Fast Fission Podcast # 18 – mp3 file
Duke Energy is one of the largest power producers in the Western Hemisphere. They produce 35,000 MW of electricity in the USA, plus 4,000 in Latin America. They have virtually every type of power plant: nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, wind, and solar. They also run natural gas distribution systems in two states.
Duke knows energy, and Jim Rogers, their CEO, knows Duke. When Jim Rogers speaks about energy people listen. Last week Mr. Rogers was talking energy and jobs. Jim says Duke’s 
experience has shown that nuclear energy provides more jobs and higher paying jobs than wind or solar power plants.
“In an operation of a nuclear plant, there [are] .64 jobs per megawatt. The wind business–and we have a very large wind business – is .3 jobs per megawatt. In the solar business – and we’re installing solar panels – it’s about .1. But the difference in the jobs is quite different, because if you’re wiping off a solar panel, it’s sort of a minimum wage type of job, [with] much higher compensation for nuclear engineers and nuclear operators. If our goal is to rebuild the middle class, nuclear plays a key role there, particularly if coal is out of the equation.”
Mr. Roger’s comments made me wonder how many jobs might be created if we were to build new power plants of each type to meet our energy demands. I started with the most recent Energy Outlook provided by the US Government at the Energy Information Administration web site. This report states that 259 GW of new plants will be needed by 2030. The number includes 30 GW to replace aging plants and the rest is for modest energy demand growth.
Multiplying that 259,000 MW times the Duke estimates for the number of people per MW, we get the result (rounded to the nearest 1000):
- New Nuclear: 166,000 jobs
- New Wind: 78,000 jobs
- New Solar: 26,000 jobs
These numbers ignore the 2,000 to 3,000 jobs created building each new nuclear plant during the four year construction process. Building wind and soar would also provide temporary construction jobs. I also did not adjust for the lower capacity factors associated with wind and solar generation. We’ll assume smart grid technologies will enable improvements in wind and solar energy capacity and existing reserve capacity will back up wind and solar. After all, these are the kinds of assumptions that wind and solar proponents make all the time.
In Episode 60 of “This Week in Nuclear” I discussed how every dollar spent building new nuclear plants provides far more energy than either wind or solar. Now we’re discovering that nuclear plants also produce more jobs per MW. Combining these two findings we gain an important insight: every dollar spent on new nuclear plants provides not only more energy, but also more jobs.
It’s not often that we find one solution for two very tough problems, but that’s exactly what we have done: Investing in nuclear energy can provide much needed high paying jobs that can’t be sent overseas, in addition to reliable, clean energy to power our economy.
#1 by Richard on December 8, 2009 - 7:37 PM
> I discussed how every dollar spent building new nuclear plants provides far more energy than either wind or solar. Now we’re discovering that nuclear plants also produce more jobs per MW.
It’s amazing how you don’t realize that these two things contradict each other.
The reason why nuclear produces such high value is because it requires FEWER jobs. Yes it may require more permanent jobs. But it requires much fewer construction jobs. And if you amortize the construction jobs over the lifetime of their respective plants, it turns out that nuclear produces the fewest jobs. Especially because those jobs are high paying and not minimum wage.
For nuclear, with the numbers you provided, an NPP requires 2000/1000*4/60=0.13 jobs per megawatt. That’s hardly a job bonanza. Not that a job bonanza is anything to celebrate since that’s something like a plague bonanza or a slaves bonanza.
If you can’t figure it out with your s**** ignorant American puritanical outlook, jobs are a bad thing. But hey, don’t let me stop you from your chanting for LONGER CHAINS, BIGGER CAGES. It just amazes me how supposedly educated people are deeply, deeply ignorant outside of their miniscule area of expertise. Outside of nuclear energy, you’re just as deeply stupid and indoctrinated by American propaganda as all the rest of the yokels. I find that sad.
And it’s not just that you’re ignorant but that you buy into utterly nonsensical notions. Notions that blatantly contradict obvious facts of everyday reality. Facts like working is demeaning (economic power is good) and jobs require money (hence jobs are bad twice over). But never mind, I’ve ranted enough.
As an American, you are a member of the most brainwashed population in human history. You realize THAT at least, yes? Or has the USA succeeded in obliterating all common sense with its “freedom to starve [is good]” and “choice to become a slave [is good]“?
I’m ready to beg you to revive a slim hope in me that anyone capable of mastering a field like (any aspect of) nuclear energy is at least resistant to severe retardation. But f*** it, I don’t really believe that. F*** am I depressed now.
#2 by John on December 10, 2009 - 7:03 AM
Richard,
As I state in my User Agreement, I invite and encourage respectful dialog on the topics discussed on my blog and podcast. Your comments are far from respectful. In the end, I decided to publish your words in the hope that others will follow with additional thoughtful and respectful comments.
These numbers (.64 jobs per megawatt for nuclear) are from Jim Rogers of Duke. For a typical new nuclear plant (1400 MW) this means 896 full time jobs. By the way, that is pretty close to what I know to be true for existing single unit nuclear plants. He was obviously speaking about OPERATING personnel, not CONSTRUCTION workers. He was also speaking about RATED CAPACITY, not DELIVERED ENERGY. An evaluation of jobs and economic activity created by the full life-cycle of nuclear energy compared to other energy sources is way beyond the scope of this short episode. Perhaps I’ll cover that in the future. Until then I will offer this fact for consideration: all of the the material, labor, and cost of money required to produce nuclear energy is reflected in it’s final delivered cost to the grid. At present that’s about 1.7 cents per KW-Hr in 2009 US dollars – the lowest by far of any low carbon energy source.
You said “jobs are a bad thing” (expletive deleted). I disagree. An energy source that is independent of foreign control, clean, predictably priced, and creates good jobs is what every nation needs (not just the USA). Clean, reliable energy and good jobs create high standards of living and stable political environments. These contribute to a safer world.
#3 by Jason Ribeiro on December 10, 2009 - 9:18 AM
Richard, you are a troll. Not only does a nuclear power plant provide high quality jobs, a plant will also create a large number of periphery jobs within their respective communities. But you don’t care about jobs anyway, so what does it matter to you? You didn’t cite anything that was a “utterly nonsensical notion”, you only hurled profanity.
If you think you’re so smart, why don’t you wrestle with this economic report of the benefits of nuclear energy and get back to me:
http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/Oxford_State_Benefits.pdf
#4 by David on December 10, 2009 - 10:06 AM
Wow! Richard obviously doesn’t believe in capitalism. The goal of any company is to be as efficient as possible, as profitable as possible and to return value to its investors. Companies aren’t doing what they do just to create jobs. And why does he say jobs are a bad thing? Who does Richard think pays the taxes that fund the government that hands out welfare to guys like him?
Without jobs, his country’s economy would collapse into hyperinflation, as they would have to print new money, as there would be no “income” to tax. Pretty soon, the hyperinflation would lead rationing, then to citizen revolt and then to anarchy or revolution. Then Poor Richard may have to board a ship and travel to the New World, where he, too, could become a part of a puritanical society!
#5 by Simon Filiatrault on December 10, 2009 - 3:59 PM
Hey guys, I would not put too much weight on this comment. The simple fact that there so much swearing and insults, discredit the comment as far as I am concerned.
I wonder though how this person would power 7 billion people to our level of power consumption without nuclear power.
John, I would have personally deleted the “bad” part of the comment. I would not accept this behaviour on my blog.
#6 by John on December 10, 2009 - 4:32 PM
Simon,
Thanks for the sound advice. I made some minor edits to **** the profanity.
#7 by Paul on December 18, 2009 - 2:53 AM
By posting such a vulgar response, Richard shows his own ignorance. Well, never mind him.
What struck me with these numbers is that, more jobs per megawatt also increases the cost per megawatt for nuclear? No?
Perhaps nuclear is such much cheaper to start with?
How does this compute? Do someone know?