>>512844032
debunked
The statement mixes up units: GW measures power (energy production rate), not energy. Energy output is in gigawatt-hours (GWh) or terawatt-hours (TWh). A 1 GW plant operating at full capacity for a year produces 8.76 TWh, but real outputs are lower due to capacity factors (e.g., ~80% for nuclear, ~30-40% for solar/wind, ~50% for coal/gas historically).
The employment claim is false. US electricity generation rose from 0.334 TWh in 1950 to 4.389 TWh in 2024, a 13x increase. Employment in electric power generation, transmission, and distribution stayed roughly flat at ~400,000-500,000 workers over that period (e.g., ~567,000 in SIC 49 category including gas/sanitary in 1958; ~413,000 in NAICS 2211 in 2024). This means labor productivity surgedโfewer workers per TWh producedโdue to automation, larger plants, and efficiency gains.
Per-plant data shows the opposite trend: In 1950s, small coal/hydro plants (often <100 MW) required more staff per MW due to manual operations. Today, a typical 300 MW coal plant employs ~53 people (0.18 per MW or ~180 per GW equivalent). Nuclear plants (common 1 GW size) employ ~620 per GW. Overall, employees per GW of capacity dropped from ~5,700 in 1950 (estimated from sector totals and ~70 GW capacity) to ~320 today (413,000 workers / 1,280 GW capacity).
Politicians do push job promises, often via subsidies or regulations that inflate staffing (e.g., union mandates or bureaucratic layers in renewables/nuclear projects), but this hasn't reversed productivity gains in power production. Work value erosion happens in overstaffed setups, but the sector's trend is toward skilled, efficient roles, not meaningless division of labor.