• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Nuclear Energy and Job Creation

    Green jobs. We always hear about them and how they’ll be created over the next few years. Presidential nominee Barack Obama vows to create 5 million of them. But as John Stossel eloquently explains, the government can’t really create jobs. They can shift resources and force investment to make it appear like they are creating jobs, but that’s about it. Stossel explains:

    Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there. Overlooking this fact is known as the broken-window fallacy. The French economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out that a broken shop window will create work for a glassmaker, but that work comes only at the expense of the cook or tailor the shopkeeper would have patronized if he didn’t have to replace the window.”

    (Tangentially, Frederic Bastiat’s The Law is one of the best books written arguing for limited government and in response to socialism.)

    In any event, if politicians want to talk about jobs and people want to hear about jobs, then let’s talk jobs.

    The private investment in nuclear energy will create jobs – lots of jobs. And lots of good jobs. The American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness has commissioned a study by Oxford Economics to examine the state-level occupational and economics of a revived nuclear endeavor in America. The study assumes 52 new reactors will be operational by 2030 and estimates the creation of 350,000 jobs.

    Two things to keep in mind. First, these are high paying jobs we’re talking about here. To build and operate nuclear power plants, the industry will require high paying manufacturing jobs as well as a slew of nuclear engineers. Secondly, a lot of these jobs aren’t going anywhere. Unlike a windmill that requires little or no man power after it’s built, nuclear plants will have an estimated 900 full-time jobs generated for each reactor. That’s 47,000 jobs by 2030 and these reactors last approximately 80 years.

    The full report can be found here. The study also has an interactive website that breaks down employment, GDP, carbon emission savings, wages and tax revenue by state. You can check it out here.

    It’s also important to note that theses jobs can and should be driven by private investment and not government handouts. As Stossel summarizes, if it makes sense to invest in green technologies, the market will do so. The same should be said for nuclear energy.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Nuclear Energy and Job Creation

    1. Darvin Dowdy, Houst says:

      Nuclear Power Plants create a product that people not only need but also want. Believe me, I was without power all day Saturday after Ike blew in. America needs to produce something that people either need, want or both. And with a healthy profit. Electric power fills that order.

      And Mr. Loris gives us some specific numbers of jobs that will be created. Great info. This is positive, uplifting news. U.S. workers can get excited about this sort of info. Especially those stuck in Mall Retail, Fast Food, etc. Don't be fooled, there are some smart folks stuck in these dead-end jobs – looking for an escape route.

      If only we could get some manpower requirements/ statistics/numbers for the proposed domestic oil production. You know, the Drill Now/Drill Here push? Numbers like that could certainly help a certain political party, know what I mean? And could be used to defeat the opposition party that is standing in the way of domestic production, too. I would think that the number of bodies needed if we were producing 80% plus of our own oil would be massive. I'm talking the actual drilling and all support/related industries involved. And these would be [just as the above mentioned nuclear jobs] very high paying jobs. Again, this sort of info gets the average Mom/Pop voter excited. Not only for a possible better job for themselves but most important – future prosperity for their beloved offspring. The jobs future hasn't looked bright lately, either. News like this can be the real "hope & change" folks are looking for. And it could be coming from the Repub's rather than from Obama.

      So Mr. Loris, is there any org that may have some estimates on the number of jobs that domestic oil production my create? Info like that could also help Newts Drill Now initiative. [and it needs help]

      Thanks for some rays of sunshine here Mr. Loris and HF. Great news. Darvin Dowdy

    2. Pingback: Nuclear Energy & Job Creation

    3. Donald Pay says:

      "Private investment" in nuclear energy requires all sorts of federal subsidies. Nuclear power is, always has been and always will be a socialist enterprize. Look at where nuclear power is taking off: socialist and/or authoritarian states (some of the rogue variety). Bastiat is rolling over in his grave that someone is invoking his name in support of this welfare state corporatist/socialist enterprize.

    4. Dan Smith, Californi says:

      Why would nuclear energy require subsidies? Regulation, sure, subsidies, no. Linking nuclear power with socialist states and rogue nations makes no sense. They, too, have automobiles, houses, airplanes, etc. Anything we do can be privatized. The energy and communications industries are regulated but privatized, and there are very few subsidized portions, most having to do with the Americans With Disabilities. All other capital expenditures for expansion and new plant or technologies come out of the companies' pockets. I find it curious Mr. Pay links corporatism and socialism together, and corporatism with the term welfare state. Mr. Pays' politics are strange indeed.

    5. Wendy, Houston, TX says:

      While all of this is fine for discussion it appears we have forgotten a few things.

      Such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. What about the waste from it that poisons the earth for longer than humans can determine? These are the reasons that nuclear power plants stopped being built. Somehow the politicians seem to have forgotten that.

    6. Tim, USA says:

      Hey Wendy. good point. But the geological answer to nuclear waste disposal is relatively simple and has been known for a long time. There are many geologically stable underground areas. The problem is political. NIMBY!

      Likewise, engineers have the ability to build safe nuclear facilities, especially in reference to the well-known risks of coal energy. For all its hype, Three Mile Island was a non-event in terms of health risk, and Chernobyl's unsafe design is well known and would be avoided.

      There is no such thing as a no-risk life. Nuclear power is a safe, environmentally friendly, short-term answer to our energy needs. Long term, we need renewables like wind, solar, and hydrogen from these types of sources. Cheers!

    7. Pingback: How To Create A Million Clean Energy Jobs | Bear Market Investments

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×