DoE Examines Automotive Employment By “Fuel” Type

8 months ago by Steven Loveday 13

Automotive Employment based on “fuel” type

Remember when the Alliance of Automobile manufacturers argued that the Environmental Protection Agency’s stringent emissions regulations would directly lead to a loss of U.S. jobs?

Well, according the the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the opposite case is true … as we already figured.

Being that President Trump and his administration are all about U.S. job creation, this is welcome news for the segment.

Today, electric vehicles comprise less than one percent of the global automotive market share. However, according to the DOE, a whopping 11 percent of all automotive-related jobs in the U.S. are focused on alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles. This research applies to jobs supporting the vehicles themselves, as well as jobs related to component parts.

So, for practical purposes, one could say that alternative “fuel” vehicles are creating jobs at an alarming rate. Traditional ICE automakers would not take to kindly to this new information.

During the first quarter of 2016, about 2.3 million nationwide jobs credit the auto industry as their primary source of responsibility. Of these jobs, 82 percent were directly related to ICE vehicles, and 7 percent were earmarked as “other.” The remaining 11 percent were comprised of a combination of hybrid, electric, alternative fuel, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

As anticipated, jobs related to EVs and plug-ins exceed that of hydrogen vehicles by more than double. This may not have been as true a few years back, but the trend shows that hydrogen vehicles did not catch on as some had expected. As you can see from the graphic, there are comparatively almost no current jobs related to hydrogen vehicle component parts. Traditional hybrids are still ahead of EVs in terms of current jobs, but recent automaker offerings show that this is in the process of transitioning.

Source: Green Car Congress

Tags: , , , ,

13 responses to "DoE Examines Automotive Employment By “Fuel” Type"

  1. Vexar says:

    The problem is, this “future tech” job market requires education. No labor union wants to support that kind of added responsibility for the work force they represent. Software engineers aren’t in labor unions. Battery chemists aren’t in labor unions. Manufacturing moves to automation, increasingly. Heck, Daimler knows they can eliminate 30,000 jobs because it takes far fewer laborers to build an electric car. It does take more engineers, however. Herein lies the conflict.

    1. John in AA says:

      Then again, the current United States government is not exactly in Labor’s corner.

      1. paul smith says:

        How long before Trump outlaws the release of employment figures.

  2. silversod says:

    In the light of the UK Government bringing in a (Toxic Tax) for diesel engined vehicles shortly, I wonder what the ’employment by fuel type’ would be here! especially diesel vehicles which there are many models on the roads here.

    They want to charge diesel vehicles up to £20/$25 a day to travel into towns & cities in an effort to cut CO2 emissions.

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/if-you-drive-a-diesel-car-you-could-soon-have-to-pay-up-to-%C2%A320-a-day/ar-BBzbbDU?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

    1. Karsten Nyblad says:

      Are you sure it is to cut CO2 emissions? Diesel engines use less fuel than petrol engines. Forcing diesel engines out of the towns would lower particle and NOx emissions.

      1. Ocean Railroader says:

        Diesel engines have a very bad after smell to them.

        Getting rid of Diesel Engines and gas Engines would at least would cut down on the horrible smell that radiates from highways making life good.

        1. TM says:

          My sentiments exactly!!

  3. Greg says:

    The Trump administration does not really care about how many jobs clean tech creates. They are a dinosaur administration and look at clean tech, of any type, as part of a liberal agenda. I doubt they will ever truly support clean anything or green anything no matter how many jobs it creates.

  4. Sublime says:

    Why is “creating jobs” a good thing, but “creating work” is a bad thing?

    1. Ocean Railroader says:

      What I notice about this website is the Techies talk a great deal about how it’s good that all the truck drivers and taxi cab drivers will get replaced with self driving cars and that is good.

      In reality that will funnel more money to the Haves and instead grow the growing population of Have Nots.

      1. Vexar says:

        Cue the Orwellian dystopias!

      2. EndResult says:

        What this review does not talk about is that as the number of EV cars increases the ICE jobs will decrease. We know that it takes few parts to build an electric drive train, and then once out on the road it takes far few resources to repair/maintain. The net will be a decrease in the labor force – but it is better to spin the temporary up-tick.

        The issue is that most EV advocates do not care about this – the impact will not hit/hurt them. If advocates really wanted to improve society they would be just as excited about assuring people are not displaced as they are about the technology advancing.

    2. paul smith says:

      Jobs feed you, work makes you hungry.