Nuclear workforce dwindles while needs for future grow 1/28/2009 3:56 PM By W. R. (RICK) TOOLE
Chairman
and Dr. SUSAN WINSOR
Past Chair
SRS Community Reuse Organization
As America continues to struggle under the economic and national security challenges posed by our dependence on foreign oil, nuclear energy remains one of the best options for moving our country toward a brighter energy future.
Today, there is a lot of talk about a nuclear renaissance, a rebirth of our national commitment to nuclear technology as a viable answer to America's energy dilemma. We must move from the talking stage to immediate action to help break the grip of foreign oil on our country.
Currently, 104 nuclear power plants are operating in the United States, producing about 20 percent of our total electrical supply. Together, Georgia's four nuclear units account for more than one-fourth of the state's electricity generation. South Carolina's five nuclear units supply about half of the state's electricity demand.
Clearly, nuclear energy must play a vital role in our future energy strategy. As current and past chairs of the Savannah River Site Community Reuse Organization (SRSCRO), we and the 22 community leaders from two states who serve on our board strongly support expansion of nuclear energy as a central component of that long-term strategy.
We particularly support continued operation and planned expansion of the SCANA's V. C. Summer Nuclear Plant at Winnsboro, and the Southern Company's Vogtle Nuclear Plant near Waynesboro, Ga. Both utilities have proposed to build two additional units at each site. These new units are scheduled to join the grid in the 2016 to 2019 time frame, greatly expanding existing electrical production capacity.
These new units are critical to our energy future and to our nation's quest for energy independence. Nuclear power is reliable, economical and, most of all, safe. Electricity production at existing nuclear power plants continues at near-record performance levels with capacity factors at an impressive 90 percent. Operating costs - estimated at 1.68 cents per kilowatt hour in 2006 - continue to be the lowest of any source of electricity. And the last several years have shown that this strong operating performance is sustainable while maintaining a solid safety record. Nuclear is also our number one source of emission-free electricity.
While public acceptance continues to pose a significant challenge, there is another looming problem that must be quickly addressed if we are to realize the potential of the nuclear option: the trained nuclear workforce is dwindling at an alarming rate and must be replaced now before nuclear power can deliver on its promise.
Commercial nuclear power is now more than 50 years old. The latest survey by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) revealed that up to 15,600 trained industry workers may be eligible to retire today, representing 27 percent of all jobs in the sector. Half the current nuclear workforce will be eligible to retire in the next five years.
Key suppliers to the nuclear energy industry, which include architect/engineering firms, construction firms, fuel suppliers and reactor manufacturers, anticipate that nearly one-third of their workers will be eligible to retire by the end of 2009.
The Health Physics Society has identified a critical shortage of qualified radiation protection professionals who support plant operations. Present demand for these workers is nearly 130 percent over supply.
The industry also expects a staffing shortage among nuclear engineers. The number of university nuclear engineering programs has declined to about 29 from 65 in 1980. State budget shortfalls are contributing to this decline as universities can no longer afford to maintain small research reactors.
The SRS Community Reuse Organization has published an extensive position paper on the state of the nuclear workforce. It is available at www.srscro.org. To take maximum advantage of nuclear's potential, the CSRA needs a unified strategy to address these pressing workforce issues.
Notice about comments:
AikenStandard.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. AikenStandard.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not AikenStandard.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Comment Title: nuclear waste
Before expanding the use of nuclear power one should consider that as things stand now the waste produced by reactors will have to be stored at the reactor site. This waste remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Susanne E. Vandenbosch
Report Abuse
Posted by: Fred Christensen On: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:30 AM
Comment Title: Hundred Year Plan for SRS.
Let us think and plan on an appropriate scale and for an appropriate time period. Let us make a hundred year plan for a nuclear energy center at SRS. Such a coordinated nuclear energy center at SRS might serve in three vital areas: 1. (1) We might produce essentially limitless, safe, clean, very-low-cost electrical energy for the entire Southeast for the next century, and beyond. (2) We might also use energy from new SRS reactors to produce tens of billions of gallons of low-cost motor fuel each year from cellulose grown on the unused and underused lands of our area. Pray contemplate the financial impact of billions of dollars each year flowing to land owners in the Carolinas and Georgia (like striking oil in Texas in the 1930's?). Pray consider the thousands upon thousands of meaningful jobs created as the feedstocks for our motor fuel are grown, harvested and processed. Pray contemplate the service to mankind rendered by denying untold billions of petro-dollars to foreign terrorists dedicated to our destruction. And (3), we might use an expanded MOX facility at SRS, in close cooperation with new SRS reactors and SRS fuel reprocessing plants, to rid this troubled world of its major ‘nuclear waste’ problem, the thousand odd tons of plutonium made since 1940, this best of bomb materials and most toxic of radioactive poisons much too readily available to evil hands dedicated to our destruction. Perhaps Bill Timmerman (SCANA) might offer to assist; he and his most competent staff were major contributors when we (duPont) ‘plowed’ this ground in 1980. SCANA might own and operate the SRS nuclear energy center? Or a consortium of SCANA, Southern Company and Duke Power? What opportunities to serve mankind WORLDWIDE !
Report Abuse
Posted by: Fiscal Conservative On: Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:31 AM
Comment Title: Show us the money
We look forward to a proposal that is based on 100% private funding and not one that attempts to ride the handout bandwagon that others always want to force the tax payers to ride. If this proposal isn't a private one then we shall wave it bye-bye.
Report Abuse
