Engineers Eye Job Opportunities In the Power Industry

div img class=”category-img” src=”” alt=”Five words or less” width=”180″ //divdiv class=”category-listcontent”div class=”category-body” id=”ArticleBody” style=”display: block” (a href=””NewsUSA/a) – The need in the United States to expand the power infrastructure to meet the anticipated heightened demand for electricity could grow the job …/div/div

Engineers Eye Job Opportunities In the Power Industry

Five words or less(NewsUSA) – The need in the United States to expand the power infrastructure to meet the anticipated heightened demand for electricity could grow the job …

Nuclear Power Key to Low-Carbon Plans

<b>Nuclear Power Key to Low-Carbon Plans</b>“></td>
<p>(<a href=NewsUSA) – As climate and energy bills work their way through Congress, it’s clear that the Obama administration wants to assert America’s energy independence. No single electricity-generating technology can meet America’s future energy needs by itself. But nuclear energy must play a significant role in any viable plan to meet the nation’s energy needs and reduce carbon emissions.

Nuclear energy can compete from a cost standpoint with other sources of electricity. While coal and natural gas plants may be less expensive to build — new nuclear plants are estimated to cost $6 billion to $8 billion — nuclear energy produces electricity using less fuel and with lower operating costs.

There’s also the issue of life span, which varies depending on the technology and makes a difference in evaluating up-front construction costs: Nuclear plants can operate for 60 and possibly 80 years. Wind turbines have an average lifespan of 20 to 30 years, according to Minneapolis-based National Wind, a developer of large-scale wind farms.

Aggressive carbon caps under consideration in Washington will make nuclear energy more attractive. Nuclear power plants do not generate carbon emissions. At the same time, nuclear plants require less acreage and provide more reliable electricity than wind, solar and biomass generators.

A biomass fuel cultivation area would have to be larger than Delaware to replace a nuclear power plant. To produce the same amount of electricity as a 2-unit nuclear power plant, a wind farm would need to be 10 times larger than Washington, D.C.

Consider this: The much-publicized Texas wind farm project that T. Boone Pickens recently postponed was estimated to cost $10 billion and require up to 200,000 acres. This cost didn’t include the estimated $3 billion to $6 billion in additional transmission necessary to distribute the energy from its source.

Space constraints and reliability issues prevent renewable sources of electricity from becoming primary power sources. While renewable sources of electricity should pay important roles in a diverse energy profile, an emission-free future will require nuclear power. This position has been embraced by a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Congress and by various environmental groups. Tony Kreindler, media director of the Environmental Defense Fund, put it succinctly when he recently said, “Given the scope of the climate problem and the emissions problem, we need to look at all the energy options we have, and nuclear is one of them.”

For more information, visit

Nuclear Power Could Provide Jobs, Energy

<b>Nuclear Power Could Provide Jobs, Energy</b>“></td>
<p>(<a href=NewsUSA) – Nuclear energy could play a key role in helping transform America, not only in the way that the nation produces energy, but also by creating new jobs.

America’s 104 nuclear power plants produce three-quarters of our carbon-free electricity and are among the few bright spots in the U.S. economy. Expanding rather than contracting, the nuclear energy industry provides thousands of green jobs.

Electric power companies have filed federal permits to build up to 26 new nuclear plants. Reactor designers and manufacturers are expanding engineering centers and manufacturing facilities and their payrolls.

Nuclear job growth is already underway in North Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Louisiana. In Lake Charles, La., the Shaw Group and Westinghouse will employ 1,400 workers. In Newport News, Va., Northrop Grumman and AREVA are building a $360 million facility to manufacture massive reactor vessels and stream generators. These and other companies have already hired more than 9,000 employees and invested more than $4 billion in developing new nuclear manufacturing and business operations.

But the green job revolution will not happen automatically. The U.S. electricity industry faces an unprecedented challenge. It must invest between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in new power plants, transmission and distribution systems to meet a 25 percent increase in electricity demand by 2030, according to an industry-funded study by the Brattle Group.

To create more jobs, the nuclear energy industry requires financing. The clean energy loan guarantee program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which was designed to jump start construction on a few clean energy projects, was an important step in the right direction, but only a small step. The $18.5 billion in loan guarantees currently authorized for new nuclear power projects might support three projects — not even close to the number of nuclear power projects that will start construction over the next several years.

Creating a new federal financing corporation called the Clean Energy Development Bank, modeled after the U.S. Export-Import Bank, could help support green jobs. The bank could ensure that capital flows to clean technology deployment — renewables, advanced coal-based systems, nuclear and other clean fuels — in the electricity sector.

Unlike many of the proposed infrastructure programs that require direct government spending, a Clean Energy Bank will be self-financing. The companies using the program will pay the federal government the cost of providing the guarantee, as well as all administrative expenses, so the program will actually generate revenue. By reducing the cost of capital, the program will reduce electricity prices to all consumers — residential, commercial and industrial.

Quadruple Amputee Stands Tall Again

<b>Quadruple Amputee Stands Tall Again</b>“></td>
<p>(<a href=NewsUSA) – Twenty-two-year-old Manuel Salazar had just begun work on a construction site in Georgia when, in an instant, his life was changed forever.

A crane on the job site hit a power line, sending it to the ground where Salazar was standing, and hitting him twice with 115,000 volts of electricity. While exposure to this dose of electricity is enough to kill anyone, miraculously Salazar survived to tell the tale.

However, Salazar’s injuries were grave. His burns were life-threatening and required that his arms and legs be amputated. The emotional struggle ahead of him as a quadruple amputee was overwhelming.

“I didn’t understand why they had saved my life,” said Salazar. “I didn’t think life could go on.”

But press on he did, and he was given new hope numerous times from the help of donated allograft tissue, a gift from deceased human donors. AlloSource, one of the nation’s largest non-profit providers of skin, bone and soft tissue allografts, provided the life-saving skin grafts to cover Salazar’s burns and promote healing.

After his stay in the burn unit, he was brought to the Denver Center for Extremities at Risk. Because of the extent of his amputations, it was difficult to fit prosthetics for Salazar.

Dr. Ross Wilkins and the team at the center again used human tissue processed at AlloSource to help Salazar’s mobility. Donor bone was used to help build Salazar a shoulder. Along with muscle from Salazar’s back, the new shoulder can sustain a lightweight, highly functional prosthetic. With the new shoulder and prosthetic, Salazar can now feed himself, brush his teeth and even scratch his head, many simple things that he could not accomplish before.

Despite his ongoing physical setbacks, Salazar insists that he is the same man he was before the accident six years ago. In fact, his stubbies (short prosthetic legs that allow him to walk in a shuffling motion) and wheelchair have hardly held him back: Salazar skis, water-skis, swims, drives and wants to go ski diving. He also opened an auto body shop called Progressive Auto Works, in Colorado, and employs a team of people.

He speaks often to groups and inspires others with his incredible spirit.

“I’m thankful to be alive,” said Salazar. “I want to try new things. I see life in a whole new way.”

Move Your Green Efforts Up a Notch

<b>Move Your Green Efforts Up a Notch</b>“></td>
<p>(<a href=NewsUSA) – Being environmentally responsible is not only the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do. While helping preserve the environment, it is likely you will save money. Many U.S. corporations understand that being green is good for the environment and for their bottom line, which is why they have implemented original ways to reduce their environmental footprints.

Companies and consumers who want to be greener, but don’t know what to do beyond recycling, can look to some of these innovative companies for eco ideas. For example, Roche pharmaceuticals has been very successful in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the company achieved this goal two years ahead of schedule, which was set with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Leaders program (

Roche’s pharmacuetical division cut down waste and energy use in a variety of ways, such as:

– Changing the packaging of its osteoporosis drug, Boniva (ibandronate), from a plastic material to a recyclable “blister wrap.”

– Converting its system for submitting paper documents to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to an electronic submission process, saving reams of paper and energy that would have been spent shipping the materials.

– Offering its pharmaceutical sales force the option to choose a hybrid car to drive, saving more than 80,000 gallons of gas per year.

– Roche also introduced co-generation, the ability to generate steam and electricity simultaneously as a source of energy, at its Nutley, New Jersey, headquarters. With co-generation, the costs and emissions were reduced, but generated enough electricity to meet 65 percent of the site’s electricity needs.