Where the clean-tech jobs are

General unemployment may be on the rise, but the clean-tech sector should be a bright spot for job seekers, according to a report released Thursday by Clean Edge research.

The clean-technology sector was one of the largest recipients of venture capital last year, raising about $3.35 billion in the U.S., according to New Energy Finance statistics in the the "Clean Tech Job Trends 2009" report (PDF).

Unlike most reports from research firms, this one is free to download in full.

The 29-page report, which also draws on statistics from other organizations such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, includes a plethora of useful information for the clean-tech job hunter, including schools offering green career training, job posting and social media sites dedicated to clean-tech jobs, a list of the largest clean-tech employers, and a list of the best green-tech blogs.

Based on the number of job postings and placements, and public and private investment, the report found the solar industry to be the leading clean-tech sector, followed by biofuels and biomaterials, conservation and efficiency, smart grids, and wind power.

(Credit: Clean Edge)

For those willing to move for a job, the report lists the 15 areas in the U.S. where people are likely to find the most clean-tech job activity, as well as a separate list for global clean-tech hotspots.

"Unlike the early days of computers and IT, the clean-tech economy is a highly dispersed phenomenon, with no single place, industry, or professional demographic controlling the sector," Ron Pernick, co-founder and managing director of Clean Edge, said in a statement.

Not surprisingly, the San Francisco and Los Angeles greater metropolitan areas topped the U.S. list at No. 1 and No. 2, respectively. The greater New York metropolitan area (which includes northern New Jersey and Long Island) was No. 3 for clean-tech jobs. Here's the breakdown:

1. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
2. Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County
3. New York-northern New Jersey-Long Island (N.Y.-N.J.-Conn.-Pa.)
4. Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton (Mass., N.H.)
5. Washington, D.C.-Baltimore (Md., Va., W.V.)
6. Denver-Boulder-Greeley
7. Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton
8. Portland-Salem
9. Chicago-Gary-Kenosha (Ill., Ind., Wisc.)
10. Sacramento-Yolo County
11. San Diego
12. Austin-San Marcos, Texas
13. Phoenix
14. Detroit-Ann Arbor
15. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria

The report also contains a comprehensive spreadsheet detailing the type of clean-tech jobs available, the typical degree level required, and the median pay levels. The jobs range in median pay from $36,100 to $106,000.

And while some jobs like project developer or geothermal power engineer require a bachelor's degree or even a specified engineering degree, most of the jobs on the list were true "green-collar" jobs in that they only require a high school diploma. Those jobs included HVAC service technician, journeyman lineman for smart grid, network operations center technician for smart grid, solar fabrication technician, and solar energy system installer.

[loupilastro]

Clean Edge has provided a great service in making this comprehensive analysis available without charge. Thank you Clean Edge and to CNET for reporting it!

[Random_Walk]

Indeed - it is cool

(disclaimer: I'm speaking as someone who happens to live in one of those places and work in the green industry... :) )

[C_G_K]

My goodness. Probably half the stories on CNET today have some kind of "green" theme. Is that all there is to talk about? Radical environmentalism, which seems to be in vogue right now, is going to wreck the global economy and increase levels of poverty. The media apparently has lost it's ability to look at everything with a critical eye, and so junk science carries the day on such things as global warming. I think people will eventually see through all the nonsense.

[jaguar717]

It's easy to find "green" "tech" jobs. Just go anywhere that the economy is dominated by government and you'll find heavily subsidized make-work jobs replacing 3-5 productive jobs each, like in France, socialist Spain, and bankrupt urban failures here like Chicago/DC/LA/SF/Philly.

Of course, you can only spend so much of other people's money money losing ventures while you force costs up before the whole Ponzi scheme falls apart.

But who cares about the facts? I'm sure the heavy hand of authoritarian government will lead us to innovation and productivity as we tax our way into prosperity. That's happened before, right?

[C_G_K]

It's almost like the media just doesn't get it, much less report on it. Greatly increasing the cost of energy by requiring the use (by government dictate) of alternative sources that are much more expensive will have a huge economic impact. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. That means fewer jobs and more widespread poverty. It's a simple fact.

[mathmeister]

Knee-jerk reaction guys. It's not all about alternative energy sources. Look at numbers 3 & 4. Energy efficiency is a money maker and a wise choice for everyone... even the energy producers who can increase their margins and avoid costly new generation plants. Consumers gain, too by paying less for their energy needs.

[jaguar717]

Yes, energy efficiency is a wise CHOICE when it's a choice.

Of course, using government force to jack prices up so high that money-losing propositions become the only option is obviously not a money saver, nor it is it anything resembling "choice".

But I suppose the days of *earning* your business by presenting people with a better option are over. Now we just have members of The Party pick the winners and losers and make our decisions for us.

[Random_Walk]

Err, what's so radical about a growing renewable energy sector?

FFS...

[richard993]

Green energy can be cheaper than coal energy. Demand will drive down costs and increase competition between manufacturers (most likely overseas). Local competition will increase between installers who currently have a monopoly and are charging rates between $80 - $120/hr per labourer when the actual cost per labourer is under $20/hr.

The payback period for PV panels is around 9 years using current technology and labour costs (including maintenance), a little less when you take some rebates into consideration (depending on which whats available in your country). If you take inflation pressures and increasing costs of energy into consideration, the payback period will be a lot less, depending on what climate change policies are introduced.

Obviously the up front costs are a problem, but once you overcome these issues, assuming that the manufacturer offers at least a 20 year warranty (which some already do and most PV sells last almost 30 years), then it really becomes a no brainer. If your payback period is 9 years and you are covered by a 20 year warranty, then you got another 11 years of free electricity (in the worst case scenario because remember, we are not taking climate change policies and inflation into consideration).

I don't have a panel myself, but have seriously considered until an apartment was built next door which means that our roof gets no more sunlight! The problem for most people is not just the upfront cost, but the fact that they don't know what will happen in a few years time, if they will even be living in the same house. Because labour costs are so high, moving the panels is not usually a worthwhile procedure.

In the end, it is an unavoidable outcome. Prices will come down, and taxes will go up for carbon emitters. Solar panels are the future (for those people that get sunlight). In a couple years, we will all be embrasing it and breathing nice clean air... or we will all turn into fish and be able to breath under water.

[C_G_K]

@Random_Walk

"Err, what's so radical about a growing renewable energy sector?"

I would say ramming it down everyone's throats before the technology is mature and cost effective (compared to the alternatives) based on scare tactics and junk science is very radical. C'mon, there are a lot of software people at this site. Do we really believe that output from a computer model is a reliable indicator of future climate? Gimme a break. We all know that a few hacks and cludges can get software to produce anything we want.

Energy efficiency is fine when it makes financial sense (when you save more energy than you put in to generate the efficiency), that is a completely different issue than what I am complaining about.

[Random_Walk]

"I would say ramming it down everyone's throats before the technology is mature and cost effective (compared to the alternatives) based on scare tactics and junk science is very radical"

"scare tactics"? Maybe you're not old enough to drive, but $5/gal. gasoline should have been enough to give you a good hard peek at what we're facing if we didn't begin to forge ahead. That's not a scare tactic, it's recent history.

"junk science"? Photovoltaic tech has been around for nearly 45 years. Wind energy has been in continuous use since the dawn of civilization, and in electrical use for at least the last 30 years. Hydroelectric power ranks among the very first means of generating commercial electricity, reaching back to Westinghouse's very first generators in the early 1900s. Hydrogen is a well-known source of fuel. Biodiesel is in its infancy, but it provably works.

Oh, you mean all the hype over Global Warming and etc? I honestly don't give a damn if the climate is changing or not - it makes perfect economic and strategic sense to make ones own energy sources - unless you actually like being at the mercy of folks like OPEC, and feeding money to governments who are at best barely tolerate the existence of US and EU cultures.

If we continue on our current path, eventually the fossil fuels will not be around in any commercially-usable quantity. Efficiency can only postpone the inevitable. It is a lot easier to work on solutions now, when we have the luxuries of time and energy, than to scramble at finding something once supplies run low, and countries begin contemplating war/conquest to satisfy their energy needs. While this circumstance is likely to not happen for 50-100 years, why not work on avoiding it now?

[gggg sssss]

@ C_G_K and those jobs will be in China and India where they laugh at our self delusion. All the way to HSBC

[AppleSuxLeo]

Don`t you need to be a foul-mouthed , racist to qualify for them ?

[gggg sssss]

I woudl guess that these same cities are already those where ALL job creation happens. What big city is missing? Pittsburg? But unless Big O turns the screws on chinese imports and repudiates carbon taxes, carbon credits, Kyoto, and Al Gore, the big job boom will be in China. And the US will be importing solar cells and windmills from korea. Th etime to act is now.