$25/hr is realistic, $80/hr demanded by the UAW is not. The critical question is whether the workforce will take realistic wages, stay employed and prevent the Chinese from building manufacturing expertise or allow their skills to decay to zero value. If this issue is not resolved, US workers will be worth $2/hr in 10 years and Chinese workers will be worth $20/hr.
4. The Chinese are good at copying and stealing technology, but lag in innovation. Europe and North America can improve their competitive position by making market access for Chinese goods contingent on Chinese respect (payment) for intellectual property. Trade policies should favor domestic innovators rather than implicitly condone Chinese theft of IP by allowing unrestricted market access. Consumer prices will be higher, but consumers will have more wealth the pay the higher prices.

I don't think that it is too late for Europe and North America, but structural adjustments noted above are needed. The companies and countries that own the best technologies between 2020 and 2030 will be the big winners.