5 Nuclear Jobs Starting at $50,000 Without a 4-year Degree
Dec13

5 Nuclear Jobs Starting at $50,000 Without a 4-year Degree

“If I only knew then what I know now!” I was having a conversation with a friend who had spent years working full time while putting himself through college. His business degree had landed him a good job in the corporate support organization of  a large electric utility.  He was happy to have it and his smarts, maturity, and work ethic had served him well. Yet to some extent he lamented his choice of a four-year business degree because he saw friends in nuclear technical fields advancing faster and earning more money.  Rather than being graduates of four-year colleges or universities, many had started their careers with an associate degree, military training or a certificate in a skilled trade. In many cases this meant they began earning more at an earlier age and had little student loan debt.  If my colleague had been aware of these opportunities he may have chosen a different path. In the least he would  have made an informed decision. Even in the highly technical field of nuclear energy there are many jobs that do not require a 4-year degree for an entry-level position.  Most of these have starting wages of about $50,000 per year (more if you include overtime and bonuses). In each of these positions there is an established career progression. Pay increases as you complete company-provided training and achieve higher levels of qualification.  I have known many coworkers in these types of jobs who with just two or three years of experience routinely earn more than $100,000 per year with overtime and bonuses.  Even better, these positions are the entry points for supervisory and management positions meaning there is opportunity for long-term career growth. So what are these great jobs that don’t require a 4-year degree?  Here are some examples:   Radiation Protection Technician (also called health physics technician) Radiation protection technicians monitor radiation levels throughout the nuclear energy facility. They also maintain and calibrate radiation protection instruments and equipment. They play an important role in helping fellow employees work safely in areas where radiation levels are greater than natural background. Electrical Technician (also called nuclear electrician) Electrical technicians install, repair and maintain the highly complex electrical and electronic equipment in the nuclear plant. They work on power plant equipment like motors, circuit breakers, electrical cables, switchgear, generators, transformers, and batteries. Instrument & Controls Technician I&C technicians are the “industrial computer technicians” in nuclear energy facilities. They install, test, calibrate, troubleshoot, and repair nuclear plant instrumentation and control equipment and systems. Mechanical Maintenance Technician (also called nuclear mechanic) Mechanical maintenance technicians keep all the power plant and reactor mechanical systems and equipment running...

Read More
The Global Nuclear Renaissance Rolls On, Career Opportunities Continue
Dec11

The Global Nuclear Renaissance Rolls On, Career Opportunities Continue

Despite claims by anti-nuclear groups of the pending demise of nuclear energy production in the United States, the nuclear renaissance is alive and well. According to the non-partisan Energy Information Administration, nuclear energy production in the USA will continue to expand for the next 25 years. Electricity generation from nuclear power plants grows by 14 percent in the AEO2013 Reference case, from 790 billion kilowatt-hours in 2011 to 903 billion kilowatt-hours in 2040, accounting for about 17 percent of total generation in 2040 (compared with 19 percent in 2011). Nuclear generating capacity increases from 101 gigawatts in 2011 to a high of 114 gigawatts in 2025 through a combination of new construction (5.5 gigawatts), uprates at existing plants (8.0 gigawatts), and retirements (0.6 gigawatts). Coupled with retirements among the 120,000 people who work in the nuclear industry, this expansion means continued career opportunities building, operating and maintaining the nation’s fleet of commercial reactors.  And this is just the start.  In addition to the 100 commercial nuclear plants operating in United States, there are 335 in operation in other nations and 73 more under construction (including four in the USA). Recently announced shutdowns of four nuclear energy facilities in the USA has done little to dampen the demand for talent; the industry has more than enough demand for knowledgeable workers to absorb those displaced by plant closures. While some older nuclear plants will gradually go out of service over the next few decades they’ll be replaced with larger power plants that require larger staff sizes.  New technologies like small modular reactors may add even more jobs in advanced manufacturing and construction. What does all this mean for career opportunities? Every nuclear plant employs at about 600 to 1500 people depending on the power plant size, the technology used, and the number of reactors at the facility.  In the USA alone the combination of modest expansion and hiring to replace about 40% of the workforce over the next decade means nuclear energy companies will hire 30,000 to 50,000 new engineers, operators, and technicians.  The numbers are even larger in other countries where growth will create more than 70,000 career opportunities as new facilities come on line. More information about nuclear energy careers is available below: Explore Amazing Career Opportunities in Nuclear Energy 5 Nuclear Jobs Starting at $50,000 that don’t require a 4-year degree...

Read More
Only the US Government Would Call a Tax a Subsidy
Dec24

Only the US Government Would Call a Tax a Subsidy

Podcast Episode 115 – Download the mp3 file Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.  Play the Podcast My first reaction was “Wow! Did I just read that correctly?!” It was one of those “ah-ha moments” when a seemingly mundane statement leapt out of the page and whacked me on the forehead.  This time the catalyst was a twitter reply from Chris Pragman (@ChrisPragman) who describes himself as an “Avid Podcast listener, Engineer, Nuclear Power, Fire Protection, and beer geek with a long commute!” You see, I had posted a tweet earlier in the day about the cost to taxpayers of some “green energy” jobs.  There’s a new wind farm in Oregon called Shepherds Flat that received federal cash grants totaling $490 million under the guise of job creation.  For that grand sum the Shepherds Flat project will create 35 new jobs.  The math is easy; $14 million per “green energy” job. Our tax dollars at work! This tidbit about Shepherds Flat was part of a larger report by the Energy Tribune that among other things compared the relative size of US government subsidies to various energy industries.  The report by Robert Bryce calculated subsidy dollars per unit energy produced and concluded the renewable energy industry receives 6.5 times more federal government subsidies than the nuclear industry, and 12 times more than the oil and gas industry.  That fact really didn’t surprise me considering the billions of dollars in grants, production tax credits, and favorable depreciation rules the government lavishes upon anything branded with the “renewable” label.  Then Chris asked a great question, “What do they consider nuclear subsidies?” When I dug into that question I learned the Congressional Budget Office is tasked with tracking the amount the government spends subsidizing various industries, and they publish their findings periodically.  There it was on page 3: $900 million in “subsidies” for the “favorable tax treatment of nuclear decommissioning funds.”  Hmmm. What could that be? You see, every nuclear plant owner is required by federal law to set aside funds to ensure there’ll be enough money to pay for decommissioning the plant when the time comes.  Typically plant operators add to the fund each year and over time the fund grows until it’s used. The NRC monitors each fund and will require plant owners to make additional payments if they think they’re behind.  These funds are essentially forced savings accounts that add to each nuclear plants annual operating expenses. So what’s the “favorable tax treatment?”  It turns out Title 26...

Read More
Irrational Pro-Renewable Policies, Nuclear Energy Tax Hikes Harm Spain’s Economic Recovery
Dec19

Irrational Pro-Renewable Policies, Nuclear Energy Tax Hikes Harm Spain’s Economic Recovery

Spain’s electrical supply industry is caught in a decade long death spiral of failed energy policy, over-reliance on imported fuels, and massive debt. Their new taxes on nuclear energy, an attempt to reduce utility debt, are likely to worsen their economy. Spain imports fuel for about 51 % of their electricity production in the form of coal and natural gas. Payments for these imported commodities contribute to a debilitating trade imbalance. Nuclear energy makes up the lion’s share (47%) of Spain’s domestic energy production. Their eight nuclear energy facilities add tens of thousands of jobs and billions of euros per year to the national economy while reducing the need for imported coal or gas.  At the same time Spain’s nuclear plants provide reliable, predictable energy without greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of renewable energy generated in Spain has increased considerably over the last several years.  In fact, in 2012 wind energy production exceeded nuclear energy production for brief periods when demand was low, some nuclear plants were out of service, and wind conditions were nearly optimal.  Unfortunately, Spain’s methods of encouraging investment in renewables have contributed to their current financial crises. The Spanish electricity industry is carrying $32 billion of debt, putting serious strain on an already faltering economy. Spain began deregulating their electricity supply system in the late 1990’s.  Their approach was eerily similar to the failed California experiment; they removed price controls to allow power generators to compete among themselves, but they limited rates paid by customers. As wholesale energy prices rose utilities were unable to recover the higher costs through higher rates to customers.  The result was predictable: electric utilities began loosing money on a grand scale.  Since 2005 annual “energy deficits” have been in the billions of euros per year.  With slight-of-hand economics, the Spanish government allowed utilities to “bank” their annual deficits against future earnings.  Unfortunately those future earnings never materialized and deficits ballooned. A the same time Spain (like California) began a heavily subsidized renewable energy program that included “feed-in tariffs” which guaranteed wind and solar generators above market prices for all of the energy they could produce.  Consequently utilities were forced to buy wind and solar energy at inflated rates, but were not allowed to recover the costs because of those same price controls.  Solar and wind energy investors raked in billions of euros per year while the utility deficit grew even faster.  By some accounts electric utility debt in Spain now stands at $32 billion. These out-of-whack energy policies cost Spanish workers dearly; for every renewable energy job created more than five existing jobs were lost and unemployment soared to over 20%....

Read More
Seattle Monks Protest While Dalai Lama Supports Nuclear Energy
Dec03

Seattle Monks Protest While Dalai Lama Supports Nuclear Energy

Last week a group of Buddhist monks joined the protest against San Onofre Nuclear Plant.  The local press made a big show of the spectacle as if the presence of members of a Seattle monastery somehow added stature to the demonstration and validity to their claims. The monks said they also want to call attention to what they believe are the global dangers of nuclear power.  “We need to shut down the San Onofre,” Gyosen Sawada of Los Angeles, who said he was born in Fukushima, Japan, told the group before beginning a three-hour walk from Dana Point Harbor. “No more Hiroshima. No more Nagasaki. No more Three Mile Island. No more Fukushima. No more San Onofre.” As is so often the case with anti-nuclear activists, these monks toss all things nuclear into one evil pile; in their minds atomic bombs and nuclear energy facilities are equally vile.  Funny how they avoided mention of CT scans, diagnostic x-rays, and nuclear medicine which account for virtually all of the man-made radiation exposure we receive (even for members of the public around the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant). I guess they missed the memo from the Dalai Lama who, after the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant went on the record in support of nuclear energy. The Tibetan Buddhist leader said he supports nuclear energy as a way to bridge the socioeconomic gap in developing nations and in the absence of more efficient alternative energy sources. That’s a pretty insightful view from a leader who understands the causes of human suffering and the connection between access to energy and poverty.  He also recognizes alternatives like wind and solar energy will be difficult to expand on the scale needed to alleviate global poverty. We might expect these monks to hold similarly informed views, after all they come from a Japanese Shingon monastery.  This set of Buddhist teachings falls under the Vajranaña school, which also includes Tibetan Buddhism.  On the other hand, one of the monks described himself as a “homey from the projects in New York City.”  Perhaps he’s been more influenced by the misguided energy policies of NY Governor Andy Cuomo than by the teachings of the renown Tibetan spiritual leader....

Read More
Canadian Nuclear Regulator Speaks Out on Safety of Uranium Mining
Nov25

Canadian Nuclear Regulator Speaks Out on Safety of Uranium Mining

Activists, medical practitioners and politicians who have demanded moratoriums [on uranium mining] may have various reasons for doing so, but their claims that the public and environment are at risk are fundamentally wrong. That about sums up the facts on the safety of uranium mining and the validity of motives of those who oppose it.  What’s particularly noteworthy about this statement is its source: Michael Binder, the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.  It’s impressive to see this level of leadership from the Canadian equivalent of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It’s also in stark contrast with the actions of former NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko who remained silent last year when the US Department of Interior banned uranium mining for 20 years across 4000 square km of Arizona.  Their excuse was “protecting the Grand Canyon,” but the area in question is outside both the Grand Canyon and the buffer zone that protects the park. It would be great to see new NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane following Mr. Binder’s lead to dispel the myths around uranium mining and take a first step in overturning the arbitrary...

Read More