Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read Time: 8 minutes]

Nuclear energy’s advantage in job creation continues to be its most attractive asset.  The new generation of nuclear professionals that is now entering the revitalized nuclear industry is the direct beneficiary of this fact, and organizations like the North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) showcase its success.

According to the Department of Energy, nuclear power creates 500 jobs per 1,000 MW of electricity generating capacity versus 220 jobs for coal power, 90 for wind energy, and 60 for natural gas generation.

Nuclear Energy Institute’s Marvin Fertel discusses in this in-depth op-ed that nuclear energy is the clean energy job engine that our country desperately needs.  In this op-ed, Fertel details the coming energy challenges that our country faces and offers nuclear energy’s proven benefits as part of the solution.

No clean energy industry has invested more in American workers than the nuclear energy industry.  From AREVA Inc and Northrop Grumman’s $360 million heavy components manufacturing facility in Newport News, VA, to Westinghouse’s Chattanooga, TN training facilities, nuclear power continues to offer promising opportunities for Americans to get to work.

Fertel does a great job with this op-ed detailing nuclear energy’s advantage in job creation.  Did I mention that it’s clean energy, too?

Nuclear Plants Boost Economy, Protect the Environment

A balanced portfolio is needed to meet 20 percent increase in electricity use by 2030

The energy industry is preparing to meet electricity needs in fast-growing population areas today and help spur economic expansion as America pulls out of the recession.  Even with conservation and efficiency efforts, a balanced portfolio of electricity production options is needed to meet an expected 20 percent increase in electricity use by 2030, including vital contributions from nuclear energy.

New electricity production sources will vary by region, and there will be a premium on sources that do not emit greenhouse gases. Altogether, the electric utility industry must invest some $2 trillion in electricity infrastructure by 2030—the largest expansion ever of the U.S. power grid.  This infrastructure development also is essential to meet the expected market penetration of plug-in hybrid vehicles, which will enhance our energy security by reducing our dependence on imported oil.

Energy could be one of the most significant economic drivers for the next two decades. The benefits of such an expansion are staggering when one considers the labor force and supply chain needed for construction and operation of power plants, transmission grids and environmental compliance technology on fossil-fueled power plants.

Most significant low-carbon electricity source

Broad independent studies looking at future energy and climate scenarios clearly point to nuclear energy as an important component of our energy portfolio. Nuclear energy is by far the most significant low-carbon electricity source in America today, with 104 reactors producing one-fifth of all electricity production and 70 percent of all carbon-free electricity. They’re also economic drivers in the communities in which they operate.  A typical nuclear power plant produces $430 million of economic impact to the surrounding communities each year, and the construction of a series of new advanced reactor designs will extend the industry’s economic impact.

The industry is seeking federal permits for the construction of 22 reactors—a small part of the potential $400 billion global market in nuclear energy equipment and services over the next 15 years. 

For the first three new reactor projects in the United States, more than $2 billion in equipment and services already has been procured from manufacturers in 17 states. Another $2.5 billion in export orders for equipment is creating jobs in 25 states as American companies begin to reinvest in the nuclear energy supply chain.

Though today’s economy is slowing the pace of expansion of the electricity sector, our long-term fundamentals have not changed.  We are putting into service nuclear energy assets that will deliver low-carbon electricity safely for 60 to 80 years.

Nuclear industry employs more than 57,000 people

The industry employs more than 57,000 people at the 104 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states, but the nuclear energy work force is multiplied significantly by jobs in areas such as uranium fuel development, the industry supply chain, and skilled craft jobs at new reactors such as the Vogtle project in Georgia and the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina.

These new facilities in Georgia and South Carolina are among the four to eight advanced reactors that the industry expects will be producing electricity by 2016-18. Construction activities already have begun at those facilities and project-labor agreements are in place for three projects.

In preparation for this growth, the nuclear industry over the past three years has created more than 15,000 careers and invested more than $4 billion in new facility development. Plans call for the investment of another $8 billion to facilitate the supply of materials needed for large-scale construction beginning in 2011-2012.

New manufacturing jobs in nuclear energy sector

In the manufacturing sector, there is tangible evidence of expansion in the nuclear energy sector:

-    Alstom recently opened a $300 million turbine manufacturing facility in Tennessee to supply turbines for use in North American power plants.

-    Shaw Modular Solutions built a 410,000-square-foot nuclear modernization facility in Louisiana to assemble structural, piping, equipment and other modules for new nuclear plants that will employ 700 to 1,400 assembly line and skilled technical workers at full capacity.

-    AREVA and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding broke ground last summer on a $360 million manufacturing and engineering facility in Newport News, Va., that will manufacture heavy components such as reactor vessels, steam generators and pressurizers.

All told, these and other companies have already hired more than 9,000 employees.

Economic activity associated with nuclear power plants is considerable. In fact, new nuclear power projects create twice the number of jobs of a comparably sized coal power plant, five times more jobs than wind power projects, and nearly nine times the number of jobs of a natural gas-fueled power plant.  Nuclear power plants also act as an economic multiplier, as each plant employs an average of approximately 500 employees from the local community and generates an additional 500 jobs in the local area.

For example, the expansion of the Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta, Ga., is a $14 billion investment that will create up to 3,500 jobs during construction and 800 permanent jobs. In addition, more than 1,000 Georgia companies provided $908 million in materials, goods and services to the nuclear energy industry in 2008, the last year for which figures were available.

Strong support from organized labor

Organized labor has been a strong supporter of new nuclear plants, recognizing the significant economic potential for its skilled work force and the environmental benefits of keeping existing reactors operating and building new nuclear plants.

Mark Ayers, president of the AFL-CIO Building & Construction Trades Department, has proposed establishing multi-craft training centers near or at nuclear plant sites as well as developing specialized training partnerships with industry vendors and suppliers to certify all workers and developing programs to train local workers for careers in the nuclear industry.

Edwin Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), recently called nuclear power “essential” to our electricity production portfolio, adding that there is no way to meet the nation’s energy needs without it. The IBEW has developed a code of excellence for its members and has developed training programs to prepare workers for a new generation of reactors.

Our country faces an extraordinary challenge to expand our electricity system over the next two decades. Some have argued that building new nuclear plants at the pace required is impossible.  However, our industry built more than 100 reactors in the 1970s and ‘80s; France built 38 reactors in a decade.

Advanced reactor designs are higher capital cost projects, but the actual cost of electricity from these facilities will be competitive in the marketplace. Today’s reactors have among the lowest electricity production costs in the sector. Based on estimates for new reactor development, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that electricity production costs will be competitive, and in fact, cheaper than most alternatives in 2016.

Affordable electricity for 60 years or more

With low uranium fuel costs and capacity factors (a measure of reliability) that average 90 percent across our industry, nuclear plants compensate for the up-front construction costs by affordably producing electricity for 60 years or more.

Financing new nuclear plants is one of the industry’s biggest challenges, but it is being met with support from state and federal energy policy. Federal loan guarantees can help project sponsors access lower-cost financing for nuclear and other clean-energy power projects, which ultimately lowers the cost of a new nuclear power plant and delivers lower-cost electricity to the consumer.

Loan guarantees are a mechanism that extends the federal government’s credit rating to companies that allows them to finance projects that are in the national interest. The loan guarantee program is a disciplined process that operates under strict controls and sets a high bar for companies seeking credit support. The industry will pay fees associated with these loan guarantees, so there is no liability on taxpayers when the projects come on line.

State governments also offer incentives to encourage construction of nuclear power plants. For example, Georgia enacted a law that enables Georgia Power, now building new reactors at Vogtle, to recover construction costs as it builds the plants. By doing so, the company expects to save $1.5 billion on the final cost of the reactors—savings that will be reflected in consumer rates for electricity from the facility.

Meeting America’s greenhouse gas reduction targets

Analyses of climate change policy by independent organizations conclude that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will require a portfolio of technologies, that nuclear energy must be part of the portfolio, and that a major expansion of nuclear energy over the next 50 years is essential.

A 2009 National Academy of Sciences study showed that 77 nuclear power plants must be built by 2035 and operating with the high efficiency of current reactors to effectively meet America’s greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Wind and solar energy will play an important role in our low-carbon energy portfolio, but they account for less than 2 percent of total U.S. electricity supply today. The prospect for renewable energy development differs widely by region, and until there is storage capacity for the electricity produced at these facilities, they operate only 30 percent of the time. Therefore, fossil fuel sources, primarily natural gas, are required as a back-up source of power to the grid where renewables are used.

The coming decades will witness the most significant challenges the nation has ever faced in meeting the twin imperatives of meeting rising electricity demand and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. No single technology can accomplish these tasks alone and they certainly cannot be accomplished overnight. Low-carbon sources like nuclear energy, hydro, solar and wind all must contribute.

Supporting the development of new efficient and environmentally friendly technology such as nuclear energy will create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs while improving our environment for generations to come.

Marvin S. Fertel is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. He has 35 years of experience consulting for electric utilities on issues related to designing, siting, licensing and managing both fossil and nuclear plants.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Duke Energy announced Friday that they may delay their plans to construct a Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power reactor near Gaffney, South Carolina by 3 years.  The proposed Lee Nuclear Station would then be delayed to a 2021 start-up instead of the previously planned 2018 date.  See the Charlotte Business Journal article below for more information.

I’m not posting this article because I think that the three-year delay is a dagger to the heart of the “nuclear renaissance.”  The reason I posted this article was because of my personal experience at a Kangaroo gas station near Gaffney, SC last Friday.  I was on my way out of town for the Labor Day weekend and stopped at the station to fill up for the ride.

Two women–one a Manager, the other a sales clerk, were discussing the news from Duke Energy that had come out that morning.  They were honestly upset that Duke was considering delaying the construction for 3 years.  I overheard the Manager say a couple of times that it was a “shame” that Duke is going to delay the construction, and that she “really was looking forward to getting all of that business.”

These women want more nuclear power in their area, and their conversation just goes to show how much the average person understands about the economic benefits that nuclear power can provide to a community.  It’s not just the large energy corporations that benefit from new nuclear plants.  It’s the local small-business owners that also look forward to the residual economic successes that nuclear power can promise to bring.

Nuclear revival may not arrive on schedule

Charlotte Business Journal

September 4, 2009

By John Downey

As Duke Energy considers as much as a three-year delay in building the proposed Lee Nuclear Station, there are signs that the approval process for AP1000 — the reactor chosen for Lee and most new plants planned in the Southeast — may fall off schedule. At issue is certification of the reactor design for Plant Vogtle, the dual-reactor plant being built in Georgia by the Southern Co. The power industry hopes to cut licensing and construction times — and thus save money — by building plants on a few standardized reactor models. The idea is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can certify one standard reactor model for a plant and then subsequent plants using the same model will not need to get new certifications.

Westinghouse blamed

Vogtle is the lead plant for the wave that will be built on the AP1000. So a delay, if significant, could affect plants planned in Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina. An NRC spokesman tells the Augusta Chronicle it is too early to tell whether the current delay in approving some safety features will result in an overall delay in certification. But it is clear that the commission cannot now get its review of certain safety features accomplished by November as planned. The NRC blames Westinghouse Electric Co., designer of the AP1000, for the delay. In a letter last week to Westinghouse, the NRC’s New Reactor Licensing division complains the company has been slow to submit “necessary design information” on engineered safety features. And it says the information, when submitted, “failed to resolve the long-standing fundamental questions.”

Missed deadline

The schedule for the review had already been delayed once. But in June, the NRC says, Westinghouse missed a new deadline. And more delays followed, according to the letter: The staff received the subject submittal at the end of July 2009…. The submitted information failed to resolve the long-standing fundamental questions related to the design basis debris source term, the limiting system flows, in-vessel testing, the magnitude of debris bypassing the sump screens, and the choice of the limiting accident scenario. The staff had planned to meet with Westinghouse on August 25, 2009; however, that meeting has been delayed at your request until the week of August 31, 2009. Given the fundamental nature of the questions raised by the recent submittal and the delay in meeting with the NRC on resolving these issues, the staff is no longer able to support an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards briefing … in November.

Charlotte’s stake

The delay may be nothing more than a hiccup. But business leaders and economic developers in Charlotte may want to keep an eye on Duke’s plans and the progress of the AP1000. Economic developers have concentrated on attracting nuclear energy related companies to the region over the past couple of years. Those efforts have been successful. Westinghouse, the Shaw Power Group and Toshiba — partners in the AP1000 — all have growing presences here. The French company Areva SA also has important operation in the region. The growth in nuclear energy business here is related to the broader plan to turn Charlotte into a national energy hub.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Apparently, Westinghouse read my last post on skilled labor job opportunities in the Nuclear field.  Coincidentally or not, they just announced a need for 100 new skilled labor positions at their new $21Million Chattanooga facility.  Read here:

Fission for new jobs

By Mike Pare

Westinghouse Electric could add another 100 employees at its new $21 million Chattanooga facility depending on business, an official for the company’s nuclear services division said Thursday.

Westinghouse unveiled its boiling water reactor training center and welding institute at Centre South Riverport. The 65,000-square-foot facility is aimed at training employees and customers on the safe maintenance and refueling of the reactors in nuclear power plants.

Nick Liparulo, Westinghouse’s senior vice president of nuclear services, said the company is up to about 130 people in the city and could add another 100 workers within a year or so if business opportunities come through.

When Westinghouse first announced its Chattanooga expansion in March 2008, it had about 75 workers.

Mr. Liparulo said the company, a division of Toshiba Group, already has orders for 10 new nuclear power units. Six are in the United States and four in China, he said.

Mr. Liparulo cited the city’s available work force as a reason why Chattanooga was picked by the company for the expansion.

Hamilton County Mayor Claude Ramsey called the facility “a big win.”

Mr. Ramsey said potential workers need to be trainable.

“If you’re not educated, you’re going to miss the boat,” he said.

According to Westinghouse, its service technicians can earn $60,000 a year or more.

David Howell, Westinghouse’s vice president of field services, said company officials believe nuclear power is necessary for the energy strategy for the United States and world.

“Safe, clean, reliable nuclear power is essential for the future and we are going to be a part of it,” he said.

The welding institute has the capacity to certify 288 students a year to work in nuclear and non-nuclear plants.

The company has had a facility off Riverfront Parkway near the Alstom plant. It bought the former Metals USA building at the riverport and undertook a large-scale upgrade and addition.

The building is equipped with a full-scale, 85-foot-deep reactor and pool mockup serviced by a refueling bridge and overhead cranes. Westinghouse officials noted that digging such a deep hole into the ground next to the Tennessee River “was not an easy task.”

( By Mark Stewart ) [Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Florida state authorities, including the Governor, approved an important element of Progress Energy’s proposal to build two new nuclear power plants (NPP) in Levy County, FL.  You can read the Jacksonville Observer’s account here.  Florida officials approved the plants despite some protesters using some of the same, tired, and inaccurate arguments against the world’s only reliable carbon-free baseload electricity generation method. FL Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda was sure to make her voice heard with the following:

“I’m concerned about the cost with regard to this nuclear power plant, I’m concerned about the time that it’s going to take to build this nuclear power plant, I’m concerned about the number of jobs, I’m concerned about the danger and I’m concerned about the legacy that we leave our children and our children’s children.”

As detailed in a previous post, NPP are a GREAT investment, if you are able to think long-term.  NPP do take time to build but they are the only technology available NOW that can provide the CO₂ free power on a large scale that the US (and the rest of the world) needs.  I’m not sure what Rep. Vasilinda means when she says she is concerned about jobs but the lasting positive economic impact a NPP has on the surrounding community has been well documented.  Finally, just for good measure, Rep. Vasilinda throws in a vague boogeyman statement about “danger” that our children and our children’s children will face.  As proven year after year by OSHA statistics, the nuclear industry is one of the safest major industries in the U.S.

Not to be outdone, Lake Worth City Commissioner Cara Jennings offered the following:

“Scientific research has clearly shown that the entire nuclear process - from minor to transportation, process, use and long-term storage - has negative consequences on public health,” Jennings said. “Even when running ‘safely,’ nuclear power plants release radiation. Radiation is odor-less, tasteless, invisible and deadly even in low doses.”

Not to let facts get in the way of an argument, but you are exposed to 400 times more radiation while getting a full set of dental X-rays than if you lived outside a nuclear power plant for one year.  Commissioner Jennings also offered the following regarding Progress’s plan to replace existing coal plants with the new NPP

“Is this really the best we have to offer the people of our state?” she asked. “Go ahead Floridians, take your pick: lung cancer and air pollution from coal or cancer for your kids and a waste product so deadly we have nowhere to put it.”

All nuclear waste is currently stored safely at the facility where it is generated.  You can read more about the safety of spent nuclear fuel storage here.  While this isn’t a long term solution, it is safe and a long term solution does exist in the form of reprocessing technology being used NOW in France.

As NEI’s Richard Myers said this week “You clearly cannot have a credible program to control carbon emissions without expanded nuclear power.”

( By AQG ) [Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Florida Power & Light (FPL) has revealed its intentions of building two of Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactors at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant through the submittal of a combined construction and operating license applications with the NRC.  If approved, the units will join two other pressurized water reactors as well as two gas/oil units and a combined cycle natural gas turbine.  The sixth and seventh power units at the site could reach an operational state around the end of 2017 and 2019.  Here’s an excerpt from the World Nuclear News website:

“The application was made some three weeks ago but FPL and the NRC both decided not to tell anyone about the $12 billion project. Documents relating to the application can all now be found in the New Reactors section of the NRC public website.

Details in the documents reveal FPLs cost projections for the new build. Based on three cases with varying owner scope and transmission costs, the total estimated project cost including escalation and additional funds for the construction period varies from $12.1 billion to $17.8 billion.

FPL has asked the NRC for permission to conduct certain work towards construction before a COL is actually issued. The company wants to clear and excavate the site and lay foundations for the reactor and plant buildings.”