Obama Team Is Oddly Quiet About Evidence That Renewable Energy Beats Nuclear in Job Creation

On the heels of President Obama's big energy speech and in the wake of the ongoing nuclear disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, the Obama administration -- along with many members of Congress and the nuclear industry -- remains steadfast in its promotion of nuclear energy here at home.

With nationwide unemployment still hovering around 9 percent, job creation has been one of the leading support points for the so-called "nuclear renaissance."

But AlterNet has learned that University of Massachusetts researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute -- who are also consultants to the Department of Energy -- have provided data to the Obama administration that show investment in renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and biomass, would generate far more returns in American jobs than would investment in building new nuclear power plants.

The Obama administration, however, has steered clear of providing this fact to the American public.

An analysis by AlterNet, applying the same job investment data that University of Massachusetts researchers provided to the Obama administration in July 2010, reveals that, for every $1 million invested, renewable energy sources would create nearly 20 percent more jobs than would new nuclear energy sources. (The exact figure is 18.3 percent.)

One of those researchers, Robert Pollin, University of Massachusetts economics professor and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute, told AlterNet that though the Department of Energy has the same data, President Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and others who tout nuclear power's ability to generate jobs, are being "disingenuous" by not telling the whole story.

He said the crucial fact omitted in such narratives is that any investment in infrastructure creates jobs, but investment in nuclear energy creates far fewer jobs compared to an equal investment in renewable energy.

"The only relevant metric if you're interested in job creation by investing in the energy sector," Pollin explained, "is how many jobs per given dollar of expenditure."

He continued, "So the story he's telling, this anecdote about nuclear, of course it's going to create some jobs. But the statement is disingenuous because if you spend money on anything you will create some jobs. You can't do anything in an economy unless people are engaged.

"But the point is, if you go with the green investment, you'll create a lot more jobs and it's safer and better for the environment."

The Department of Energy did not respond to a request for comment.

In a statement released to AlterNet, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said, "In addition to very real safety concerns, particularly in light of what is happening in Japan, it is important that we also understand that new nuclear energy is more expensive than renewable energy... despite the massive government subsidies the nuclear industry enjoys."

Sanders continued, "As this new analysis shows, we would create more jobs by investing in sustainable energy. It also is clear that sustainable energy offers a safer and more cost-effective means of producing new energy than nuclear."

But Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), like the Obama administration, believes the U.S. must rely on a "broad mix portfolio" of energy sources, according to his spokeswoman Jude McCartin.

In response to the analysis' finding, McCartin said, "Yeah, but it's not an either-or proposition. You don't do either renewables or nuclear energy. You meet the nation's needs with a mix of sources."

When asked to address the fewer jobs created by nuclear investment, along with the inherent safety and environmental hazards, she reiterated multiple times that Sen. Bingaman is actually one of the staunchest supporters of renewable energy in the Senate and "has supported renewable technology for many, many years."