Nuclear Talent: Driving The Future's Most Certain Energy Source
"Nuclear breaks out as America's new 'green' darling"
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Long considered a pariah by environmental activists, nuclear energy is making a comeback as the new darling of the US "green" rush, as Americans cozy up to the idea of carbon-free power.
The nuclear drive underway caps nearly three decades of a freeze on reactor construction following the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island (TMI) plant, which sparked panic over the risk of radiation, spills and contamination and inspired a generation of anti-nuclear activists.
In the scramble to grab billions of dollars in government perks, 19 companies have applied for regulatory approval of their proposals for new nuclear reactor sites since 2007, and more are expected to follow.
No new nuclear reactors have been built in the United States since the 1970s, though 104 nuclear reactors continue to operate, providing about 19-20 percent of the country's electricity.
The growing desire for power that does not pollute the atmosphere, as well as the rising costs of energy, have tempered America's adverse reaction, said Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Scott Peterson.
"We see generations coming up that don't have the scars of nuclear power, whether it is TMI or Chernobyl," said Peterson.
Focus groups have shown that "for people 30 and under, 'TMI' means 'too much information,'" Peterson said, not a reminder of a nuclear disaster.
A Pew Research poll released in March showed 44 percent of Americans favor promoting increased use of nuclear power, up five percentage points from 2005. The same survey noted a five point drop among those opposed -- 48 percent compared to 53 percent three years ago.
"Any time we see gasoline prices rise, you see an uptick in support for nuclear power," said Peterson, citing fuel costs among the "pocketbook issues" like home heating fuel prices and major blackouts that influence public opinion.
He also pointed to a major advertising and lobby effort to brand "nuclear energy as clean air energy" that began in the late 1990s, around the time that the Kyoto Protocol was agreed.
The drive then kicked into high gear in 2005 with the passage of the Energy Policy Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush, who has hailed nuclear power as "limitless."
The government's offer of 18.5 billion dollars in loan backing and four billion dollars in tax breaks make the prospect of reactor-building more lucrative, though experts warn of the multi-billion-dollar price tag.
"It is exciting to think that for the first time in 30 years we stand to launch a nuclear revival," said Mike Wallace, chair of Unistar LLC, a joint venture of Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and the French electricity company EDF.
Unistar hopes to build a US EPR -- industry lingo for an evolutionary power reactor designed by the French company Areva -- at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland by 2015.
Things in the industry have changed after the long lull, however.
"Back then we had an enormous skilled workforce but ... that craftforce has declined in size and the most critical skill sets are going to be in shorter supply," Wallace said.
Other causes for concern were highlighted this month in a report by the Congressional Budget Office, including: "recent volatility in natural gas prices and construction costs, nuclear power's history of construction cost overruns, and uncertainty about future policy on carbon dioxide emissions."
Estimates of the costs to build a single reactor range from six to 12 billion dollars.
Author and nuclear engineer James Mahaffey said that a nuclear renaissance is "inevitable" because "the world is becoming more industrialized, not less," but said Americans may not be ready for the sticker shock.
"Lately the cheap power is turning out to have secondary effects. The pollution aspects of coal are beginning to have an impact and we are looking back at nuclear power," Mahaffey said.
"Nuclear power in the foreseeable future is going to be a more expensive option," he said.
Anti-nuclear activists point to lingering concerns about disposal -- there are no approved nuclear waste dumps in the United States so the plants store their waste on site -- as well as a shortage of skilled personnel and infrastructure.
"At this point the belief that there is a nuclear renaissance underway is premature," said Michael Mariotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Research Service.
"From our perspective it is pure folly to consider new reactors when we don't know what we are going to do with the waste from the current reactors."
Original Link: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7T1eYiINfHi24IlQNQGxN9lUX7g
The nuclear drive underway caps nearly three decades of a freeze on reactor construction following the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island (TMI) plant, which sparked panic over the risk of radiation, spills and contamination and inspired a generation of anti-nuclear activists.
In the scramble to grab billions of dollars in government perks, 19 companies have applied for regulatory approval of their proposals for new nuclear reactor sites since 2007, and more are expected to follow.
No new nuclear reactors have been built in the United States since the 1970s, though 104 nuclear reactors continue to operate, providing about 19-20 percent of the country's electricity.
The growing desire for power that does not pollute the atmosphere, as well as the rising costs of energy, have tempered America's adverse reaction, said Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Scott Peterson.
"We see generations coming up that don't have the scars of nuclear power, whether it is TMI or Chernobyl," said Peterson.
Focus groups have shown that "for people 30 and under, 'TMI' means 'too much information,'" Peterson said, not a reminder of a nuclear disaster.
A Pew Research poll released in March showed 44 percent of Americans favor promoting increased use of nuclear power, up five percentage points from 2005. The same survey noted a five point drop among those opposed -- 48 percent compared to 53 percent three years ago.
"Any time we see gasoline prices rise, you see an uptick in support for nuclear power," said Peterson, citing fuel costs among the "pocketbook issues" like home heating fuel prices and major blackouts that influence public opinion.
He also pointed to a major advertising and lobby effort to brand "nuclear energy as clean air energy" that began in the late 1990s, around the time that the Kyoto Protocol was agreed.
The drive then kicked into high gear in 2005 with the passage of the Energy Policy Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush, who has hailed nuclear power as "limitless."
The government's offer of 18.5 billion dollars in loan backing and four billion dollars in tax breaks make the prospect of reactor-building more lucrative, though experts warn of the multi-billion-dollar price tag.
"It is exciting to think that for the first time in 30 years we stand to launch a nuclear revival," said Mike Wallace, chair of Unistar LLC, a joint venture of Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and the French electricity company EDF.
Unistar hopes to build a US EPR -- industry lingo for an evolutionary power reactor designed by the French company Areva -- at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland by 2015.
Things in the industry have changed after the long lull, however.
"Back then we had an enormous skilled workforce but ... that craftforce has declined in size and the most critical skill sets are going to be in shorter supply," Wallace said.
Other causes for concern were highlighted this month in a report by the Congressional Budget Office, including: "recent volatility in natural gas prices and construction costs, nuclear power's history of construction cost overruns, and uncertainty about future policy on carbon dioxide emissions."
Estimates of the costs to build a single reactor range from six to 12 billion dollars.
Author and nuclear engineer James Mahaffey said that a nuclear renaissance is "inevitable" because "the world is becoming more industrialized, not less," but said Americans may not be ready for the sticker shock.
"Lately the cheap power is turning out to have secondary effects. The pollution aspects of coal are beginning to have an impact and we are looking back at nuclear power," Mahaffey said.
"Nuclear power in the foreseeable future is going to be a more expensive option," he said.
Anti-nuclear activists point to lingering concerns about disposal -- there are no approved nuclear waste dumps in the United States so the plants store their waste on site -- as well as a shortage of skilled personnel and infrastructure.
"At this point the belief that there is a nuclear renaissance underway is premature," said Michael Mariotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Research Service.
"From our perspective it is pure folly to consider new reactors when we don't know what we are going to do with the waste from the current reactors."
Original Link: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7T1eYiINfHi24IlQNQGxN9lUX7g
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Erin Demshar on -
Thanks for starting this forum Joshua--I've been looking for something like this!
What exactly do you think they mean by:
"Back then we had an enormous skilled workforce but ... that craftforce has declined in size and the most critical skill sets are going to be in shorter supply," Wallace said.
Wouldn't this be a great way to tie in to the Technical College and Engineering programs throughout the secondary schooling system? Schools are always looking to partner with companies and industries willing to provide steady streams of job openings to their graduating students....if the U.S. did a good job at promoting a growth in the nuclear industry, then I think the growth in the talent pool would soon follow!
Also....there really seems to be a boost in funding and promotion for wind power these days. How do you think nuclear power will fair against the very, very "clean" wind power (and presumably much cheaper)??
-
Permalink Reply by Damon Bryson on -
The new college graduates will go where the money is. As soon as nuclear plant construction breaks ground, there will be plenty of new grads lining up. As you said, the tech schools will be more than happy to develop new pipelines of students wanting good jobs.
Nuclear is likely to fare very well against wind power. Wind power can only be built in certain places, and takes large amounts of land area. The energy is only generated at the whims of weather, so it cannot be relied upon. Nuclear plants will remain the backbone of the energy grid - they run at full power over 90% of the time. Wind is something below 30%, even in the best locations. Those locations are being used up, and that number will go down. Wind also requires long-distance transmission of the electricity, higher maintenance costs, and impacts on scenic views and unlucky birds. Of course, it's also much higher cost than nuclear.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Smith on
-
Some Technical College programs exist and others have recently been created. These are positive developments to re-establish the education system that suffered during the contraction of the industry in the 1980's and 1990's. The NRC recently awarded money to multiple programs: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/grants/awards.html. Some dated information is available about the DOE University programs at http://www.ne.doe.gov/universityPrograms/neUniversity2a.html. THe NRC grants include a "Trade School and Community College Grant Program Awards."
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Joshua Letourneau on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
