Nuclear energy has always
been a thing of fascination for me. Growing up, my father, who makes sure
communities across the Southeast can safely evacuate their population in case
of a nuclear meltdown like Fukushima, would casually tell us what went wrong at
Chernobyl or Three Mile Island around the dinner table. This lecture also came with
a basic lesson in the intricacies of nuclear power generation. So, whenever I come
across any headline with “nuclear” in the title it is an automatic must read. Yesterday
this title popped up on my newsfeed: “South Carolina May Spend 60 Years Paying
for Nukes Never Built.”[1] An odd headline since just
a few years ago pundits were claiming that a “nuclear renaissance” was soon to
occur in the United States.
What happened to the
nascent renaissance? A combination of factors prevented it from becoming more
than a declarative statement. The rise of cheap natural gas and
cost-competitive clean energy technologies like wind and solar are two primary
reasons. Both have called into question the high front-end and continuing
operational costs of nuclear power. But the decline of the nuclear power
industry in the United States is further compounded by another important period
in American history: Three Mile Island. As a result of the partial meltdown,
Three Mile Island put a halt to nuclear power plant construction and when it
kicked back into gear, new construction faced immense public opposition. As a
result, the technical expertise developed during the post-war “Atoms for Peace”
movement subsided as new construction of nuclear power plants came to a virtual
standstill. Flash forward to today and the results of curtailed talent
development within the industry is taking its toll.
According to the article,
Scana Corporation and Santee Cooper decided to mothball the V.C. Summer project
– an AP1000 nuclear power plant designed by Westinghouse. Westinghouse, a Toshiba
company, declared bankruptcy in 2017 due, in part, because the company’s newly
designed AP1000 reactor had never been built before. The newness of the design
and understandable regulatory hurdles led to cost overruns. But a lack of
talent was also cited as a key concern as stated by the New York Times, “Not only was the design new, but, because nuclear
construction had been dormant for so long, American companies also lacked the
equipment and expertise needed to make some of the biggest components and
construct the projects.”[2] This statement in March
29, 2017 came just six years after the Nuclear Energy Institute – an industry
trade group – warned that more than a third of the nuclear industry’s workforce
could retire by 2016. The Institute projected that 25,000 skilled nuclear
industry workers would be needed to sustain and grow the sector by 2015.[3]
Indeed, looking at
employment figures for the nuclear electric power generation (NAICS 221113)
sector reveals that retirements along with utilities decommissioning outdated
plants have had an impact on total employment within the sector. From 2006 to
2016, employment within the nuclear power generation sector declined by 18.9
percent. In 2016, there were 12,000 fewer nuclear power generation jobs
compared to 2006. This data is likely a conservative estimate since it does not
account for construction and engineering jobs attached to building and
designing nuclear power plants.
Nuclear Energy Employment, 2006-2016
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Nuclear energy looks to
be in a precarious position in the United States. With only one new plant under
construction, the nuclear renaissance predicted some years ago is not likely to
materialize. In the big picture, one wonders whether nuclear power is a
figurative canary in the coal mine for other business sectors soon to be
impacted by Baby Boom retirements. Compounded with under-investment, workforce
sustainability issues could undermine the health and wellness of entire sectors
of the economy. Simply put, a lack of technical expertise, skilled talent, and
knowledge exchange between new and retiring workers were contributing factors
to cost overruns in new nuclear plant construction – today’s U.S. nuclear
energy sector simply didn’t have the experience and know-how needed to foresee
engineering and construction challenges or proactively deal with them in a
cost-effective manner when they arose.
[1]
Doan, Lynn and Chediak, Mark. “South Carolina May Spend 60 Years Paying for
Nukes Never Built.” Bloomberg. August 1st, 2017.
[2] Cardwell,
Diane and Soble, Jonathan. “Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to
Nuclear Power.” New York Times. March 29th, 2017.
[3] Nuclear
Energy Institute. “Help Wanted 25,000 Skilled Workers.” Summer 2011.
