Headhunter suggest bleak outlook for nukes leaving the navy!

[LT Dan]

I just got this email this morning, and thought I'd share it for discussion.

What are your thoughts on what this guy is saying?

Yes LT Dan, tragically, the Nuclear Renaissance is over.

Just a very few years ago, this set of circumstances gave the nuclear industry a window of opportunity to spring back to life in what was being called the Nuclear Renaissance:

-  Worldwide concern over greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

-  A nuclear-friendly administration (Bush) which streamlined licensing for new plants.

-  Rapidly rising oil prices.

Sadly, nuclear industry leaders couldn't get things going quickly enough before these things squashed the budding renaissance:

Ø  Fukushima and the distorted media coverage which shamelessly and falsely tied thousands of tsunami deaths to the nuclear meltdowns.  Now, Japan has idled practically all of its 54 reactors and Germany is moving to permanently shut down its 17 plants.  Even France, which generates 80% of its electric power from nuclear, is talking about taking that down to 50%.  For a global interconnected industry, these massive and widespread shutdowns are a disaster.

Ø  No solution to the waste storage problem (even after we've spent tens of billions of dollars developing Yucca Mountain only to have that project killed).

Ø  Nuclear industry leaders who are more scientists than business people.  I attended an American Nuclear Society meeting last month and the guy next to me was building a time machine in his garage . . . literally.  That's pretty typical for that group.  As a whole, they are NOT good businesspeople.

Ø  And the NAIL IN THE COFFIN:  The discovery and development of huge reserves of natural gas in CONUS.

Yes, I too am excited about the construction at Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia.  But take a look here and you'll see what's in store for the US nuclear industry over the coming decades:  decommissionings and decline.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/

"Lee, why are you so down on nuclear power?"  I'm not!  I'm frustrated because there actually might be something to man-made global warming . . . and burning enormous amounts of natural gas won't help that.  Commercial nuclear power should be a significant and growing part of our nation's energy future . . . it should be a growing prosperous field with a bright future for future transitioning Navy officers; but the geeks running that business have booted the only chance they'll have to revive that industry.  And commercial nuclear operations WON'T be a great future career choice for strong ambitious Navy Nuclear Officers. 

The information in this message is not proprietary . . .so you're welcome to forward it to any friends who might find value in it.  And if they want to get on our Sitrep Distro, they should do a Quick Registration at www.leecohencareers.com.



Lee Cohen, Managing Partner (x120)

Kathy Hewett, Executive Assistant (x128)


18301 Von Karman #700, Irvine CA 92612

LCohen@Lucasgroup.com

Toll Free: 800-878-2013

Direct: 949-930-3520

Fax: 949-660-0135

Register:  www.leecohencareers.com

[Fermi2]

Nah that's not the reason. The real reason is the big hiring rush is nearly over. It might go on another year, maybe 18 months but many utilities have restaffed and more importantly pretty much refilled their pipelines. An example if my plant keeps up its current good performance at throughput we will have enough ROs to upgrade to SRO so won't need any Instants out of the Navy.

I wouldn't count on the new plants sustaining anything. There's only 4 on the horizon and once they are staffed I'd count on a 15 year freeze. +- a couple years.

[stefanc2011]

An example if my plant keeps up its current good performance at throughput we will have enough ROs to upgrade to SRO so won't need any Instants out of the Navy.

Will there still be available positions as NLO / RO out of the Navy, or is that going downhill as well?

[Fermi2]

There IS no such thing as an RO out of the Navy.

NLO yes probably but in smaller bunches.

[DontGoToNPTU]

A nuclear-friendly administration (Bush) which streamlined licensing for new plants.

I really have a hard time swallowing this post. It wasn't until three years after Bush left office that we got the approval for the new plants. I'm not giving the credit to Obama but it has been twelve years since the Bush campaign where he was promoting nuclear and we are just now getting the approval to construct them.

This is a moot point since the President has little to do with this anyways.

[UncaBuffalo]

Nah that's not the reason. The real reason is the big hiring rush is nearly over. It might go on another year, maybe 18 months but many utilities have restaffed and more importantly pretty much refilled their pipelines. An example if my plant keeps up its current good performance at throughput we will have enough ROs to upgrade to SRO so won't need any Instants out of the Navy.

I wouldn't count on the new plants sustaining anything. There's only 4 on the horizon and once they are staffed I'd count on a 15 year freeze. +- a couple years.

...not just out of navy, but: 
http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,34778.msg162220.html#msg162220

[Rennhack]

What are your thoughts on what this guy is saying?

His points are mostly valid.  But there is only one that matters.  The price of natural gas.

I'm a realist that understands enough of the world to make real assessments on our industry.  The licensing streamline was performed to open up the ABILITY to build new nuclear plants.  The first few reactors build post COL are proof of concepts.  A warning blow across the bows of the natural gas industry. -- To prime the pump, if needed.

When it costs less money to make electricity via nuclear power versus other options, we will make electricity via nuclear power.  When it costs less money to make electricity via natural gas versus other options, we will make electricity via natural gas.  That is what the market dictates.  It's not magic.  There is no mystery.  It's not peoples love or hate for a method of power generation that dictates its use in the united states.  It's simple economics.

The Nuclear Renaissance isn't over, its on pause.

[GLW]

His points are mostly valid.  But there is only one that matters.  The price of natural gas.

I'm a realist that understands enough of the world to make real assessments on our industry.  The licensing streamline was performed to open up the ABILITY to build new nuclear plants.  The first few reactors build post COL are proof of concepts.  A warning blow across the bows of the natural gas industry. -- To prime the pump, if needed.

When it costs less money to make electricity via nuclear power versus other options, we will make electricity via nuclear power.  When it costs less money to make electricity via natural gas versus other options, we will make electricity via natural gas.  That is what the market dictates.  It's not magic.  There is no mystery.  It's not peoples love or hate for a method of power generation that dictates its use in the united states.  It's simple economics.

The Nuclear Renaissance isn't over, its on pause.

Two biggest hurdles/liabiities for commercial nukes;

NIMBY - Northeast new construction? - not likely in my lifetime,...
            Southeast? - Lots of potential,...
            Southwest? - Texas yes, everybody else no,...
            Upper Midwest? - not likely in my lifetime,...
            Great Central Prarie? - not likely in my lifetime,...
            Rockies - no
            Pacific coast - no

Long Term Waste Storage - Without a long term central repository, or state by state long term repositories (my preference), liability of spent fuel/GTCC materials will be the ugly football that keeps getting kicked down the road from corporate fleets to corporate mergers to that notion in the back of everybodies head that high level waste liability is "too big to fail" and the government of the people will get stuck with it eventually anyways,...

One of the downsides of deregulation as it took this matter out of the hands of the locals, to wit;

Nation wide nuke fleet operators compel folks in places like Vermont to live with a nuke plant whether they like it or not. The merits versus the liabilities of a nuke plant for Vermonters is not relevant, the abrogation of their choice to continue that relationship is. The corporation is not forcing VY down the states elected representatives throats for the states own good. The corporation is invoking a federal license process to continue making profit whether the local population is willing to share in the liability for the benefits that come with that profit or not.

Essentially, it is the application of "eminent domain" for commercial profit.

Few states are going to willingly accept new nuke construction as they realize that once you let the nuclear bogeyman into your backyard you lose all future discretion to make the bogeyman play nice and come to the table when negotiating for his continued presence after the initial contract/licensing terms have fulfilled their mandate.

As pro-nuke as I am, I would be hard pressed to willingly let any large corporation based in some state 1000 miles away from my home, to be able to dictate terms to my children and grandchildren at license renewal time.

My generation is already saddling them with crippling debt, my generation can at least reserve to them the ability to choose as they best see fit on issues this fundamental 40 years after we said okay.

Based on the VY and Pilgrim examples, my voting yes today will negate their ability to choose 40 years later. I owe them better.

State by state long term storage at least allows the states to get back some strong influence on just how profitable that corporation's continued operation will be when operating in flagrante delicto of the locals preferences as deemd best by their elected representatives.

(sic)

[retired nuke]

Like Mike and others say - it's natural gas that is kicking us...

The greenies are willing to support natural gas because it's cheaper right now, and there are no long term disposal issues. they are NOT looking closely at the actual cost - natural gas drilling and production puts lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. with production and supply large, the gas fields are leaking gas into the air, with little effort to make the gas fields leak tite. Just not cost effective right now. We have an oversupply, price is low, cost to upgrade drilling technology is too much.
http://e360.yale.edu/digest/study_natural_gas_drilling_fracking_causes_sizeable_methane_leaks/3414/

Not to mention natural gas explosions, that kill people - pipeline and power plant workers, general population...
http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?cat=8
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/07/us-energy-explosion-idUSTRE61619Q20100207

Any large scale energy production has risks and costs... the general populace doesn't recognize all of them, and seldom looks.

So... Nukes are on hold. Fukashima brought our hazards to the forefront again.

I just need 10 more years..... even if part of it is decommissioning...

[GLW]

Two biggest hurdles/liabiities for commercial nukes;

NIMBY.....

....Long Term Waste Storage - Without a long term central repository, or state by state long term repositories (my preference), liability of spent fuel/GTCC materials will be the ugly football that keeps getting kicked down the road from corporate fleets to corporate mergers to that notion in the back of everybodies head that high level waste liability is "too big to fail" and the government of the people will get stuck with it eventually anyways,...

One of the downsides of deregulation as it took this matter out of the hands of the locals, to wit;

Nation wide nuke fleet operators compel folks in places like Vermont to live with a nuke plant whether they like it or not. The merits versus the liabilities of a nuke plant for Vermonters is not relevant, the abrogation of their choice to continue that relationship is. The corporation is not forcing VY down the states elected representatives throats for the states own good. The corporation is invoking a federal license process to continue making profit whether the local population is willing to share in the liability for the benefits that come with that profit or not....

...State by state long term storage at least allows the states to get back some strong influence on just how profitable that corporation's continued operation will be when operating in flagrante delicto of the locals preferences as deemd best by their elected representatives.

(sic)

This could be big;

http://www.nj.com/salem/index.ssf/2012/06/nj_wins_appeal_to_stop_nrc_rul.html

[GLW]

His points are mostly valid.  But there is only one that matters.  The price of natural gas.

I'm a realist that understands enough of the world to make real assessments on our industry.  The licensing streamline was performed to open up the ABILITY to build new nuclear plants.  The first few reactors build post COL are proof of concepts.  A warning blow across the bows of the natural gas industry. -- To prime the pump, if needed.

When it costs less money to make electricity via nuclear power versus other options, we will make electricity via nuclear power.  When it costs less money to make electricity via natural gas versus other options, we will make electricity via natural gas.  That is what the market dictates.  It's not magic.  There is no mystery.  It's not peoples love or hate for a method of power generation that dictates its use in the united states.  It's simple economics.

The Nuclear Renaissance isn't over, its on pause.

Coal will always be able to trump natural gas with the exception of emissions.

The current administration is accelerating the shutdown of coal generated power with emissions constrictions.

It is a short sighted policy.

Natural gas is the best replacement for oil we have, relieving us of foreign entanglements, being the world oil cop, jihad retribution, et al.

The automobile as we know and love it will still deliver 96% of "as we know and love it" on natural gas.

To expend it in base load electric plants is ignorant, long term energy policy.

Make coal better, use natural gas to relieve ourselves of the imported oil issues, be happier America.

The administrations nuclear policy is short sighted too, they all have been for about as long as there has been an Energy Department in the Cabinet.

[Preciousblue1965]

Well I can tell you that I just talked to our recent class of BOT grads and only ONE...I repeat ONE...of the 14 in the class are ex navy Nukes.  All the rest are college students. Don't know if they aren't getting Navy guys to apply or if they are turning them away.  Just some food for thought.

[juggalonic]

You need to consider the source.  Does Lee Cohen have any good contacts within the industry to place you in?  I don't know, but when I talked to him 4 years ago he said roughly the same thing and at that time everyone from the boat or shore duty that I knew that wanted to go civilian nuke (including me) got into the industry.  (Full disclosure, I don't know that many people.)

[Wojo]

Nation wide nuke fleet operators compel folks in places like Vermont to live with a nuke plant whether they like it or not. The merits versus the liabilities of a nuke plant for Vermonters is not relevant, the abrogation of their choice to continue that relationship is. The corporation is not forcing VY down the states elected representatives throats for the states own good. The corporation is invoking a federal license process to continue making profit whether the local population is willing to share in the liability for the benefits that come with that profit or not.

Essentially, it is the application of "eminent domain" for commercial profit.

In this case buddy, I think you have it backward.  The nuclear licensee in this case is the "landowner".  The landowner purchased this property under the impression that they could make money by generating electricity using a nuclear reactor.  That reactor, when purchased by the landowner, was in compliance with all state and local regulations.  Now, because the neighbors have an irrational fear of making electricity using a nuclear reactor, they want to exercise "eminent domain" over the landowner for the perceived "public good".  They are asking the government to take control of a private landowner and private business.  Government takeover of privately owned property for the public good = "eminent domain".  And the US Supreme Court justice with the most radical interpretation of the government's use of eminent domain (Souter) just happens to live right there near Brattleboro

[GLW]

In this case buddy, I think you have it backward.  The nuclear licensee in this case is the "landowner".  The landowner purchased this property under the impression that they could make money by generating electricity using a nuclear reactor......

I do not disagree as much as you posit,...

You are correct that the license holder (landowner) can do what they will with the plot of licensed property they acquired and operate within the strictures of federal law,...

As a consideration for a "nuclear renaissance", my initial post dealt with a caution against the granting of new licenses,...

The landowner when the license is initially issued likely will not be the holder of the license at the time of license renewal,...

The new landowner has no more accountability than they choose to have vis a vis the local population at the time of license renewal,...

Like I posted earlier;

.....Few states are going to willingly accept new nuke construction as they realize that once you let the nuclear bogeyman into your backyard you lose all future discretion to make the bogeyman play nice and come to the table when negotiating for his continued presence after the initial contract/licensing terms have fulfilled their mandate.

As pro-nuke as I am, I would be hard pressed to willingly let any large corporation based in some state 1000 miles away from my home, to be able to dictate terms to my children and grandchildren at license renewal time.

My generation is already saddling them with crippling debt, my generation can at least reserve to them the ability to choose as they best see fit on issues this fundamental 40 years after we said okay.

Based on the VY and Pilgrim examples, my voting yes today will negate their ability to choose 40 years later. I owe them better......

[Raisesomehell]

If you think about it, there will still be jobs, just not in the vast quantities that there were. People retire all the time, although it may not be where you want it, if you're determined enough, you'll find something

[Fermi2]

Water treatment is the future.
I would have said "Plastics" but the forum general pop may be too young for that.

Here's to you Mrs Robinson

Actually I don't understand why more nukes don't head the water treatment route also, they used to be in big demand at breweries.

[yota]

Actually I don't understand why more nukes don't head the water treatment route also, they used to be in big demand at breweries.

This is actually my end goal, whether I serve 6 or 20, and the reason I pushed SO hard to get picked up ELT. I don't know 100% how well ELT translates, but learning the fundamentals can't hurt.

[HydroDave63]

This is actually my end goal, whether I serve 6 or 20, and the reason I pushed SO hard to get picked up ELT. I don't know 100% how well ELT translates, but learning the fundamentals can't hurt.

a Level I Domestic Water Treatment cert is pretty easy. Going all the way to Level V is up to you, but the munis do pay well for a 40 hr week

http://www.awwa.org/Conferences/learning.cfm?ItemNumber=51924

[Gamecock]

...... they used to be in big demand at breweries.

I have a 6-and-out ELT friend who is a "QA" inspector for Budweiser.  He makes 6 figures.....and gets "other" benefits as well.

[retired nuke]

I have a 6-and-out ELT friend who is a "QA" inspector for Budweiser.  He makes 6 figures.....and gets "other" benefits as well.

Yeah... but it's Budweiser 

[HydroDave63]

Yeah... but it's Budweiser 

You're not really drinking beer anyways, just renting it 

[Fermi2]

I have a 6-and-out ELT friend who is a "QA" inspector for Budweiser.  He makes 6 figures.....and gets "other" benefits as well.

I figured as much. A couple MMs I know got out after 8. Hired in a brewery near St Louis setting up Air Operated Valves and never looked back. If I hadn't been so much into operating so much I might have done the same thing!

[MacGyver]

There IS no such thing as an RO out of the Navy.

NLO yes probably but in smaller bunches.

Actually, I know of a utility that is/was hiring straight out of the navy RO's for commercial RO's.  They've already got two classes on shift and more in the pipeline.

Just sayin' ,,,,,, Peace

[hoopercj]

Actually, I know of a utility that is/was hiring straight out of the navy RO's for commercial RO's.  They've already got two classes on shift and more in the pipeline.

Just sayin' ,,,,,, Peace

as of right now Duke has posted on their careers page their january 2013 SRO class, which as far as i can tell any watch supervisor / RO qualified navy nuke should fit the bill for that. I know a couple of folks who got in on their 2012 class with nothing more than that. Not saying that there's an open ocean of positions available for navy nukes heading into RO/SRO positions, but they do still exist and i would imagine that they will continue to exist as long as you can make yourself competitive in the resume.