Skip to main content

Stimulus Bill Debate

stimulus bill debateAn interesting segment earlier today on NPR's Morning Edition: "What Kind Of Green Jobs Will Stimulus Spawn?" This exchange between the reporter, Christopher Joyce, and Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, caught my ear as I was running out the door.
Joyce: Another form of virtually carbon-free baseload electricity is nuclear power. While the stimulus package provides loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants, Harbert says nuclear needs more attention.

Harbert: A new nuclear plant generates about 1,500 very high-end jobs in a local community, for as long as the plant operates. It will be much higher, certainly, during construction. But that's a tremendous boon to a local economy.
The full audio can be heard here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
NEI's estimate of permanent job creation for new nuclear plants is 500 jobs per 1,000 megawatts of capacity.

How many 3,000 MW plants does she expect to be built? And why is her number reposted here without correction or comment?
Adam said…
The five reactor designs under consideration and their respective generation capacities (MWe) are:
AP1000-1150, ABWR-1350, ESBWR-1550, EPR-1650, APWR-1700. The average capacity of these five plants is about 1500 MWe.

A two unit site is the standard for nuclear power plants, although there are certainly many one unit sites. In my home state alone (Texas) I know of four prospective sites for new plants, all of which would host two units (Amarillo, Comanche Peak, South Texas, Victoria).

I don't think her estimate is unreasonable, especially given the context and uncertainty in the NEI figure.
Ken Howard said…
At about 6 Billion per Nuke, you could build...

141 (One Meg Plants) for 850 Billion Dollars.

That would create approx. 705,000 Jobs (200 Jobs per KW) or about 5,000 Jobs during “Peak Construction” per every One Megawatt Plant.

It takes anywhere from 6 - 10 Years to fully Construct and bring Online a Nuke Plant.

It would be highly unlikely you could strategically plan out or organize the start of construction of these new 141 Plants all at the same time...realistically, it will take many years of planning to build all 141...

Which means...our Country falls deeper into dependence of “Foreign Oil” interests every year of delay that we put off the inevitable, of building much needed Power Plants that reduce our dependence on “Foreign Oil”...Nukes DO NOT reduce our dependence on “Foreign Oil” because of that which I’ve already earlier stated above...as well as...

To produce a Nuclear Fuel Rod requires Twenty (20) Steps in order to make the rod “Hot” or ready to use for “Fuel”...Eighteen (18) of those (20) steps use or consume OIL & COAL in the MINING, PRODUCTION & “ENRICHEMENT” PROCESS to MAKE the “NUCLEAR” Fuel Rod that is supposed to be “CLEAN”.

Nuclear Power Plants Construction “COST” = $5,500 per KW

This breaks down to 21 cents per Kwh for Electricity from a Nuke Plant!

That’s 4 TIMES the cost per Kwh of Natural Gas Turbine and Coal Plants, which have a retail rate of around 5 cents per Kwh.

There is a MUCH BETTER WAY, that will make our Country “INDEPENDENT” from “FOREIGN OIL”...

You can see this “PLAN” in a Film I made at www.KenHoward.ws that will create 5,900 Jobs per KW vs. the 200 Jobs per KW the Nuke creates.

The Film, “Invest in America” located at www.KenHoward.ws will show you how America can build “This New Plan”

1. In Ten Years TOTAL
2. Will Generate 50 TIMES MORE POWER than we currently use!
3. The “Excess” Electricity will be converted to Hydrogen
4. This Hydrogen will Fuel our Fleet of Vehicles
5. Make the U.S. a “Net Exporter” of Energy
6. Create 30 MILLION Jobs
7. Decrease our National Debt & Trade Deficit
8. Restore American confidence
9. Increase wages and profit margins
10.Create an Econmic “Boom”

There is an EASY...REAL...Answer.

Watch my Film for free at www.KenHoward.ws

Cheers!

Ken Howard

“If you THINK you can...or...you THINK you can’t...you are exactly right” Henry Ford

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…