Skip to main content

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…

image

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.

imageThe 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.

Comments

Philip said…
Curious article. No mention of the massive infrastructure of mining and transportation required for Coal. It seemed to be only the impact on the local workforce from the generating plants themselves. A very myopic view IMO.
gmax137 said…
So, being 'labor-intensive' is a good thing?? I don't think so. Else we could generate power with a million human powered treadmills... The advantages of nuclear power all proceed from the six orders of magnitude greater energy density (compared to chemical derived power). Touting lots of jobs is just pandering.
DocForesight said…
@gmax137 -- Well said. However, imagine the spin-off increases in food production to supply the calories consumed by the treadmill "energizers" would require, and the field workers who would be needed to tow the 3-bottom plows, drills, cultivators, combines, ...

Jobs, jobs for everyone! Somehow, I don't think it would go over very well.
David Bradish said…
So, being 'labor-intensive' is a good thing??

I don't see how it's bad, the numbers are what they are and your treadmill analogy doesn't convince me otherwise. Not only that, the types of jobs at nuclear plants vary substantially so it's not like workers are being bored to death on a labor intensive manufacturing line.

Touting lots of jobs is just pandering.

You call it pandering, I call it messaging. Maybe you haven't been following, but there is a lot of misinformation out there about the economic impacts of various technologies and quite a bit of it is exaggerated. The Navigant analysis is one of the first ever I've seen that actually aggregates the data on a comparative basis.

Jobs, jobs, jobs, yes, sometimes it may sound dorky. But there are almost 15 million people unemployed in the US and the outlook isn't bright yet. Creating jobs matters to a lot of folks right now. It would be a missed opportunity by us if we didn't provide the correct info when it mattered greatly.
Anonymous said…
It is a reasonable component of the overall picture. The greenies are always playing the jobs card when it comes to pushing their technologies. If they're going to play it that way, so should we. The numbers presented in the article show that nuclear has a pretty good case to make.

Nuclear jobs are good-paying, high tech jobs that support an educated workforce, and present opportunities for advancement that you would not have shoveling biomass. There is something to be said for the quality of the jobs offered. I have nothing against good, honest manual labor jobs, but given a choice, I prefer the professional environment of engineering and plant operations to operating a rake out in the fields.
perdajz said…
These numbers don't make sense. As gmax137 said, more workers per unit output is a sign of inefficiency. These numbers suggest that a wind power worker is 100 times more productive than a nuclear power worker. That simply is not true.

There's something wrong with this study. For one thing, installed capacity should be adjusted by capacity factor. Perhaps the whole fuel cycle needs to be considered, or perhaps the term "direct" jobs has been applied inconsistently.
David Bradish said…
gmax137 and perdajz, I've been struggling with the same idea. Here's a thought: while jobs/MW is one metric for electricity, maybe another metric is jobs/Btu which is a measure of all energy. With the greater energy density of nuclear compared to others, maybe that's the way for you to think of job efficiency per unit of output...

Or another thought is that you have to consider the total costs of everything of the plant (workforce, materials, financing, fuel, etc) and divide it by the production. We already know new nuclear is competitive and existing nuclear is making good money. Maybe the argument you make is that while nuclear is labor-intensive, at least the money is spent on people instead of for fuel like other technologies...
gmax137 said…
I'm thinking that the relative fuel costs (between nuclear and, say, coal)tell the story: for nuclear, the fuel cost is nearly negligible - indicating that the manpower (jobs) required to create the fuel and bring it to the plant is also small. For coal, the fuel cost is the dominant contributor to the overall cost - indicating that the manpower required to create the fuel & bring it to the plant is large. In other words, there are alot of "coal" jobs offsite and not seen in the "direct" numbers quoted. If this is true, then the only use for these "direct" numbers is for convincing local residents that the proposed nuclear unit "will bring jobs to town." For everyone who doesn't live there, the numbers don't mean much...
crf said…
I had the same thought as today's commentators when I read, in 2009, on the old WSJ environmental capital blog that Duke energy's CEO was also touting nuclear as creating more jobs for the installed power. The message is going to puzzle anyone who thinks beyond "more jobs is always better".

"I would say nuclear would trump coal because it produces zero greenhouse gases, it provides power 24/7, and, probably most importantly, it probably produces more jobs than even solar or wind on a per-megawatt basis." - - Jim Rogers

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…