Mambo Nucleare

Here’s the problem:

86 per cent of its energy comes from foreign countries.

And here’s a solution:

An international study presented Sunday argues strongly for the introduction of nuclear energy in Italy, saying the country can diminish its dependency on foreign nations and cut carbon emissions.

Italy closed its nuclear plants in the wake of Chernobyl and now derives about 81 percent of its electricity from gas and oil. As this chart shows, Italy has been displacing oil with natural gas throughout the aughts. It also shows that nuclear energy was not a big contributor even when the plants were open.

But the issue here is less what Italy is using currently than that so little of it is domestic, which makes the country vulnerable to price fluctuations that it cannot significantly control through policy. So Italy needs home-grown plants. Why nuclear?

By introducing nuclear energy, between 2020, when plants might begin working, and 2030, when they should account for 25 per cent of electricity supply, Italy might save up to €69 billion ($84 billion) in generation costs and cut up to 381 million tons in carbon emissions, according to the study.

In other words, nuclear can supply a tremendous amount of carbon emission free energy rather quickly and the Italians can do it all within their borders. The article does not talk about renewable energy, so we looked around to see what it might be doing in that sphere. The profile is not encouraging:

Cuts in green energy incentives in Spain and Italy, as well as uncertainty over the future of the U.S. climate change bill pushed stocks in EGP's listed rivals down to trade at less than 10 times projected core earnings (EBITDA) in 2011, he said.

EGP is Enel Green Power, which wants to sell stock, but is finding the market very bad. Enel is Italy’s largest electricity supplier and has pacted with France’s EDF to pursue nuclear energy. Renewable energy, at least in some markets, may suffer due to a terrible economy applying pressure on relatively young companies. Enel’s relative maturity may leave EGP standing if shaky (Enel itself is under some financial pressure, too).

In any event, the tide in Italy has turned quite definitively toward nuclear energy:

[The report’s] conclusions will likely please [Italian] Premier Silvio Berlusconi, who has made constructing nuclear reactors in Italy to produce energy one of his government's goals. The premier said in April that he expected the construction of the first nuclear reactor in Italy to get going within three years.

Normally, I might feel a little uncomfortable that Italy does not currently favor a more diverse energy strategy. But it is starting almost at ground zero on producing electricity domestically and nuclear energy is a way to do this quickly – that is, produce a great deal of electricity in a compact way. Renewable energy sources can certainly still follow.

---

Did you know that the world might end due to Old Faithful?

Yellowstone National Park has literally thousand of square miles of hot magma underneath, which will someday erupt. This isn't just a small volcano! Geologists say it's possible that a major eruption there would be thousands of times greater than that of Mt. St. Helens. It would put the US under several feet of volcanic ash, and likely put the planet into an ice age.

Awful! How to prevent such a calamity, which writer Martin Nix calls worse than the Taliban? How about tapping it for an energy bonanza?

Developing Yellowstone's geothermal potential would not only displace the need for coal and nuclear power plants, it would also cool the magma down, relieving the pressure than could lead to an eruption.

That would be a terrific boon for the thousands of people who live in Wyoming. And Idaho! Not only will there be plentiful energy but also collateral benefits.

It could also electrify our train system. A side-advantage of this is that the train system could be used for building an electrical distribution system, by stringing cable above the railroads or burying it next to them.

It’s all upside. All you’d have to do to make it work is to find the water to make a bunch of algae ponds in Yellowstone to cool your geothermal activities. Eco-system? Algae ponds are an eco-system! Besides, there really is no choice.

If you think this is expensive or harmful to the environment, then try cleaning up after an eruption.

Yeah. Try doing that, wise guy.

Old Faithful. It wants to kills us all.

Rock Paper Nuclear

If Germany keeps its nuclear plants alive for 15 years past the current 2022 deadline – and taxes them to help support a move to renewable energy – that’s good news for renewable energy, isn’t it?

“It’s probably detrimental for offshore [wind],” Hodges said. “Keeping that much nuclear power online means electricity prices will be stable and maybe even with some downside potential. That suggests less investment” in wind energy.

Well, boo-hoo. Electricity that is lower cost and free of carbon emissions? Surely, it is to die of shame. Hodges is Charlie Hodges, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. It gets better.

“The decision is step backward to the energy technology of yesterday,” said Hermann Albers, president of the German Wind Energy Association. “The government is squandering the potential for wind energy.”

I always dislike this argument because it assumes that the new is shiny and bright while “the energy technology of yesterday” is gray and dingy. But let’s add mature and well-understood; also not exactly free of new development and potential. And it gets even better.

Yesterday’s decision “puts the brakes” on investment worth billions of euros and “cements the baseload-oriented oligopoly” tilted toward nuclear power and fossil fuels, Albers said.

An oligopoly is a small group of vendors that between them corner a market. Because there are so few of them, vendors within an oligopoly have been know to engage in price fixing and other ills. That isn’t known to have happened in Germany and likely isn’t the implication Albers intended.

But I think Albers is saying that the nuclear plants had to be shut down on schedule to spur development in wind energy and that the motivation evaporates if nuclear energy is covering the carbon emission free base longer.

Frankly, 15 years is not a very long time and ought to provide breathing room to wind, especially since Germany really wants wind and a lot of it. And who will be providing it?

RWE spends about 1.4 billion euros a year on renewable energy, and “a lot of funds” for its expansion into the business come from its nuclear plants, said Julia Scharlemann, a spokeswoman for the company. E.ON is investing 8 billion euros in the five years through 2012 mainly on wind parks.

Yes, indeed, those old oligopolists.

---

The above story is in reaction to the German government’s new energy policy. Der Spiegel lays it out in great detail (and in English) here.

Here’s the nuclear bit:

The lifetimes of the 17 nuclear power stations in Germany will be extended by 12 years on average. Nuclear plants that went on line before 1981 will have their lifetimes extended by eight years, and the younger reactors by 14 years.

The government's main reason for the extension is that power production must remain affordable. It has had energy scenarios drawn up according to which the nuclear reactors will enable the price of electricity to remain relatively constant.

Der Spiegel says this last part isn’t strictly true, as nuclear energy doesn’t play much of a part in the Leipzig Energy Exchange and that the higher price of natural gas is determinative. I don’t understand why any of this should be so, but there it is.

In any event, the price of electricity at the wholesale level is set by Leipzig. The result is that the gap in price between nuclear and natural gas is taken as profit by nuclear energy suppliers (or as Der Spiegel tartly puts it, they “pocket the difference”). Here is the bit on wind:

The aim is to increase offshore wind power generation to 25 gigawatts by 2030 in a development drive that would require investment of around €75 billion ($95.6 billion) according to government estimates. The investment risks are hard to assess because the technology is relatively new. The government plans to promote the construction of the first 10 offshore wind farms with €5 billion ($6.4 billion) in low-interest credit made available by Germany's KfW state development bank.

Most turbines have a five megawatt capacity, so that’s about 25,000 turbines – not a bad deal – and the government is seeding the effort with 5 billion Euro in loan guarantees, also not bad.

So does nuclear trump wind like paper covers rock? The evidence suggests No. Both have a place and can co-exist quite nicely.

One thing I noticed when I stayed in Germany for awhile is that German politicians rarely smile. They’re all Calvin Coolidge there. So this picture of Prime Minister Angela Merkel is a nice change of pace.

Thorium Rising, Murkowski Conceding

Every few months, a reporter hits upon nuclear fusion  - or a fraud involving nuclear fusion – and that may set up a brief uptick in attention paid to fusion and it enthusiasts. Another nuclear energy topic that springs forward every now and again is thorium and its potential as a complementary or replacement fuel source for uranium. No question it has such potential.

This story in the Telegraph (U.K.) aims to make the case, but sways a bit under a heavy yoke of grievance and conspiracy:

After the Manhattan Project, US physicists in the late 1940s were tempted by thorium for use in civil reactors. It has a higher neutron yield per neutron absorbed. It does not require isotope separation, a big cost saving. But by then America needed the plutonium residue from uranium to build bombs.

And:

You might have thought that thorium reactors were the answer to every dream but when CERN went to the European Commission for development funds in 1999-2000, they were rebuffed.

Brussels turned to its technical experts, who happened to be French because the French dominate the EU’s nuclear industry. "They didn’t want competition because they had made a huge investment in the old technology," he said.

Love to see that French report. I think the French actually had a response similar to the British:

The UK has shown little appetite for what it regards as a "huge paradigm shift to a new technology". Too much work and sunk cost has already gone into the next generation of reactors, which have another 60 years of life.

And will run very comfortably on uranium, I should add. Thorium is (probably) much more plentiful than uranium, but uranium won’t be exhausted for at least a couple of generations and likely more. Thorium will wait for its day in its usual silvery way.

Which I know is a little too glib. Thorium’s strengths are not to be doubted, but the British have it about right – the uranium fuel cycle is well understood, the thorium fuel cycle less so and switching one to the other implies large cost. So does pursuing thorium and uranium-fueled plants simultaneously.

That may keep much of the progress on thorium lab-bound or on the hunt for opportunity. Read the article for a good bit of hard core advocacy – including a call for President Barack Obama to host a new Manhattan Project around thorium – and visit Lightbridge, renamed last year from Thorium Power and a good source of information. Another don’t miss: Kirk Sorensen’s Energy from Thorium blog, which is anything but glib about Kirk’s favorite element.

---

Squeakers have been the rule this primary season and no election has been “squeakerier” than the one between Republicans Sen. Lisa Murkowski and challenger Joe Miller up in Alaska. It was too close to call after last Tuesday, but Murkowski has now conceded.

If you follow Congress, you develop an appreciation for lawmakers who learn the subject matter of their committees and legislate intelligently – Murkowski fit that profile. She has been very friendly to nuclear energy, which, considering there are no commercial plants out her way, speaks to the seriousness with which she takes her position as ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee.

That’s not a start at a political obituary because Murkowski is a consequential public figure and will doubtless continue in some form of public service. Beyond that, appreciation and support are two different things – I’m neutral as to who represents Alaska in the Senate – that’s for Alaskans to decide.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Nuclear Liability in the Shadow of Bhopal

There’s been a lot of work done to expand the relationship of the United States and India, one part of which allows nuclear trade and technology to flow between the two countries. President George W. Bush’s administration worked through a lot of the issues, culminating in a so-called 123 agreement in 2008 opening nuclear trade.

This agreement took so much effort because India has avoided anti-proliferation treaties and harbors nuclear warheads – resulting in a two decade moratorium – so the determinative factor was whether India in the interim had proved to be a good actor on the international stage. Answer: good enough.

But one remaining piece of the puzzle was about liability concerns – whether most liability should lie with the supplier (which might be American) or with the operator (most certainly Indian). While every country hoping to operate in India wants to contain liability on suppliers, it’s especially true for the United States, which does not have a state-run nuclear industry. That can hinder trade  – and most countries cap liability on suppliers to remove the hindrance.

And now the Indians, intending to pass a bill that limited liability – have done – the opposite. What’s the old saying? - Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Now the question is whether foreign or even Indian energy companies will be willing to come in to provide the expertise India needs to expand, because of the liability guidelines codified in the legislation in case of a nuclear accident.

Why?

But the Indian law bucks international norms and makes suppliers potentially liable, too. Indian industrial groups have already expressed reservations, while analysts warn that many private foreign energy companies may now decide not to take part.

And some of the reactions are pretty sour.

“This makes the fruits of the Indo-U.S. deal go to waste,” said G. Balachandaran, a security analyst in New Delhi with a specialty in nuclear issues. He added: “It may well be the end of civil nuclear growth in India.”

Let’s be fair here. India suffered a ghastly incident of corporate malfeasance.

In Bhopal, thousands of people were killed after an explosion in December 1984 at the Union Carbide pesticide factory unleashed a poisonous cloud over the city. India sought $3.3 billion in damages from Union Carbide, since purchased by Dow Chemicals, but would later settle for $470 million. Much of the money has not been distributed, and many victims have gotten only nominal payments.

And that was 26 years ago. Let’s leave aside the risk of a nuclear power plant creating a disaster on this level – vanishingly low – to note that there are decided differences between two such scenarios. Not least among them is that Union Carbide owned and operated the Bhopal plant and the Indian government will own the nuclear energy plants. So the nationalist concerns and feeling of grievance made the debate and subsequent discussion flow in an unmistakably wrong direction. Indians will be in charge of the nuclear plants top-to-bottom and the beneficiaries of emission-free electricity.

But I cannot bring myself to discount Bhopal or the shadow it casts on India’s relations with foreign entities. Consider:

Meanwhile, Warren M. Anderson, the former chairman of Union Carbide, has never been prosecuted, and he still lives in the United States, which has declined to extradite him.

Should an Indian legislator (any Indian) feel warm about this? Of course not.

The New York Times story is very detailed on the Indian politics behind this terrible legislation. What the story almost gets is that Indians really want trade in nuclear materials with the United States and if this law is as bad as it seems – and it is - it is unlikely to stand. Cooler heads will prevail – hopefully. We’ll see.

---

A nice op-ed from the Sarasota Sun Sentinel (try that three times fast):

Currently, FPL nuclear plants provide 21 percent of our power demands in South Florida. Nuclear power plants have both immediate and safe shutdown procedures, in addition to leak- and crash-proof containments. These safeguards will avoid a widespread environmental disaster like the one we witnessing in the Gulf.

Written by Stan Davidson, a retired Westinghouse nuclear licensing engineer, his attempt to join nuclear advocacy to the BP oil spill is a little problematic:

To alleviate our demands on both domestic and foreign oil, we should build more nuclear power plants and reduce our reliance on offshore drilling for oil and the potential hazards it creates.

Nuclear does have a place here – electric cars and hybrids are on the horizon – but nuclear and petroleum really don’t weigh on each other all that heavily - yet. But so what? – it is a local story hook – and Davidson does get the salient facts right and make his case. We’ll take it.

Going up! The Kudankulam Nuclear Plant in India.

Union of Concerned Scientists Distorts Nuclear Events in Weekly Blog Series

Last week, Margaret Harding, former GE engineering manager, took on a post by UCS’ David Lochbaum that misstated the nuclear events at two reactors. From Margaret:

On August 24th, Mr. Lochbaum posted a story on the Union of Concerned Scientists website about an event in 1988, then proceeded to link it to a 2005 event at a different plant and makes the case that the nuclear industry is filled with screw-ups and near misses. You can read the original article here. As it happens, my career has included learning about these particular events and leading the team that developed some of the solutions that are currently in place to prevent/mitigate the effect. From that, I can say – Mr. Lochbaum got it wrong.

To find out how Margaret is correct, stop by for the rest. As well, Dan Yurman has more background to their story.

Looking forward to reading more from Margaret, maybe this will turn into a bigger debate between her and Mr. Lochbaum.

Americans Using Less Energy, More Renewables

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories toted up energy use last year (for 2008) and found a marked drop. This year’s version (for 2009) reveals a further drop:

The United States used significantly less coal and petroleum in 2009 than in 2008, and significantly more wind power. There also was a decline in natural gas use and increases in solar, hydro and geothermal power according to the most recent energy flow charts released by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

You’d be perfectly within your rights to say, It’s the economy, stupid, and that was the main takeaway from the Labs report last year. Not this time:

“Energy use tends to follow the level of economic activity, and that level declined last year. At the same time, higher efficiency appliances and vehicles reduced energy use even further,” said A.J. Simon, an LLNL energy systems analyst who develops the energy flow charts using data provided by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. “As a result, people and businesses are using less energy in general.”

Since no new nuclear plants went online in 2009, its numbers remain much the same – and although Livermore does look at carbon emissions – where nuclear energy shines out - in a different report, that’s not the goal here. Here, the interest is: coal down and wind up (and natural gas and nuclear energy holding steady). These elements will have an impact on the country’s carbon emissions profile, but we’ll have to wait for Livermore’s report on this a little later this year to see how it totes up.

Wind power increased dramatically in 2009 to .70 quads of primary energy compared to .51 in 2008. Most of that energy is tied directly to electricity generation and thus helps decrease the use of coal for electricity production.

The relatively tiny contribution of wind still represents a big year over year increase in a period where most sources drooped a little. Nuclear is 8.35 quads (down from 8.45 quads in 2008), natural gas 23.37 (down from 23.84) and coal 19.76 (drooping a lot from 22.42). A quad is a quadrillion BTUs and the total energy use in 2009 was 94.6 quads, down from 99.2 quads in 2008.  

So you can see this report as demonstrating the beneficial aspects of energy efficiency – as practiced by industry and individual – and in so doing providing considerable cheer all along the ideological spectrum. It shows progress being made without much government intervention but also shows government’s interest in promoting industries that help fulfill a policy objective.

A chart only a scientist could love. This is the visualization of the report. See here for a readable pdf version, but expect every last synapse in your brain to fry.

Boehner on Nuclear Energy, Arizona Match-Up

Here’s House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) during the Q&A following his economic speech yesterday:

QUESTION: The only repository for nuclear waste planned or conceived or developed for this country is Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and it is stopped dead in its tracks by [Sen.] Harry Reid (R-Nev.). If the Republicans can take back Congress, what position would the party take on opening Yucca Mountain so our nuclear reactors have someplace to put their waste?

BOEHNER: Most Republicans have supported Yucca Mountain for the twenty years that I've been here and the American people would be shocked to know how much nuclear waste is laying just miles from their home. It's laying at every nuclear plant in the country and why? Because we can't get Yucca Mountain finished because it's not politically correct. We've invested tens of billions of dollars in a storage facility that's as safe as anything we're going to find.

Rep. Boehner is 100% correct, utility ratepayers have invested close to $33 billion in a program to safely store used fuel in a national repository as called for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. One of Mr. Boehner’s caucus, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) recently introduced legislation to establish a new framework for addressing the used nuclear fuel repository issue. That may point a path forward that Rep. Boehner can support.

We could quibble here and there, but Boehner has it right on Yucca Mountain.

---

Primary season isn’t quite over yet, but I thought I’d visit the sites of of some of the higher profile winners over the next while to see how the candidates view energy issues. Let’s start with Arizona’s House winners.

---

Ben Quayle won the Republic nomination for Arizona’s 3rd district. Here’s what he has to say on energy:

We need a comprehensive plan for energy independence in America.   Free market innovation is the only way that we will be able to create a future that is sustainable.  Energy is a vital piece of our economy.  While initiatives in so-called green-energy are well intended, these initiatives need to be market based; otherwise, we are just throwing money away. Roadblocks to clean nuclear energy are disastrous and need to be removed.  We also need to open up exploration for energy on our own soil.

If he wins the general election, we’ll get a better ideas of what he considers to be roadblocks – he’s very free market oriented, so he may have regulations in mind. Here’s his bit on the environment:

We need a responsible environmental policy that balances our need to conserve our environment for future generations with our need to grow our economy and provide opportunity and prosperity for them.  We need to have a rational environmental policy, not one that is driven by politics and special interests or based on pseudo science.

Quayle faces Democrat Jon Hulburd, who was unopposed (Quayle had nine opponents.) Hulburd’s and Quayle’s energy ideas have definite points of contact:

To build a strong economy, we MUST loosen ourselves from the grip of foreign oil giants and instead invest in domestic alternative fuel sources. In so doing, we can concentrate on creating jobs and robust industry within our own borders, in turn attracting foreign investment and diversifying the economy of Arizona and the nation.

He prefers renewable energy sources:

By investing in alternative clean energies, such as solar and wind power, we will create a new American industry and strengthen our national security. I believe we must extend tax incentives for the clean energy industry and support new and existing solar power companies in Arizona.

If I read Quayle right, he’d prefer not to offer tax incentives to energy generators, so that’s a difference between them. Nothing about nuclear energy from Hulburd but nothing negative either.

Quayle and Hulburd are running to fill an open seat (Rep. John Shadegg (R) is retiring). No polls on the matchup yet, but every competitive race this year has been a squeaker.

House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Who’s Afraid of Nuclear Energy?

The Patriot-Journal in Pennsylvania sees a solution:

We talk and hear a lot about solar and wind power — in fact there are many government-backed programs providing grants and tax incentives for homeowners and companies willing to use these forms of energy production. But another part of our energy equation that is just as important but discussed far less is nuclear power.

The only way the United States will ever become less dependent on other countries for our energy is to increase our commitment to nuclear energy.

True. And it sees some of the problems with making this happen.

Our government has yet to deal with the important issue of disposing of the nuclear waste. Incredibly the federal government has not disposed of any civilian nuclear waste and has no plan for doing so. Estimates show the government is more than 10 years behind schedule in its contractual obligations for waste disposal.

And then it offers some advice:

When he talks about green energy, President Obama must throw ample support behind nuclear power. This means doing more than giving lip service to its importance in the future. It is a key component to the United States becoming more energy independent and more environmentally sound.

Nuclear Notes has spotlighted a lot of editorials, and this one’s pretty good – it lays out the issues clearly and realistically – but it doesn’t seem all that special.

Except that the Patriot-Journal publishes out of Harrisburg and includes in its coverage area the Three Mile Island plant and all its neighbors. That sound you hear is the last domino falling. To pilfer from Edward Albee, Who’s Afraid of Nuclear Energy?

---

And now, Sudan:

Sudan plans to build a four- reactor nuclear power plant to fill a gap in the energy needs of Africa's largest country by 2030 costing between $3-6 billion, the head of Sudan's atomic energy agency said on Tuesday.

Why nuclear energy?

"We did energy planning for forecasting supply and demand and we found that hydro alone is not sufficient to meet the demand alone of the electricity of the country so we are thinking of mixed generation of power -- hydro, fossil fuels and maybe nuclear if things go as planned," he said.

Speaking in this article is nuclear chief Mohamed Ahmed Hassan el-Tayeb.

There are several reasons to doubt that Sudan can do this.

Sudan is not a notably electrified country, so it’s intriguing to know whether the country plans to go for full electrification – it’s the 10th largest country in the world and has a widely dispersed population. (But see this chart from the World Bank, especially from 2000 on, that shows electricity use growing.)

Answer: yes, it does want to electrify:

"Now around 20 percent of the country has electricity -- we need to reach 80 percent by 2020," el-Tayeb said, adding they would also be developing dams for hydro-electric power, fossil fuels and alternative energies including bio fuels such as ethanol, solar power and wind power in the east of Sudan.

That’s a very ambitious goal for a country that has existed from antiquity to now without much electricity – well, the brief period in its history when there has been generated electricity. Sudan appears to require considerable help from the international community to move this goal forward. We found some information on this effort from USAID:

On Tuesday, May 27 [2008], the Government of the United States and the Government of Southern Sudan will join members of the Yei community to celebrate completion of the first community-built and -operated power generation and electricity distribution system in Southern Sudan.

The pilot project is part of USAID’s Southern Sudan Rural Electrification Program, implemented by the National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association (NRECA) International since 2004. With funding from USAID, NRECA has trained Yei residents in the wide spectrum of skills needed to build and operate a small utility.

That gives you a notion of how close to zero the starting point is. Let’s try for zero, though, with this report from a USAID partner The Louis Berger Group, an engineering and construction firm that specializes in economic development:

As USAID’s implementing partner, we work in collaboration with the Government of Southern Sudan to provide support for a full range of physical and institutional needs, capacity building, developmental assistance, institutional strengthening, and sustainable infrastructure development in the transport, urban water and sanitation, public buildings, and energy and natural resources sectors.

Good work, of course, but also the signs of a modern society being built from the ground up. These are worthy goals – assuming this is what the southern Sudanese want – but they are also immensely challenging. (Also, southern Sudan – the Yei - may be breaking off from Sudan after a referendum on the issue in 2011.)

Beyond the issue of modernization is Sudan’s government, not very modernized itself - an authoritarian regime with a ghastly human rights record. Several of its officials have been charged with war crimes due to genocidal activity in the Darfur region of the country.

Finding a partner to build nuclear energy plants beyond a research reactor will be very difficult. The U.S., for example, has had sanctions in place since 1997.

So, nuclear energy? Well, anyone can make an announcement. Sudan seems a poor candidate to be able to bring off such a large project.

Khartoum at night. I suspect that flood of electric light doesn’t extend much outside Khartoum.

Comparison of Energy Technologies on Economics, Jobs, Land Footprints and More

Last May, Public Utilities Fortnightly published an independent analysis by Navigant Consulting that provided some great comparisons between various energy technologies. One of the comparisons is the number of jobs created on an equivalent basis.

To analyze the economic and workforce contributions of various energy technologies, the authors began by reviewing the contribution of permanent direct local jobs per megawatt of installed electric capacity for the most common types of generation technologies…

On top of jobs, the analysis calculated the workforce impacts from each technology. Here’s what it said about nuclear:

Nuclear plants create the largest workforce annual income based on both large capacity and being a labor-intensive technology (see Figure 3). The average wages in the nuclear industry compare favorably with other power generation technologies. While nuclear power plant operator wages may approach $50 an hour, the large support staff and security force wages tend to lower the overall average below that of other technologies.

The article goes on to provide a few other equivalent comparisons such as land footprints and construction lead times. Make sure to check out the rest of the four page piece, it’s quite good.