Mr. President: In the early 1990’s, America became familiar with the  pop culture sensation “Where’s Waldo” by Martin Handsford where you would try to find Waldo with his glasses and his red and white hat on a page filled with lots of other colorful choices.  More often than not, Waldo was tucked away behind similar looking characters who attracted your attention and played an essential role in the overall picture, but ultimately were not Waldo. 

 

Mr. President, I am concerned that the Obama Administration has engaged in a new game of Where’s Waldo with our energy policies – only this time it is called “Where’s Nuclear.”   We will need to search carefully to find where the Administration has hidden the resurgence of the nuclear industry.

 

The confluence of high oil prices this past summer and a desire to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions has certainly and justifiably promoted the interest in and development of renewable and alternative forms of energy – from more mature technologies like wind and solar to greater awareness of the potential for geothermal, biomass, and ocean and tidal energy – along with greater energy efficiency and conservation measures.

 

Congress and both the Bush and Obama Administrations were active in promoting these fields: extending tax breaks, mandating levels of ethanol to be used, updating our energy efficiency standards and providing incentives for energy conservation measures.

 

We are expecting to tackle a climate change bill at some point this Congress – in what shape or form remains to be determined – as we seek to slow and reduce our carbon emissions.

 

There is certainly a role for all of these technologies and increased energy efficiency to play in our energy future.  But ultimately, as the new Administration lays out its energy policy priorities I have to ask, Where’s Nuclear?

 

In an interview with the U.S. News and World Report, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu says that, “[t]he biggest gains, in terms of decreasing the country’s energy bill, the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, and our dependency on foreign oil, will come from energy efficiency and conservation in the next 20 years.”

 

Mr. President, I am all for conservation, but once again nuclear power, the one energy source that currently provides emissions-free, stable, base-load power, along with large-scale, high-paying job creation across the United States, seems to be missing from the Obama Administration’s energy plans. 

 

CURRENT STATE OF PLAY

Currently, there are 104 operating nuclear power plants across the country, providing right around 20 percent of our electric power and approximately 75% of our carbon free power.  However, no new nuclear plant has been ordered in the U.S. since 1978.  Still, a recent resurgence of interest has led to license applications for 26 new reactors at 17 sites. These applications have been docketed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with construction on the first plant expected to begin in 2012.

 

 

 

JOBS

This is a welcome revival at a time when the economy is suffering.  At a recent Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Marvin Fertel, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, noted that to date, investment in new nuclear energy plants over the past two to three years has created 15,000 jobs.  If all 26 new reactors currently in the licensing process are built, that would result in an annual average of over 100,000 new jobs according to a recent study by Oxford Economics.  Over 20,000 long term jobs would be generated to operate these plants.  Those new jobs would allow nuclear energy to continue to make the contribution it does today as our energy needs grow. 

 

 

EMISSIONS

New nuclear plants will also play a key role in reducing our carbon emissions and meeting our climate change goals while helping to mitigate economic harm.  In 2007 alone, nuclear power resulted in the avoidance of almost 700 million metric tons of carbon emissions. 

 

Just how much is 700 million metric tons of carbon emissions?  That’s more carbon than Canada collectively emits each year.  It’s roughly twice the amount of carbon emitted by all privately-owned vehicles in the United States on an annual basis.  It’s safe to say, nuclear power avoids a significant amount of carbon emissions.  And it brings our expenses down as well.

 

An EIA analysis of last year’s Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation showed that new nuclear plant construction would reduce carbon prices in 2030 by 33 percent, residential electricity prices by 20 percent, and residential natural gas prices by 19 percent compared to a scenario where new nuclear construction is limited. 

 

BASE-LOAD POWER

Not only is it emission free, nuclear also provides a constant, reliable source of base-load power – an issue that renewable and alternative energy sources can struggle with.  After all, the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.  On the other hand, in 2008, the average operating capacity for the 104 nuclear plants in the U.S. was over 90 percent – well above that of even coal fired power generation.  That is the type of dependable power our utilities need to operate efficiently and effectively.

 

 

SUPPORT

This year’s Gallop Environment Poll shows 59% of Americans support the use of nuclear power – a new high.  But support for nuclear is nothing new in the international community.  Since 1978, when the last nuclear reactor was ordered in the U.S., over 250 new reactors were constructed overseas.  Japan intends to increase the amount of electricity it gets from nuclear from today’s 30 percent to over 40 percent by 2020.  France already gets 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear.

 

The American people get it.  The international community gets it.  Nuclear power is a broadly accepted form of safe energy.  It is time we in Washington understood this as well.

 

It is clear that nuclear provides good paying jobs here at home, reduces our carbon emissions, provide reliable base-load power, and is supported by the American people.

 

 

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

What is not clear is where the new Administration is on nuclear.   While there has been some mention about nuclear energy being part of the overall energy strategy, the actions of the Administration do not support that claim.  So far this Administration has:

Ø    sought to kill Yucca Mountain as a long-term repository for spent nuclear fuel;

Ø    shown an unwillingness to increase the Loan Guarantee Program funding levels to support the construction of new nuclear plants; and  has focused on renewable and alternative fuel developments to reduce our carbon emissions without any mention of nuclear energy.

 

Where nuclear energy truly stands with the current Administration is bit of a mystery.

 

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

The Administration seems to view Yucca Mountain in the same vein as the Guantanamo Bay prison – both are politically uncomfortable solutions to a toxic problem and they are going to be shut down, never mind that we don’t have an alternative plan for either. 

 

So just what are we going to do with the thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and defense-related high level waste spread out across the country that the federal government is obligated to take title to?    How many tens of billions of dollars in liability will the American taxpayer be on the hook for when the Administration abandons all hope of fulfilling the Nuclear Waste Policy Act’s already well-past, 1998 deadline for a permanent repository?

 

 

Mr. President, billions of dollars have been spent over the last 25 years in characterization and engineering development for the Yucca Mountain license.  It is hard to imagine a better understood piece of real estate on the planet.  On-site dry cask storage is a safe, but temporary solution – it does not remove the need for a permanent repository.

 

In the meantime, the nuclear industry faces uncertainty regarding spent fuel liabilities, states have no permanent disposition path for defense related wastes, and the federal government cannot address tens of billions in taxpayer liabilities.

 

 So far the alternative plan seems to be leave the waste at its current location – and we’ll talk about it. 

 

 

LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

The Administration seems to be just as confused about its support for the new reactor construction needed to just maintain nuclear energy’s current contribution.

 

As part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress created the Loan Guarantee Program to help us develop the 21^st Century energy system that our country needs.  The Loan Guarantee Program provides support for a broad portfolio of clean energy technologies – from energy efficiency and renewable energy systems to pollution control and vehicle technology, to advanced nuclear and carbon capture projects.  It is also a widely popular program – despite the current limit of $42 billion for the program, the Department of Energy has received applications for over $120 billion in new projects.

 

Of the $42 billion for the overall program, $18.5 billion was made available for new nuclear technology.  Over $93 billion in support has been requested – the nuclear portfolio is oversubscribed by a factor of five.  There is clearly an interest by the industry to move forward with new nuclear power.  Unfortunately, the Obama Administration does not appear to share that interest.

 

It is important to note that the program is also entirely self funded and does not represent a handout to industry  and does not expose the taxpayer to default risks.  The total loan volume for the program is established by the Appropriations Committee but any potential defaults are covered by fees paid by applicants, not the taxpayer.  The industry does get a loan guarantee from the Federal Government but they pay for it.

 

During debate on the stimulus bill, a $50 billion increase in the size of the Loan Guarantee Program was sought.   Again, this is a $42 billion program with $120 billion in application requests.  But increasing the size of the program authority was shot down because of fears that construction of new nuclear plants would take up the bulk of the loan guarantee authority.

 

Where was the Administration’s support for the loan guarantee program during this debate? This program helps all forms of clean energy technologies but this increase was denied because nuclear was in the mix.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Mr. President, for ten years now we have heard consistently about the urgency of global climate change and the need for addressing it.  I agree that there is evidence of climate change – we can see the real life affects of it in Alaska – but I do find it inconsistent that the same entities who press for immediate action would deny nuclear a role in the solution.

 

Perhaps the current Administration feels that global climate change isn’t as important as developing a centrally planned electrical system based on renewable energy that the Administration feels is in the best interests of the public.

 

Renewable energy sources will be important and deserve solid support.  But as you can see from the chart behind me, we could double the amount of electricity produced by renewable resources and it still wouldn’t equal what we currently receive from nuclear power.  Can this pressing global crisis really wait for renewables to develop to such a scale that they will become the primary source of energy?  We should be advancing all technology equitably.

 

Nuclear energy is the most robust form of non-emitting base load power we have available to us, bar none.  Over the last twenty years, the industry has demonstrated its ability to operate these reactors efficiently and safely to great benefit of our country.

 

Mr. President, if the rest of the world “gets it” and the American public “gets it” then where is the Administration?

 

The time to demonstrate our resolve for new nuclear energy development is now.  We as a nation cannot afford additional delay if we are truly serious about reducing our carbon emissions while maintaining access to affordable energy. 

 

It is time for the Administration to come forward with its plan for the inclusion of nuclear power in its overall energy policy – and what it intends to do with existing and future spent nuclear fuel.  We shouldn’t be forced to ask, “Where’s Nuclear?”

 

###