Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Nuclear Power Cluster Reaches Critical Mass

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Virginia’s nuclear power industry cluster has gained a major new player: AREVA Newport News. The French nuclear giant AREVA, which makes uranium-filled fuel rods in Lynchburg, has partnered with Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding, builder of nuclear-powered naval vessels, to invest $363 million and create 540 jobs at a new 368,000-square-foot nuclear reactor manufacturing facility.

Said Gov. Timothy M. Kaine in announcing the deal: “This joint venture project is tremendous news for Virginia. Both AREVA and Northrop Grumman are stellar companies with strong reputations and a solid presence in Virginia. We are strong supporters of the nuclear and shipbuilding industries in Virginia, and we will continue to support this facility and compete aggressively for future expansions. Emission-free nuclear energy produced in the United States is a positive step toward reducing greenhouse gases and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.”

Added AREVA Inc. CEO Tom Christopher: “We are establishing a world-class entity that fully supports the deployment of a fleet of U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactors made in America by Americans and for Americans. Here in Virginia, we have access to a great workforce for both the manufacturing and engineering expertise we need.”

Naturally, there are subsidies involved. According to the Daily Press, state and local governments are putting up $23 million in incentives. The includes $3 million from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund, a $1.5 million performance-based grant from the Virginia Investment Partnership program, workforce training and other benefits.

I’m normally a big critic of incentives, but these make as much sense as any subsidies (incentives) can.

(1) Bringing the nuclear-component manufacturing facility to Virginia builds upon, and strengthens, an existing nuclear power cluster. An industry cluster will have more staying power than an individual company such as, say, the Volkswagen USA headquarters.

(2) The deal brings high-skilled, high-paying jobs to a region that is beginning to hurt economically. Unemployment reached 4.8 percent in August, and prospects bode ill for the next few years as a new presidential administration ponders deep cuts in the military. Many of the jobs created will require skills that the local workforce already possesses.

Bacon’s bottom line: This may be the biggest economic development coup of the Kaine administration with the most positive long-term implications.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

12 responses to “Nuclear Power Cluster Reaches Critical Mass”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Considering Rep. Barney Frank (D. Mass.) wants to reduce military spending by 25%, maybe this is a good use of taxpayer money.
    In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.” http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081024/NEWS/810240332/-1/NEWS10

    If Virginia does, indeed, vote Blue, no one can accuse the Commonwealth of voting its own parochial interests. What would likely happen were a 25% reduction in military spending?

    TMT

  2. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Remember the peace dividend? After the first gulf war in 1991, the US went through a draw down for several years. In Hampton Roads the result was a subtraction of 95 thousand jobs including ‘multipliers’, 2 billion dollars in annual GRP, and a regional per capita income reduction from 102 percent of US PCI to 85 percent, as lower paid service jobs outpaced defense work.

    Today, military spending makes up 38 percent of the region’s 60 billion dollar GRP. This spending tends to soften area recessions. A 6.3 percent national unemployment rate would be 4.5 in HR. If defense spending was reduced by 25 percent during the current economic climate, it would act as an amplifying component with the commercial port’s declining traffic to cause a regional depression.

    How much was the real defense spending reduction in Hampton Roads during the 90s?

    Ten percent.

  3. Rabbit Avatar
    Rabbit

    Yeah, let’s improve our state’s economy!

    Um… where does the waste go again? Screw it, send it somewhere else. Maybe Utah, I’m sick of them sending their wayward teenagers to my door. Or WV, Senator Byrd will take it if we kick back enough $$$.

    Or… think long term, and let some suffer, lose their cable TV, cell phone plans, and third beach homes. “The masses are asses”. I challenge you to think really long term.

  4. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I’m always amazed that we must spend 36% of our budget for a “strong” defense… more than another other country in the world for “defense”

    and we have some very different perspectives

    taxes for the military is apparently NOT taking folks hard earned money for worthless Federal deficit spending….

    second.. taxes collected and spent on non-military stuff… oh.. let’s say.. instead of spending it on humvees, we spend it on solar or wind turbines..

    well.. that money disappears into a giant rathole a total drain on the economy… classic government “waste”.

    … so Humvees (and Warships) built in places like Hampton Road provide JOBS for people but the same tax dollars spent on wind/solar would in RoVa apparently does not generate jobs for people like Military spending does.

    oh but then we’d have the argument that only private industry serving a truly free market should manufacture stuff and the market would decide what stuff people want or don’t want…

    …except when it comes to Humvees… people NEED Humvees… and those manufacturing plants for HumVees in Ohio are providing REAL Jobs AND patriotic ones at that….

    …how do we know we need Humvees?

    .. because…if we don’t spend 36% of our budget on military stuff.. that there will not be a free America… and that the evil of the world will topple us and let Europe and Asia rule the world.

    and ..of course.. Virginia would be in deep doo doo and would then fall from grace as one of the most “resiliant” economies no matter whether the country is in a boom or bust cycle…

    .. and of course.. a nice side benefit is Virginia’s ability to have a slimmer and smaller government that does not….”waste” tax dollars….

    so.. of course… the Feds could not “cut” Defense by 25% or even 20, or 15 and spend that money on infrastructure for the country instead – because we then would be taking people’s hard earned money and sending it down a non-productive socialist rathole.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Interesting how the dollars and the promise of jobs have played a priority in the publicity about this deal, but I’ve seen not a word about the potential safety or environmental risk assessments with regard to this joint venture. Will plans ultimately involve transportation of nuclear fuel into or through Virginia – or along its coast? Just asking. Don’t tag me as a tree hugger, but some of us don’t necessarily want Virginia to become the nuclear leader of the US. Now that we know Kaine’s stance on nuclear, the folks who have been attempting to protect the Commonwealth from open-pit uranium mining and milling have an uphill battle. But hey, if it brings $$$ and a few jobs today, who cares if it’ll cost many millions in taxpayer $ to clean up decades from now, right?

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    this is great news for Hampton Roads, and Virginia in general

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    …”not a word about the potential safety or environmental risk assessments”

    where is the concern about all the NUKE stuff that is currently processed (and transported) by the Navy in Hampton Roads?

    We ought to keep things.. intellectually honest here…

    1. – Virginia already gets jobs from NUKEs… a lot of jobs…

    2. – These NUKEs ..ARE ALSO Subsidized if you think of it in terms of who pays for them… taxpayers….

    so… is it okay for guys in Iowa to subsidize Navy Nukes in Hampton but not okay for Virginia Taxpayers to subsidize nukes in Lynchburg?

    if Areva/Grumman were subsidized by the Feds – would we still love the new jobs…even better?

  8. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “who cares if it’ll cost many millions in taxpayer $ to clean up decades from now, right?”

    Depends on how many millions and how many decades.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Maybe there should be more concern about the materials transported into and out of Virginia. But as long as it brings money and jobs, no one else seems to give a rat’s tiny tush about it.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There will be no nuclear material installed or handled at the AREVA manufacturing facility planned for Newport News. That plant will be building components. Fuel will be installed at the plant location post construction.

    But don’t tell the fool who made that posting about all them nuclear reactors in the carriers and submarines just down river a piece at the shipyard or NOB…The Enterprise alone has 8 reactors, all of them in service since before the Starship Enterprise was a gleam in Gene Roddenberry’s eye….

    The first step in dealing with the nuclear waste is to recycle and reprocess it (which AREVA also knows how to do, BTW). Our refusal to do that is insane. The volume of what is then left over and unusable is substantially reduced and far easier to store, either on the plant site or some other location. There is a big difference between the material used to fuel reactors (civilian or military) and the material that was used to make bombs.

    This was great news for VA.

  11. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    there is no question that there are substantial risks in handling nuclear waste…

    .. and re-processing creates plutonium if not mistaken – a material that mere grams of can kill hundreds/thousands of people.

    …but there is also no question that burning fossil fuels is also causing tremendous environmental damage that .. could.. depending on who one wishes to believe – threaten the climate of the Earth – ergo – at the end of the day… do the same trick to humanity than plutonium might.

    Ray seems to think you total up the costs of the pollution and compare them to the benefits and if the equation is positive then all is well..

    somehow.. his equation does not seem to take into account the potential for mass destruction either from global warming or a large plutonium release – probably from a 3rd world country.. with little or no safeguards…(proliferation).

    Are there other less dangerous viable paths?

    Is it possible – over time – to power civilization with solar, wind, tides, etc?

    What is the main impediment to pursuing this path?

    How likely are we to suffer permanent damage from wind, solar and tides as compared to existing fossil fuel and contemplated nukes?

    If we were going to make some decisions about where to invest R&D … to pursue technology breakthroughs… would it be wise to pursue wind/solar/tide/battery technology or .."clean coal or nukes"?

    I don't pretend to know the answers but I think some things are clear… if we are willing to be honest with ourselves….

    and I think that's what we owe ourselves first – to be honest about the choices….and not pretend or ignore realities.

  12. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Here’s the easy question.

    What is the primary.. most compelling reason to NOT starting to convert to wind, solar and tides?

Leave a Reply

Read More