Not exactly. If you listen to the piece, it is 150 jobs over the next two years...with one reference to "studies" that say green industries could create 10,000 jobs. Only 150 of them are real and the company can't fill those.

We have the same issue here with the pending nuclear boom and fear of not enough skilled trades.

Incidentally, the jobs being offered are making bearings for wind turbines. The turbines may be green...making bearings is pretty traditional steel work and not necessarily environmentally friendly themselves.

LOL. Excellent point. Lets go with nuclear renaissance. Boom was a poor choice of words. Great technology though...no carbon footprint and there is plenty of uranium. USEC, which I represent, is about to turn it's 14,000th Soviet nuclear warhead into nuclear plant fuel in the "Megatons to Megawatts" program.

I have to admit that I don't understand the subject line here, its connection to the link, and the implied conclusion. I expected the NPR report to reference programs/policies of the state of Ohio that we have not pursued here in Tennessee. What I heard was basically a dialogue between unions and wind turbine companies relative to whether existing workers could be hired, or would even accept jobs in the newer industries that paid less than many folks had received in their previous jobs. There was disagreement about whether folks had to be trained to work on ball bearings for wind turbines vs. working on ball bearings for other uses.

It was interesting and pointed out the complexity of the issue. But unless I missed something in the radio broadcast there is nothing here that points to leaders in Ohio as being "far sighted" relative to ours as being "short sighted." Govenor Bredesen sponsered a clean energy technology summit here a few weeks ago (link...). Knoxville received a solar city grant (link...), just to indicate that there are real efforts made at the state and local level.

The solar cities grant and associated work addresses specific activities. The second one below deals directly with the situation spotlighted in Ohio.

Developing high-visibility solar installations with educational components in the city’s new energy-efficient downtown transit station and in a near zero-energy house in the South Waterfront District. The educational exhibit about solar energy at Ijams Nature Center will also be improved.

Conducting a survey of renewable energy and energy-efficiency businesses in Knoxville and East Tennessee to learn more about the business impediments they face and how they could be surmounted.

There is continuing work good work going on toward this end here in Knoxville and around the state. Again, maybe I am missing something, but it seems gratuitous to take such a story and conclude: "Meanwhile Tennessee gets left behing by short sighted leaders."

no carbon footprint

NO, NO, a thousand times NO!!!!! Will this lie ever stop being repeated?! Tell me that the processes of mining and refining uranium, transporting both the fuel and the spent waste, and operating/maintaining a nuke plant are all carbon neutral. And how much GHGs are emitted in the construction of a multibillion dollar monstrosity of concrete and steel?

Once built, the process might operate at 30-70% less GHG on balance than dirty coal, but it's far from zero. I'll try and post some links when I get time.

If you don't look at the full lifecycle, you're fooling yourself. Might as well believe the billboards in West Virginia that just flat out proclaim "Clean, Carbon Neutral COAL!!!" It says so right there (and paid for by the coal industry), so it must be true.

There's a good report on the future of nuclear power available on pdf here. A few excerpts on several aspects:

Bottlenecks--

...Japan Steel is “the only plant in the world … capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor’s containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak.” In a single year, they can currently only make “four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor.” They may double capacity over the next two years, but that won’t allow the huge ramp up in nuclear power that some are projecting for the industry.

Water use--

“existing nuclear power stations used and consumed significantly more water per megawatt hour than electricity generation powered by fossil fuels,” as a 2002 report by the Electric Power Research Institute found.
...
Yet... “Some regions have seen groundwater levels drop as much as 300 to 900 feet over the past 50 years because of the pumping of water from aquifers faster than the natural rate of recharge. A 2003 General Accounting Office study showed that most state water managers expect either local or regional water shortages within the next 10 years under average climate conditions. Under drought conditions, even more severe water shortages are expected.”

Costs--

From 2000 to October 2007, nuclear power plant construction costs—mainly materials, labor, and engineering—have risen by 185 percent.6 That means a nuclear power plant that cost $4 billion to build in 2000, cost $11.4 billion to build last October.
...
According to the Wall Street Journal, “Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators—NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc.—‘have blown by our highest estimate’ of costs computed just eight months ago,
...
Many large-scale alternative sources of carbon-free electricity are today either considerably cheaper or more competitive.

Uranium supply--

...In 2006, we imported 84 percent, or 56 million pounds, of our uranium.

Also, this article also discusses uranium supply:

...good-quality uranium ore is hard to come by. The deposits of rich ores with the highest uranium content are depleting leaving only lower-quality deposits to be exploited.3 As ore quality degrades, more energy is required to mine and mill it, and greenhouse gas emissions rise.

Most Republicans are that way, including McCain/Palin. Who wouldn't be "for" renewables? It's all warm and fuzzy. But their real agenda and voting record show a different story. Their next trick is to try and make nuclear seem like a renewable. They want to go from importing 75% of our energy as oil to importing 85% of our energy as uranium, under the guise of energy security.

From an earlier discussion...

I have no idea if these numbers are accurate, but...

Global non-renewable energy resources in terawatt/hours:

• Coal: 6,000,000
• Natural Gas: 1,500,000
• Uranium 235: 1,500,000
• Oil: 1,000,000
• Tar Sands: 800,000
• Total: 10,800,000

Global annual renewable energy sources in terawatt/hours:

• Direct Solar Radiation: 350,000,000
• Wind: 200,000
• Ocean/Thermal: 100,000
• Biofuels: 50,000
• Geothermal: 10,000
• Tidal/Wave: 5,000

Source: (link...)

(Aren't wind and ocean/thermal also solar?)

Ah, the Dem-liars fav number. Like 100,000 policemen, 100,000 teachers, 100,000 casulties, ad nauseum.

I am all for solar. And wind. And hydrogen cars. I am for virtually anything and everything we can do meet our energy demands and do as little environmental damage to the planet as possible.

That said, in the short term there are no other practical solutions to producing some of the signficant amounts of energy needed...here and elsewhere int he world...is nuclear power. there may be a day when we can meet all of our demands through wind, solar, wave/tide energy....but those days are a long way off. Short term you have oil, coal, gas, nuclear. Of those, I'll take nuclear.

The technology to supply massive amounts of energy from the sources you mention don't exist yet. If we could triple the amount of energy we produce from solar and wind in the next 5 years, it still would be a drop in the bucket.

And that's in America, where we may gave tax credits. There's the rest of the world to consider as well.

I am all for these technologies. Heck, one of the firms I represent (not here) is leasing 20 acres for 20 years for $20 total to be used as a solar array setting.

I am for pursuing every technology we can. And I still believe nuclear has a large and important part to play, here and around the world.

I also recognize there are people who will never agree with that. Which is why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.

Any progress being made in making switchgrass a commercially viable fuel?

Thus far all that seems like a glorified corn ethanol project.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

I am all for solar. And wind. And hydrogen cars. I am for virtually anything and everything we can do meet our energy demands and do ...That said, in the short term there are no other practical solutions to producing some of the signficant amounts of energy needed...here and elsewhere int he world...is nuclear power.

Obviously you're still drinking the McPalin "Real Joe" KoolAid (see my hat). Like that failed campaign, you're speaking about 180 degrees counter to reality. If you'd bother to read the link I provided or anything else besides the talking points provided by the nuclear lobby via the GOP, you wouldn't have any excuse to sound so silly. One nuclear plant is at least 6 years out and closer to 10. The costs are prohibitive:

Nuclear is simply not a near-term, cost-effective solution to our climate problem—especially if the $4,000/kW cost last year was already starting to price it out of the marketplace. The prices utilities are quoting for nuclear have since soared 50 percent to 100 percent.

Nuclear costs about 15 cents/kWh before transmission and delivery costs, wind is about 6-8.5 cents/kWh AFTER integrating transmission costs. Other solar technologies will almost certainly be cheaper than nuclear before you can get a nuclear plant on line. CSP is currently 14-15 cents/kWh and dropping quickly. Some expect PV to be down to 12 cents in 7 years. What will nuclear cost then and in what country will you be mining it (using foreign, carbon emitting oil)?

And on top of the other costs and risks, why does the taxpayer subsidize nuclear power to the tune of 100's of millions of dollars per year, after 50 years of maturity in the marketplace? Nuclear power is neither practical, competitive, nor short term.

You might consider taking your meds and switching to decaf.

It is possible for people to disagree. It is possible for people to have different views without considering the others evil, ignorant morons.

From Al Gore's 100% clean energy in 10 years scenario:

(link...)

Notice the biggest category: efficiency!

...without considering the others evil, ignorant morons.

What class you have, Mr. Cohen.

I'd refer you to the article by Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, that appeared in the Washington Post.
(link...)

I happen to think nuclear is a big part of the global energy solution and helps us get off coal a whole lot quicker than anything else.

I don't believe CCS ("clean coal") can really work. No more than making practical fusion, hydrogen, corn ethanol, coal-to-liquid, shale oil, etc. Gore's Scenario A just replaces CCS by extending wind to 27%. Alternately, I wonder if PV and Solar w/ Thermal (CSP) could be stronger in the mix.

Google's plan actually increases nuclear modestly, but without free lunch assumptions about it.

Part of the problem with Patrick Moore's piece is that it's 2-1/2 yrs old. Nuclear construction costs have skyrocketed since. As the Romm piece notes:

[Moore] states a common misconception—that you can ignore capital cost when calculating the cost of energy. His statement would be like saying, “My house is incredibly cheap to live in, if I don’t include the mortgage.” If you don’t include the capital costs, then wind and solar are essentially free—nobody charges for the fuel, and operation is cheap. Compare this to nuclear plants, which are probably the most capital-intensive form of energy there is; also, they run on expensive uranium and must be closely monitored minute by minute for safety reasons.
Moore is comparing old nuclear plants that have already been paid off with new coal, gas, wind, and solar plants. Why? Because the price of new nuclear power has risen faster than any other form of power. Comparing new nuclear plants would be no contest—they are easily the most expensive kind of electricity plant to build today.
...
Yet as the Nuclear Engineering International article detailed, costs are now far beyond $2000/kW. By mid-2007, a Keystone Center nuclear report funded in part by the nuclear industry and NEI estimated overnight costs at $3000/kW, which equals $3600 to $4000/kW with interest. The report notes, “the power isn’t cheap: 8.3 to 11.1 cents per kilo-watt hour.” In December 2007, retail electricity prices in this country averaged 8.9 cents per kwh.

You haven't refuted any points I have posted. Moore talks about reversing the 60/20% mix of coal/nuclear to 20/60%. Is he really proposing building 200 new nuclear plants? That's 1-3 trillion dollars and still leaves 20% of our power coming from dirty coal. The Google plan is extimated to cost $4.4 trillion, but expects to save $5.4 trillion and reduces coal and oil power generation to zero. It also allows about 15% growth of nuclear power, which is about 15 new plants. Seems modest and realistic.

For nuclear in and of itself to make a significant dent in the energy security mix and lower GHG accordingly, it is just not possible, feasible, or affordable to build enough of the plants fast enough.

"Solar Thermal" means both large scale power plants as well as distributed hot water systems lumped together?

Are you referring to the Gore chart that Randy posted? I think that means CSP or Solar Baseload.

I grant you that most non-domestic production is coming from Canada...

Might be true for oil too.

Here is a reprint of the article I wrote for Metro Pulse a year ago on nuclear power. It cites $4000/kW as the projected cost by the time the new batch of reactors currently seeking licensing start generating power. Also, there is a forge in France that can make steel reactor vessels in addition to the one in Japan.

I like the idea of turning weaponized uranium into fuel. It seems to make the world somewhat safer, and it's a boon for local industry. It's obvious, however, that efficiency and conservation should be our first priority.

According to the latest Technology Review, an MIT chemist has devised a system for splitting water with just a mild electrical current. It mimics photosynthesis and promises potential solar-to-hydrogen production. There are more stages to be developed, and it needs to be scaled up to production capacity, but it definitely puts us closer to economically and energetically feasible hydrogen fuel.

I think the digs at Haslam in this thread are unfair and fly in the face of what Madeliene Weil has accomplished for Knoxville as part of his administration. The practical, non-ideological and bipartisan approach he has taken as mayor reflects my hopes for how Obama will lead at the federal level.