Nuclear Energy Could Create 10,000 Jobs in Arizona

For Immediate Release: February 22, 2010

Nuclear Energy Could Generate 7,743 Construction and 3,000 Nuclear Engineering Jobs in Arizona

ASU Study Predicts Non-Carbon Energy Impacts

PHOENIX – According to a study by Arizona State University, Arizona could gain 7,743 highly paid construction jobs and 3,000 atomic engineering jobs if the plan proposed by Arizona House Leadership gets passed. ASU’s Steidman Institute prepared an economic impact report for industry leadership last week showing significant benefits to the high paying jobs that would be created by such a massive multi-billion dollar atomic energy construction project. If another atomic energy plant is constructed in Arizona, the 414 jobs could be created within 24 months and up to 7,743 jobs within the 7 year construction period.

Last Monday President Obama awarded a $9.3 billion loan guarantee to the Southern Cos., the main power provider in Georgia to simulate high tech jobs in the atomic energy sector. A request for Arizona’s share of atomic energy planning and development money was passed in the Arizona House Energy and Water committee last week on a straight party line vote in HCM 2014.

Governor Brewer came out in support of solar, atomic and other non-carbon sources of energy last month in speeches to industry groups.

House Bill 2767, which is an Energy Parks concept plan, includes tax incentives, tax exempt loans for solar, atomic, wind, geothermal, and other non carbon energy sources, as well as a 50 year strategic energy plan. This bill goes to Government committee and if passes, advances to the full House next week for consideration. “This Energy Park incentive bill closely matches the incentives Utah passed last June, with the addition of a 50 year statewide energy strategy plan. We can’t let Utah beat us in the non-carbon energy race, like they beat us in basketball,” Representative Warde Nichols said, the bill’s co-sponsor.

The construction and development of a new atomic energy facility in the State would provide Arizona families with $2.46 billion in new disposable income, and provide the state $457 million in new revenues according to the ASU study. “These are private sector jobs, private sector projects, and public sector benefits,” said Representative Tobin. “It only makes sense that we should grow private sector high energy physics projects in atomic energy just like we grew the high tech bio medical sector years ago.”


Comments

  1. Other than Palo Verde we won’t see any new nukes in AZ. The leftist enviro whacko’s aligned with John McCain will never let it move forward. Funny to see everyone get so excited over nothing.

  2. Let’s see — you have Obama, Brewer, and ASU all in favor of nuclear. And your saying the “leftist enviro whacko’s (sic)” won’t let it happen? Sounds like a straw man argument.

  3. We have water electrical from dams, which is pollution-free, and biodegradable coal, which burns cleaner with new furnances than ever, and oil, which is biodegradable and cheap.

    But no. Nuclear! With incredibly dangerous waste to dispose of.
    It’s all “green” to force people off the simple incandescent bulb – a little glass, a little wire and a little metal base in a little cardboard box. 100% recylable – for a plastic encased CF bulb, which took tons more energy to produce because of far more inputs of plastics, computer chips, way more glass per bulb and metal, and toxic mercury, which no one knows how to dispose of safely now that 500 million bulbs are hitting the trash this year. The expensive CF bulb to save a few pennies off someone’s monthly electrical bill has jacked up the national energy usage for its production, packaging and transport. Now these same “brilliant minds” are intoning “nuclear” over oil? Huh? They freaked for decades about the horrors of nuclear.

    Much rather have an oil spill than a nuclear spill, but nooo.

  4. Just a reminder:
    Elena’s motorcyle tour of the abandoned Chernobyl nuclear radiation zone.
    A sobering account describing the accident, the evacuations and the uninhabited miles around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, and photographic tour of the abandoned villages, farms and city.

    http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

  5. Nuclear energy is the most reliable source of clean energy available. Not only does it promote high tech jobs for its operation but also promotes the advancement and implementation of technology in creating cleaner, more efficient ways in producing energy. In the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain was nuclear power’s most avid supporter and remains. If he were elected, there would be more than just one nuclear power plant planned for construction on the national stage. Obama’s release of loans for one in Georgia should be commended but is far too little. Conservatives know that the more plants we get producing energy the better it is for America’s economic platform.

  6. Is there funding for disposal facilities?

    No one wants them in their neighborhoods.

  7. I’m a ‘downwinder’ with thyroid problems likely linked to the plutonium fire at Rocky Flats outside Denver in 1957. My Mom worked during WWII at the Hanford Reservation, as part of the Manhattan Project. One of my early bosses was Roy W. Greenlee, one of the Manhattan Project Wunderkinds, who pioneered Pu 239 and 240 research, then switched careers to the Oil Patch after deciding nuclear disposal and decommissioning challenges were both technically daunting and economically infeasible. Bottom line? Don’t sell your birthright for a mess of beans, unless AZ wants more ‘National Sacrifice Areas’ like Rocky Flats.

Leave a Reply