[Senate Hearing 114-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:32 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Collins, Feinstein, and Udall.
Also Present: Senator Whitehouse.
opening statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development will please come to order.
This afternoon, we're having the first of two hearings to
discuss the future of nuclear power in our own country. We'll
have the second one in November or early December.
Today, we'll discuss the importance of nuclear power, the
biggest challenges facing it, the status of the Department of
Energy's nuclear research and development--and we certainly
welcome Secretary Moniz here to help us do that--and things
Congress can do to support nuclear power.
In our next hearing, we'll discuss basic energy research
and development to support nuclear power, the work that's being
done to extend the licenses for existing reactors from 60 to 80
years, development of new advanced nuclear technologies,
including small reactors, accident-tolerant fuels, and advanced
reactors.
Senator Feinstein and I will each have an opening
statement. I'll then recognize any other Senators on the
committee for up to 5 minutes for an opening statement, and
then we've invited Senator Whitehouse--and we certainly welcome
him--to make some remarks at today's hearing. So, we'll turn to
him as soon as Senator Feinstein and I make our opening
statements, Sheldon, if that's all right with your schedule.
And then Secretary Moniz we'll go to you after that.
Our second panel--and we're delighted to have them and to
welcome back Judd Gregg, former United States Senator and
Governor from New Hampshire, and the Leadership Chair of
nuclear matters, and Jay Faison, founder and CEO of ClearPath
Foundation. That'll be the panel after the Secretary of Energy.
the united states without nuclear power
Today's hearing is about the future of nuclear power, but I
want to talk, in my opening remarks, about--I said to Senator
Feinstein, I may go 7 or 8 minutes instead of 5, I want to talk
about--I want to imagine a day the United States is without
nuclear power, a day that I don't want to see in our country's
future. That seems like a distant and unlikely scenario, but,
in fact, it's more of a threat than many people realize.
According to a 2013 report by the Center for Strategic
International Studies, up to 25 of our 99 reactors could close
by 2020.
And here are some other factors. By 2038--that's 20 years
from now--48 reactors will be 60 years old, representing 40
percent of the nuclear generating capacity in the United
States. The U.S. could lose half of our reactors if existing
licenses can't be extended from 60 to 80 years when those
reactors close.
There are nine reactors, three in the Northeast at seven
sites, which are scheduled to shut down by 2025. The Energy
Information Administration estimates that shutting down these
nine reactors will result in a 2-percent increase in total
carbon emissions from the U.S. electricity sector. There are
four new reactors being built, all in the Southeast.
As an example, Vermont Yankee closed in December of 2014.
That was 604 megawatts. It accounted for 70 percent of the
electricity generated in Vermont in 2012, although the State
only used one-third of its electricity production. In other
words, Vermont closed a plant that could have provided 70
percent of its carbon-free electricity--could have amounted to
70 percent of its electricity being carbon-free. Vermont's
carbon emissions from its electricity sector increased 5
percent between 2014 and 2015, after Vermont Yankee closed.
Entergy announced it would close the plant in New York, but
Exelon bought it and is working to keep it open. There are
other examples. In California in 2012, California's carbon
emissions reportedly increased approximately 24 percent after
closing the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2012.
The United States uses about 25 percent of all the
electricity in the world. Our 99 reactors generate about 20
percent of that electricity. In a time when 20 of the world's
leading science academies and many Americans say climate change
is a threat and that humans are a significant cause of that
threat, nuclear power produces about 60 percent of our
country's carbon-free electricity. Power plants produce about
40 percent of the carbon produced in our country.
One way to imagine the United States without nuclear power
might be to take a look at the stories of three countries:
First, Japan. After Fukushima, Japan began shutting down
its 48 reactors, which provided about 30 percent of its
electricity. The cost of generating electricity in Japan
increased 56 percent. Major business organizations complained
that an earlier restart of the reactors was essential if
manufacturing needed to stay in Japan. A Wall Street Journal
article reported that the Japanese were turning up their air
conditioners to 82 degrees. The Empress and Emperor were
wandering around the Imperial Palace at night with flashlights
and candles. Japan has begun to change, and has begun to start
some of the reactors.
Second example is Germany. And both these are major
industrialized economies like ours. One-quarter of its
electricity came from nuclear power, using 17 reactors. Then
the government decided to replace them with wind and solar and
a cap-and-trade policy. The subsidies for the wind and solar
were very high. Another problem was that it didn't produce
enough reliable baseload energy for an important manufacturing
company, so Germany began not only closing its nuclear power
plants, but buying nuclear power from France to replace it, and
buying natural gas from a very unreliable supplier--Russia--and
in a remarkable turn of events, even began building new coal
plants. The cost of electricity in Germany soared, 60 percent.
Finally, there's an example of United Arab Emirates in
another direction, a different kind of story. Twelve years
after notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency of its
intent to build nuclear reactors, the Emirates will have
completed four, which will provide nearly 25 percent of its
electricity by 2020.
What should the United States do? Well, in summary, one,
build more reactors. I said, one time, we should build 100 new
reactors. People thought that was just for a shock effect. But,
CSIS says that we may close 25 of our 99 reactors by 2020. And
the U.S. Energy Information Agency says that about 20 percent
of our current capacity from coal is scheduled to go offline by
2020. And if that were entirely replaced by nuclear power, it
would require building another 48 new 1250-megawatt reactors,
which, by the way, would reduce our carbon emissions another 14
percent.
Number two, solve the nuclear waste stalemate. Senator
Feinstein and I don't agree on everything about nuclear power,
but we agree on this priority. And I think we agree generally,
that we need to move on every path we can to get there. My own
view is that we ought to open Yucca Mountain, because the
science and the law say we should do it. But, in any event, we
have other options--private options, repositories--Senator
Feinstein has suggested. Solve the stalemate.
Three, relieve the burdens of extensive regulation. We want
to be safe, but we don't want to make it so expensive and
difficult to build reactors that we don't build them.
Four, stop picking winners and losers. The subsidy to big
wind is so generous that, in some markets, wind producers can
literally give their electricity away and still make a profit,
and the so-called negative pricing gives such an advantage to
wind in a deregulated market that it makes nuclear and coal
plants uncompetitive and more likely to close.
And then, fifth, double energy research. That's something
the United States does very well. We only spend $5 billion a
year on energy research. We could double that. One way to pay
for it would be to go ahead and end the 23-year-old wind
subsidy. There's no need to continue to subsidize a mature
industry in that way. That would save $8 billion in authorized
funds that we could then put directly into energy research.
So, I believe we need to prepare now by building more
reactors, ending the stalemate on what to do about waste, and
stopping Washington from picking winners and losers in the
marketplace. We need to push back on excessive regulation and
fuel more free-market innovation with government-sponsored
research and by encouraging energy diversity. If we do those
things, the United States will not see a day without nuclear
power, and our energy future will be bright.
Senator Feinstein.
statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for your leadership and for your remarks. As you well know,
one of my great pleasures is to be able to work with you. I
consider you one of the best in this body. I just want, once
again, to say that.
nuclear waste
For 5 years, you and I have worked trying to find a
solution to our Nation's nuclear waste problem. Unfortunately,
though, spent nuclear fuel continues to pile up; 77,000 metric
tons, to date, scattered all across our country in spent-fuel
pools and dry casks at reactor sites. So, there's no denying
that this is a major issue. For me, it's a deterrent to new
nuclear power. If we can't properly store the waste, we
shouldn't build the reactors.
Approximately 130 million people live within 50 miles of a
storage site for nuclear waste. That's more than two out of
every five people. In California alone, there are nearly 8,000
highly radioactive spent-fuel assemblies stored in pools and
dry casks across four sites, all of which are now shut down or
are planning to shut down, leaving behind just the waste. The
future of nuclear power, I believe, in this country depends on
a solution to the waste problem. Public safety and public
acceptance of nuclear power, I believe, depend on it.
I can't just simply continue to support nuclear power
generation if there is no strategy for the interim storage and
long-term disposal of the waste. I have hoped that, over the
past 5 years, you and I and the three Chairs and the two
Rankings of the Energy Committee would work to put together a
nuclear waste policy bill, and have introduced it, and it
hasn't had a hearing, and it hasn't gone anywhere. This is one
of my great disappointments.
Unfortunately, the political impasse surrounding Yucca has
stalled progress on interim storage. The fact is that Yucca was
forced upon elected officials and a citizenry that didn't want
it. And that's one of the great learning experiences. The two
Senators, along with every other statewide elected official in
Nevada, oppose it, so there's no reasonable expectation that
their opposition will subside.
So, the lesson of Yucca is that any solution to the nuclear
waste issue needs to be voluntary and must have the consent,
not only of local governments, but also of the State. We
recognize that in our bill, we provide for that in our bill. We
know there are areas that would like to apply for these interim
waste sites. So, we believe that voluntary acceptance can be
developed.
So, regardless of whether one supports Yucca or an
alternative consent-based process for creating a long-term
storage facility, we also face a short-term problem. That's why
I believe we should be working to establish an interim storage
facility away from reactor sites and population centers.
Interim storage is opposed by the House unless it is linked
to new funding for Yucca. So, every year, in the Energy and
Water Conference discussions, it is dropped from our bill.
That's been most unfortunate. The industry can't seem to help
themselves on the issue. They've flip-flopped and can't speak
with one voice. First they were for consolidated interim
storage, then they were against it. There are now 16 shutdown
reactors in this country. Seven more shutdowns have been
announced. So, it's baffling to me that the industry can't get
behind an effort that is so obviously beneficial to them.
In the midst of this debate about how to store spent
nuclear fuel, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're
dealing with very dangerous materials. The problems at the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, in New Mexico, are a
prime example of the risks we face in nuclear waste. Here we
have one of the premier laboratory facilities in the world at
Los Alamos making a basic chemistry error on the packaging of
waste drums, which led to a radiological release. One mistake
in a single drum contaminated more than a third of the entire
site. That, to me, is really striking. If we can't trust these
experts to handle radioactive waste safely, what confidence can
we have in other efforts to manage this material safely and
securely, long term, at 78 sites around the country?
There's an article in the LA Times on the WIPP incident. By
their estimate, the cumulative cost of cleaning up the
contamination, shutdown time, and longer operations could top
$2 billion. For more than 2 years, the cleanup has continued.
The Department will miss its goal of reopening the facility in
2016. It has not yet established a new date for when the
facility can begin to safely accept waste.
I then am just going to do, for the record, some Fukushima
comments that I won't do here, in the interest of time. But,
what I say is that we can't allow an accident like Fukushima to
happen here in the United States. The industry has spent around
4 billion on Nuclear Regulatory Commission required safety
upgrades. And I very much appreciate that. This is just a
fraction of how much a disaster on the scale of Fukushima could
cost the United States.
In light of these risks and the lack of a storage strategy,
I view the risks of improper handling of nuclear materials and
accidents to be considerable deterrents to the development of
new reactors.
alternative to nuclear power
When it comes to the question of whether there's an
alternative to nuclear power that's consistent with our firm
intentions to combat climate change, my state--California--is a
case in point. In 2013, Southern California Edison permanently
shut down its two remaining reactors on the coast, north of San
Diego, just south of LA, with 6 million people around it. Each
of the two reactors generated 1100 megawatts of electricity.
Pacific Gas and Electric, our other major utility, has set upon
a course to shut down its two reactors at Diablo Canyon, also
1100 megawatts each. That's a total of 4400 megawatts of
nuclear power that will have to be replaced within 15 years.
Within a decade, California will no longer generate nuclear
power.
In Southern California, San Onofre was shut down suddenly
after problems were exposed with its new steam generators--not
like-for-like, but believed to be with new alloys and new
construction that would be superior. Despite the sudden loss of
baseload power, the utilities and grid operator have been able
to maintain reliability. Roughly half of the lost generating
capacity will be replaced with renewable energy, energy
efficiency, demand response, and energy storage. They serve
probably the biggest area in the country.
In Northern California, PG&E decided, this year, that it
would not seek to extend Diablo Canyon's operating license
beyond 2025. This provides 9 years for an orderly transition
for the grid and the surrounding community. PG&E--and its CEO
has directly committed this to me--they will replace the lost
generating capacity entirely with renewable resources or energy
conservation. The context for these power replacement decisions
are the laws that the Governor of California has signed, which
will bring the largest State in the Union to 33 percent
renewable electricity by 2020 and 50 percent renewable
electricity by 2030. I believe we will meet that goal. At the
same time, the State will double its energy efficiency
standards.
Now, these are ambitious goals. California utilities are
meeting the challenge by building a clean and more flexible
electricity grid. So, in California, we believe we can meet the
challenge of climate change without relying on nuclear power. I
don't doubt that nuclear power is cheap and efficient, but if
we can do that with 40 million people in our State, I believe
it also can be done elsewhere in the United States.
My hope has been that we could come to some terms on a
nuclear waste facility which would guarantee safety and allow
the industry to continue to develop, to invent new reactors,
and to be a positive player. I very much regret that 5 years of
effort to do that have not been supported by the industry and,
essentially, have not been successful.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Whitehouse, we welcome you to the hearing and have
heard your regular speeches about climate change on the Senate
floor, and your comments on nuclear power. And we look forward
to your testimony.
statement of senator sheldon whitehouse
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman Alexander and
Ranking Member Feinstein, for inviting me to speak at today's
hearing.
nuclear energy reforms
The past year has seen a renewed and bipartisan interest in
nuclear energy reforms. I'm part of the bipartisan effort
behind two bills this Congress. The first, the Nuclear Energy
Innovation Capabilities Act, was approved 87-to-4 as an
amendment to the broader energy bill that passed the Senate,
and it's now being debated in conference. This bill would
create a new nuclear innovation program through the Department
of Energy that would function as a shared nuclear science
clearinghouse for Federal agencies and private industry. It
would open up the National Labs testbed facilities to private
industry, to create partnerships between the Federal Government
and academia in early stages of reactor development, and foster
greater market certainty for investors.
The second bill is led by my friend and colleague, Senator
Inhofe, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
and is coauthored by Senators Crapo and Booker. This bill,
which looks to reform the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
recently cleared the Environment and Public Works Committee on
a vote of 17-to-3. The House of Representatives recently passed
a similar measure under suspension of the rules. Our bill would
create a new advanced reactor licensing framework for concepts
that are much different than today's light water reactors. As
cosponsors, we agree NRC's (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
current licensing framework is not designed to promote a next
wave of advanced nuclear technology.
The purpose of these two bills is straightforward: drive
homegrown innovation of next-generation nuclear technologies in
our National Labs, and put in place a regulatory framework that
is better suited to license these technologies. We shouldn't
sit back and watch investors go to China and India to develop
and commercialize next-generation reactors. This is an
opportunity to give American businesses a leg up in that
international marketplace.
advanced reactor designs
Our bipartisan group laid out our support for advanced
reactors in a U.S. News & World Report op-ed, which I would
offer to submit as part of the record of this hearing.
As we wrote, new advanced reactor designs can substantially
reduce the threat of a meltdown. In addition, many new designs
are much smaller than their predecessors, simplifying and
standardizing construction. Smaller size means they can plug
into future micro-grid systems, reducing the need for massive
transmission system upgrades.
Perhaps the most interesting features are that the advanced
technologies could actually reduce nuclear waste created by the
current light water fleet. Dealing with our existing nuclear
waste stockpile remains an unresolved and important issue. And
the holy grail for me in this effort would be to have these
advanced reactors be part of that solution.
Research on advanced nuclear reactors will help us address
one of the most critical issues of our time: climate change.
There is clear consensus about the urgent need to address
climate change--from the American public, from every single
major American scientific society, from most major American
nameplate companies, other than those in the fossil fuel
business, from every single American National Lab and NASA and
NOAA, from America's national security, military, and
intelligence leaders, and of course, from the Pope and other
world leaders. The United States Congress is fast becoming a
laughingstock in its denial of this problem.
Advanced nuclear technologies could be a key part of a low
carbon energy future. A recent study by Columbia University
environmental economist Jeffrey Heel of the feasible pathways
to an 80-percent reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
below 2005 levels by 2050 found that the cheapest way to get
there requires nuclear to play a role. The common ground we
have established this year, I believe, is only the beginning.
There are other areas that can benefit from the same bipartisan
spirit, including working to preserve our existing nuclear
fleet in the safest possible way. It makes no sense to close a
safely operating nuclear plant just because, economically, it
receives no value for the zero-carbon quality of its power,
when we know there is value to that zero-carbon quality.
So, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, let's make progress where
we can. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. And as
one Senator, I look forward to working with you. Senator
Feinstein agreed--and I agree, certainly--on the importance of
finding a repository. I also agree with you about the
importance of finding ways to deal with climate change. If 20
of the leading science agencies in the industrialized countries
of the world have said it's a threat and that humans are
helping to cause it--if 20 fire marshals of that repute came to
my house and said, ``Your house is likely to catch fire,'' I
think I'd buy some insurance. So, as you and I have discussed,
10 years ago I suggested a power-plants-only plan to deal with
carbon.
So, I think there is some area for agreement here among
those of us who believe that nuclear power is an important part
of the future of the country, and those who agree that climate
change is a threat, and those who believe in both those things.
So, we especially welcome your participation now and in the
future.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, thank you, Chairman. You are also
my Chairman on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, where it has been a real pleasure working with you.
So, I second the kind remarks and compliments of the Ranking
Member.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Now, Senator Feinstein and Secretary
Moniz, the vote is well underway, and there are two votes. So,
I think the best thing to do is to adjourn the hearing briefly.
Senator Feinstein and I will go to the floor and be the last to
cast votes on the first vote, and the first on the second vote.
There might be three votes. And then we'll come right back. So,
that means we'll adjourn for about 20 or 25 minutes, and then
we'll come back and we'll be able to hear your testimony and
ask you questions. Other members of the Senate, after the vote,
will be able to come in and do the same.
So, Senator Feinstein, if that's all right with you.
Senator Feinstein. That's fine with me. I really hope that
Secretary Moniz will not mind this. I mean, it's the
vicissitude of the conditions we can't control. And you've been
so terrific. You know, we don't want to have you have to stand
around. But----
Secretary Moniz. Well, I appreciate that, but I also
appreciate that we have a compressed schedule this month and
you need to vote.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
The subcommittee stands in recess, subject to the call of
the Chair. We'll see you in about 20 minutes, hopefully.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
Senator Alexander. Subcommittee will now please come to
order.
I now welcome and recognize Secretary Moniz to provide his
statement on behalf of the Department of Energy.
Secretary, your full written statement will be included in
the record. We look forward to your testimony, and appreciate
your making time today. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. ERNEST J. MONIZ, SECRETARY
Secretary Moniz. Well, thank you, Chairman Alexander,
Ranking Member Feinstein, for the opportunity to come here to
discuss nuclear energy.
As we all know, nuclear power contributes, as you've said,
about 20 percent of our electricity, and importantly, over 60
percent of our non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power. An active
nuclear enterprise also supports our global leadership in
nuclear nonproliferation, another area, of course, in which the
Department is very engaged.
INTERNATIONAL MARKET
I would just add that, of course, the Paris Agreement and
our Mission Innovation initiative also indicate the enormous
international market that's going to grow for all kinds of
clean energy technology. And that, of course, will include
nuclear energy. One part of that could very well be small
modular reactors, a vital part of that innovation agenda and of
the low carbon future.
SMR LICENSING TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM
The Department's SMR Licensing Technical Support Program
expects that our reactor design partner, NuScale, will submit
the first SMR (Small Modular Reactor) design certification
application by the end of the calendar year, and the DOE
(Department of Energy) is now working with partners in Idaho
and Tennessee on potential SMR development projects as part of
our innovation agenda.
REACTOR LIFE EXTENSION
We're also developing the scientific basis to extend the
life of existing reactors--you referred to that earlier--
through research on materials aging and degradation, digital
modernization, and development of accident-tolerant fuels.
CONSORTIUM FOR THE ADVANCED SIMULATION OF LIGHT WATER REACTORS
Also, in your part of the world, at Oak Ridge, the first
innovation hub, CASL (Consortium for the Advanced Simulation of
Light Water Reactors), is doing extremely well, in terms of
developing the simulation tools for reactors, indeed releasing
products for virtual reactor design.
PRIVATE-SECTOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
We are also seeing, very interestingly, significant
private-sector nuclear technology R&D, Third Way, identifying
almost 50 companies and institutions doing nuclear energy
innovation, which is a remarkable turnabout over the last
several years. A major focus for us will be providing the
technical support and infrastructure access to these
entrepreneurs, not unlike what Senator Whitehouse described in
one of those bills. I would note that DOE's GAIN Initiative
also recently announced eight small businesses in this arena
will receive about $2 million and access to the National Labs
and Nuclear Science User Facility partners.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Earlier this year, we announced awards to two companies
developing one high-temperature gas reactor and another molten
salt reactor concepts. A robust RD&D program depends on an
infrastructure of experimental and computational facilities and
skilled scientists and engineers. The Department supports a
broad range of such facilities, from small-scale laboratories
to hot cells and test reactors to 25 university research
reactors to high-performance computation for a broad program.
CROSSCUTTING INITIATIVES
In addition to these very specific nuclear energy programs
in the innovation space, we have several crosscutting
initiatives--that is, initiatives that cut across our energy
and science programs--that are directly germane to nuclear
energy innovation. That includes an advanced materials
initiative in the fiscal year 2017 budget, our supercritical
CO2 cycle development, which is now led out of
fossil energy, but includes nuclear energy, and our Exascale
computing initiative and our subsurface crosscutting science
and engineering activity relevant to nuclear waste.
LOAN PROGRAM OFFICE
Finally, DOE's Loan Programs Office plays an important role
in this space. The Vogtle Plant, under construction in Georgia,
was partially financed using an $8.3 billion loan guarantee,
and a new solicitation first issued in December 2014 will
support up to $12.5 billion in loans for advanced nuclear
projects, potentially including small modular reactors.
TASK FORCE
Now, to help shape a decades-long vision for advanced
reactor development and deployment, I also established a task
force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. They've worked
very, very hard and I anticipate a report at the September 22nd
meeting that is coming up next week.
All in all, we have a robust, multidimensional nuclear
energy innovation program that can be expanded further as we
seek the kind of increase in the innovation budgets that you
discussed earlier.
EXISTING PLANTS AND ENERGY MARKETS
Turning to existing plants and the energy markets, we have
99 operating reactors. We will soon add the Watts Bar 2
Reactor. And there are the four additional reactors at Vogtle
and Summer that are being built and should operate by the end
of this decade. All four of those reactors being the AP-1000
generation-3 or generation-3+ reactors.
However, significant challenges and complex market factors
do face the existing nuclear fleet, particularly in
restructured markets. We run the risk that many will close just
as we are trying to ramp up low carbon energy sources, for
example, to meet State implementation goals for the Clean Power
Plan.
Here on Capitol Hill, in May, we convened experts and
stakeholders to discuss potential Federal and State actions to
prevent at least some of these early closures. And in addition
to the DOE research efforts I have mentioned, which would be
more of a mid- to longer-term impact, FERC (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) has now been working diligently on
issues of price formation, which can be important for the
existing nuclear plants.
At the State level, options for action include power
purchase agreements, tax credits, and clean energy standards.
And, of course, in August, New York established a clean energy
standard to give zero emission credits to some of the State's
nuclear power plants. That, together with the purchase of one
of those plants, will result in the continuation of three
nuclear power plants in Upstate New York. Illinois is
considering similar measures.
And finally, I'll add that our ongoing Quadrennial Energy
Review second installment is taking on the challenge of
valuation for benefits in the electricity system, including the
national security benefits of a vibrant nuclear industry. So,
this question of valuations, of price formations as to how
generators are rewarded, is clearly very important.
NUCLEAR WASTE STRATEGY
Finally, I would just turn to nuclear waste strategy. I
agree, certainly, with Senator Feinstein that we must find a
sustainable path forward for the storage and disposal of
nuclear waste. And to achieve an integrated waste management
system, the Department is clearly focusing on a consent-based
siting process, as you said.
DOE issued an invitation for public comment in December
2015, followed by a kickoff this year in eight public meetings
across the United States. The Department will discuss this
feedback and next steps for a consent-based siting effort at a
long-scheduled public meeting that will be held here tomorrow
in Washington, D.C.
By the end of the calendar year 2016, the Department will
issue a number of documents, including a draft consent-based
siting process benefiting from these regional meetings, as well
as siting considerations for interim storage facilities and
deep geologic repositories. Our fiscal year 2017 budget
proposes $39.4 million to support our efforts, continuing to
move forward with a consent-based approach to siting storage
and disposal facilities, including $25 million for grants to
States, tribal nations, and local governments.
In parallel with developing a consent-based approach to
siting, the Department is developing the concept of
consolidated interim storage, as you have both discussed. A
pilot facility and, subsequently, a consolidated interim
storage facility with greater capacity and greater capabilities
would, (1) allow the permanent removal of spent fuel from
shutdown sites, (2) allow the Federal Government to begin
meeting its contractual waste management commitments, (3)
provide crucial flexibility for the overall nuclear waste
management system, and (4) provide useful experience, including
opportunities to conduct R&D on the behavior of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste over time. So, there are
many benefits in the interim storage addition to our waste
management system.
DOE would need congressional authorization to construct an
interim storage facility. However, in parallel, with efforts to
develop DOE constructed and operated facility concepts, we have
seen the emergence of private initiatives that may provide
interim storage services. And this is a very interesting
development. We are preparing to seek public input on how a
privately owned storage facility could fit into the overall
integrated waste management system, specifically planning to
issue an RFI (Request for Information) within weeks.
The Department continues to also work toward a permanent
disposal solution, seeking to better understand different
methods and geologies that can effectively isolate spent fuel
and high-level waste for thousands of years into the future.
DOE is also pursuing our planned deep borehole field test
to determine the feasibility of using the deep borehole
approach as an alternative to mined geological repositories for
certain disposal pathways--not as a replacement, but as a
supplement.
We have recently received letters of intent to submit
proposals that indicate there is continued strong interest.
Full proposals are due October 21st, with plans to select one
or more of those applicants early in 2017. And, in fact,
yesterday there was a proposal conference, which had about 20
people, and about 12 companies engaged.
DOE is also developing plans for a defense waste
repository. Unlike commercial spent fuel, defense inventory is
no longer growing. Some defense waste is less radioactive. It's
cooler, easier to handle than commercial fuel. And this could
allow for some different, simpler, and maybe faster pathways
for disposal. We expect to seek public comment and feedback on
a defense waste repository as well later this calendar year.
Overall, our budget proposes $76.3 million for integrated
waste management system activities, a $53.8 million increase
from fiscal year 16, showing our priority in moving forward on
these pathways, working towards waste storage and disposal
solutions. That's in addition to $74 million for used nuclear
fuel disposition R&D.
So, in conclusion, again, I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss nuclear energy as a vital component of our energy
strategy and how we are moving forward, and frankly, setting
the table for a new administration and Congress in about--just
over 100 days.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Ernest J. Moniz
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the future of nuclear energy in the United States.
For the past two decades, nuclear power has reliably and
economically contributed nearly 20 percent of electricity generated in
the United States. It produces more than 60 percent of our non-
greenhouse-gas emitting power, making nuclear energy our Nation's
single largest contributor of carbon-free electricity, and as such is
responsible for avoiding hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon
dioxide emissions each year. Under President Obama's Clean Power Plan,
the goal is a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent below
2005 levels by 2030. A strong domestic nuclear energy sector could help
with meeting this goal and is also critical for the U.S. to continue as
a global leader in nuclear nonproliferation.
The Paris Agreement and Mission Innovation, both announced at the
2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21), have shown the
enormous international interest for low-carbon technologies including
nuclear energy, the need to accelerate clean energy innovation, and the
potential for U.S. industry to develop these advanced technologies.
A prerequisite for nuclear power continuing as a vital part of the
Nation's clean energy portfolio is public confidence in the safety of
nuclear plants and commercial confidence that the plants can be
operated safely, reliably, and economically. Additionally, we have an
obligation to develop a workable, long-term solution for storage and
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
innovation
The Department supports innovation across all energy technologies,
and we are involved in the entire nuclear energy lifecycle. This
includes supporting research, development, and licensing of new
technologies; providing infrastructure for testing and experimentation;
working with industry to support the safe, reliable and economical
operation of today's nuclear plants; and advancing the Administration's
Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-
level Radioactive Waste.
Mission Innovation, an initiative launched in November 2015 by the
U.S. and 19 other countries represents an unprecedented commitment to
accelerate global clean energy innovation. The Department's fiscal year
2017 request invests in key areas to support this initiative. The
Department's fiscal year 2017 Budget Request invests in key areas to
accelerate investment in nuclear energy innovation. Specifically, the
fiscal year 2017 request includes $994 million for the Office of
Nuclear Energy's research and development (R&D) programs, $8 million
above fiscal year 2016. These investments include advancing
technologies that support the existing reactor fleet and that develop
new, next-generation options. Of this total, the fiscal year 2017
Budget Request for the Office of Nuclear Energy includes $804 million
in support of Mission Innovation.
Improvements in Light Water Reactor Technology
Our Nation's existing nuclear power fleet consists of 99 operating
light water reactors (LWR), and the Department's programs advance LWR
technologies in a variety of ways to support the existing fleet's
continuing role providing reliable low-carbon power for the United
States.
The Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program is developing the
scientific basis to extend the life of our existing nuclear reactor
fleet while also improving economics and reliability and sustaining
safety and security through research on materials aging and
degradation, safety margin characterization, and digital modernization
technologies. The Department also is working on enhancing the accident
tolerance of light water reactors through cost-shared efforts to
develop advanced accident tolerant fuels for existing commercial
nuclear power plants with improved safety and performance
characteristics.
We have been successful in improving modeling and simulation to
enhance the performance of currently operating light water reactors
through the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors
(CASL), one of the Department's Energy Innovation Hubs, and a program I
was honored to serve as the Chairman of the Board for its first 2
years. Established in 2010 and centered at the Oak Ridge National Lab,
CASL uses the Department's most advanced computing infrastructure to
model and simulate a Virtual Environment for Reactor Applications
(VERA) that is being used to understand performance and safety issues
of currently operating Pressurized Water Reactors. VERA has been used
to simulate the full operating history of the Watts Bar Nuclear Power
Plant Unit 1 Pressurized Water Reactor in Spring City, Tennessee. This
simulation included high-fidelity predictions of more than 18 years of
reactor operations including fuel loading, depletion, shuffling, and
discharge. The results have been compared with measured plant data and
showed a high degree of consistency. CASL is working with Westinghouse,
one of their founding partners, to use VERA to simulate the startup of
the AP1000 reactor to confirm their engineering calculations.
Currently in its second and final phase, CASL will enhance the
development of VERA for applications beyond pressurized water reactors,
to include boiling water reactors and new reactor designs like small
modular reactors.
Small Modular Reactors
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are one area in which we are seeing
rapid innovation, with several companies researching light water SMR
designs in the United States.
SMRs have the potential to offer a new standard of passive nuclear
safety with designs that safely shutdown without operator interaction,
off-site power, or off-site water. They may also offer greater
affordability by requiring potentially lower upfront capital cost
investments than traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear plants, and
potentially shorter construction times through factory fabrication. DOE
sees SMRs as a vital part of the world's low-carbon future, including
the United States.
The Department's SMR Licensing Technical Support program was
created to realize these and other benefits by advancing the first
domestic SMR designs. DOE's cost-shared investment has generated
progress, and we expect that our reactor design partner, NuScale, is
expected to submit the first SMR design certification application to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of the calendar year.
Fiscal year 2017 will be the final year of funding for SMR LTS
activities.
SMRs may also offer an important new option for power generation in
a variety of settings. For one of our site partners, the Utah
Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), SMRs may be an option to
replace the power from retiring coal plants in the mid-2020s. UAMPS has
identified a preferred site on Federal land at the Idaho National
Laboratory to potentially build a NuScale SMR. Our other site partner,
the Tennessee Valley Authority, has submitted an early site permit
application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an SMR
project at the Clinch River site that could deliver highly-reliable
power to ratepayers in the Tennessee Valley region. The Idaho National
Laboratory has been investigating how SMRs could be part of a hybrid
energy system demonstration along with renewable energy sources.
Several factors, however, pose challenges to the path to deployment
for SMRs, including the current low price of electricity and low
electricity demand growth.
Further, the production tax credits (PTC) enacted by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 that are available to new nuclear power plants would
likely not apply to the first SMR deployments because SMRs would begin
operation after the nuclear PTC sunset of December 2020, and because
current law does not include a statutory mechanism for non-profit SMR
owners to take advantage of the credits through transfers.
In light of the progress and the challenges, DOE continues to study
the path to deployment of SMRs. As part of that effort, DOE held a
public workshop on June 22-23, 2016 to solicit industry input, and we
expect a summary report from that workshop to be available in October
2016.
Executive Order 13693 set clean energy targets for Federal
facilities to meet over the subsequent decade and SMRs are among the
set of technologies that count towards meeting those targets. DOE is
currently conducting a study to enumerate and analyze the various legal
authorities available to it and other Federal agencies to meet the
clean targets set out in Executive Order 13693, including utilizing
power from SMRs.
Advanced Reactor Concepts
Across all areas of nuclear reactor technology, we are now seeing a
considerable focus by American industry to invest in the development of
novel nuclear reactor concepts--almost 50 companies and institutions
are working on nuclear innovation, according to a study by Third
Way.\1\ This level of activity in industry on novel ideas is a new
development with potentially significant implications for the future of
nuclear power in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Todd Allen, Matt Goldberg, Amber Robson, and Kemal
Pasamehmetoglu (Idaho National Lab), ``What's Missing in U.S. Nuclear?
An Innovation Culture,'' Third Way, March 29, 2016. Accessed September
9, 2016. Available at: http://www.thirdway.org/report/whats-missing-in-
us-nuclear-an-innovation-culture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help take advantage of this industry focus, DOE started this
year the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN)
initiative to make DOE's nuclear energy research capabilities
accessible to industry engineers and scientists in a public-private
partnership. The opportunities available through GAIN include: access
to nuclear and radiological facilities and testing capabilities (e.g.
thermal-hydraulic loops, control systems testing, etc.); computational
capabilities including state-of the art modeling and simulation tools;
information and data through a knowledge and validation center. In
June, the GAIN program announced that eight small businesses will be
provided up to $2 million for the Nuclear Energy Voucher pilot program,
granting them access to the extensive nuclear research capabilities
available at DOE's national laboratories and Nuclear Science User
Facilities (NSUF) partners.
The Department's ongoing advanced reactor programs specifically
support research to develop technologies for advanced concepts--
Generation IV designs--that could dramatically improve nuclear power
performance in sustainability, economics, safety, and proliferation
resistance. Next-generation concepts each have potential significant
advantages: high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR) could provide
higher-efficiency power generation and high quality process heat for
industry, thereby reducing carbon emissions; liquid metal-cooled fast
reactors could be used to generate electricity while addressing long-
lived nuclear waste issues; fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature
reactors (FHRs) could have the high temperature capabilities of HTGRs
while operating at atmospheric pressure; and innovations like
tristructural-isotropic (TRISO) coated particle fuel and graphite core
structural components could allow for advanced designs with extremely
high safety margins in all imaginable scenarios.
In fiscal year 2016, Congress appropriated $12.5 million for two
ongoing industry cost-shared awards to further the development of two
performance based advanced reactor concepts. Earlier this year, DOE
announced awards to two companies, X-energy and Southern Company,
seeking to develop such novel reactor concepts. These awards will
support two new designs with advantages in safety, operations, and
economics from companies who presented clear plans for demonstration of
these concepts in the 2030's. These two designs, an advanced pebble bed
HTGR and a molten chloride fast reactor, are among many with
significant potential for performance advantages for the next
generation of nuclear power reactors.
The final step in bringing these novel technologies to market will
be obtaining certification and licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). Most commercial reactor types licensed to date in the
U.S. have had designs using water as the primary heat transfer medium.
A joint DOE-NRC initiative supports development of Advanced Reactor
Design Criteria (ARDC) for Nuclear Power Plants with advanced reactor
designs, specifically addressing the safety and operating
characteristics of reactors with non-water coolants. The NRC has
released draft ARDC for public comment and plans to hold another public
meeting later this year and intends to have regulation guidelines
finalized by the end of 2017. This key activity is important for the
potential of these novel concepts to be realized.
Nuclear Energy Infrastructure
A robust research, development, and demonstration program depends
on an infrastructure of experimental facilities, computational
facilities, and highly trained scientists and engineers dedicated to
meeting the needs of the Nation. The Department supports a nuclear
research infrastructure across the Nation incorporating a broad range
of facilities, from small-scale laboratories to hot cells and test
reactors. Computing facilities, ranging from desktop workstations to
highly-parallel supercomputers at the national laboratories, are
routinely employed to gain new insights and guide experiment design.
The fiscal year 2017 budget proposes $102 million to support DOE
nuclear test reactors at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), including
strategic investments at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) to improve
reliability and availability, and refurbishments to major Transient
Reactor Test (TREAT) Facility systems to support restart efforts. Both
facilities play a critical role in meeting nuclear reactor technology
R&D program objectives. The fiscal year 2017 budget also proposes $75
million for sustainment of unique nuclear and radiological R&D
capabilities at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) at INL that are
required for examination, characterization, fabrication, and separation
of materials, components, and fuels.
The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory also is an important component of DOE's Nuclear Science User
Facilities (NSUF), which have a singular focus on advancing
technologies supporting nuclear energy applications. HFIR is a
versatile 85 MW research reactor offering the highest steady-state
neutron flux in the western world. It is able to quickly generate
isotopes that require multiple neutron captures and perform materials
irradiations that simulate lifetimes of power reactor use in a fraction
of the time. Each year, NSUF conducts a rigorous competitive process
leading to awards providing university, national laboratory and
industry principal investigators no-cost access to the unique NSUF
research capabilities, including HFIR.
The Department supports 25 university research reactors located at
24 U.S. universities that provide significant in-core fuels and
materials irradiation experiment capabilities as well as hands on
teaching tools for hundreds of students each year. The Department's
fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes $7 million to continue
providing fresh and used nuclear fuel services for these reactors, in
addition to funds for university reactor-supported research each year.
In fiscal year 2017, the Department will also complete a multi-year $15
million investment to complete safety upgrades at the TRIGA
International fuel production facility in France to ensure a continuing
and stable fuel source for the 12 U.S. university TRIGA research
reactors, and many more such reactors world-wide.
Crosscutting and Other Innovation Initiatives
The Department also supports innovation of nuclear energy
technologies through a variety of other initiatives outside of the
Office of Nuclear Energy.
Several of our Crosscutting Initiatives, which harness funding and
capabilities from many DOE program offices to advance key science and
technology objectives with impact across DOE's missions, can support
the advancement of some nuclear energy technologies. In fiscal year
2017, the Advanced Materials crosscutting initiative will coordinate
$113 million across five DOE program offices to advance innovation for
affordable, reliable, high performance materials--a key to next-
generation nuclear technologies. The Subsurface Crosscutting Initiative
will coordinate $258 million in R&D investment across five program
offices at DOE to advance science, technology and engineering in the
subsurface, which could benefit nuclear waste disposal. Our
Supercritical CO2 Crosscutting Initiative is advancing a technology
that could significantly improve the efficiency of future, generation
IV nuclear plants--improving both their capital and operating costs.
Our Exascale Computing Crosscutting Initiative continues to support
activities, such as CASL, by significantly accelerating the development
and deployment of high performance computing capabilities.
DOE's Loan Programs Office also plays an important role in the
deployment of innovative nuclear reactor designs. The Vogtle Plant, now
under construction in Georgia, was financed using $8.3 billion in DOE
loan guarantees to support construction of the facility. These newly
constructed units will provide enough reliable, zero-carbon, baseload
electricity to power 1.5 million homes in the Southeastern United
States. In addition, a new solicitation, first issued in December 2014,
will support up to $12.5 billion in loans for advanced nuclear projects
in the U.S., potentially including small modular reactors to help
jumpstart this innovative new area.
The Nuclear Energy Workforce
To maintain and grow its vibrant domestic nuclear energy industry
while continuing its global leadership in nuclear nonproliferation, the
U.S. requires a strong domestic workforce of nuclear scientists and
engineers.
DOE engages with industry to address workforce needs. The
Integrated University Program at DOE has funded each year approximately
30 multi-year student fellowships and 46 single-year scholarships in
the nuclear engineering and science fields of study. Since 2009, this
program has awarded nearly $25 million to more than 500 students for
nuclear energy-related scholarships and fellowships. Ninety-eight
percent of the students who have completed nuclear energy-related
fellowships have subsequently pursued careers in nuclear energy fields
at the Department's national laboratories, other government agencies,
academic institutions or private companies.
DOE implemented in fiscal year 2016 a Nuclear Energy Traineeship
initiative to address priority nuclear energy workforce needs in
critical areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) to advance critical disciplines and competencies necessary for
DOE's nuclear energy mission responsibility. The $3 million Traineeship
in Radiochemistry, which was recently awarded to a consortium led by
Washington State University, is the Department's first jointly-funded
traineeship, supported by $2 million from the Office of Nuclear Energy
and $1 million from the Office of Environmental Management. The Office
of Nuclear Energy requested $1 million for fiscal year 2017 to produce
a study on areas where the market is not providing sufficient
educational resources for specific nuclear fields and why those market
failures exist.
Finally, at any given time, between 400-500 university students are
participating in university-led research funded by the Office of
Nuclear Energy, helping to provide diverse thought and capabilities to
these activities and to develop the future nuclear workforce.
The Path Ahead for Nuclear Energy Innovation
Accelerating nuclear energy innovation and ensuring the
commercialization of those new technologies will require a decades-long
vision. To that end, in 2014, I established a Task Force of the
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) to focus on the Future of
Nuclear Power.
The Task Force's principal charge is to develop a report that will
describe the landscape to go from today's reliance largely on light
water reactors to a situation from 2030 to 2050 where one or many
nuclear technologies have reached technical and commercial maturity and
are deploying at a rate that could contribute carbon free nuclear power
for 20 percent of global electricity generation. This report could
include historical operating performance; evolving end-user
requirements such as process heat, hydrogen production, and
desalination; options for new development and test facilities; and
reactor design and development.
I expect the report to be discussed at the upcoming SEAB meeting on
September 22 and look forward to its recommendations informing this
conversation.
existing plants and the energy market landscape
Status of the Current Fleet
As I mentioned previously, there are currently 99 reactors
operating in the United States, totaling 99 gigawatts-electric (GWe) of
capacity. As already stated, this nuclear fleet is the largest part of
America's clean, emission-free electricity generation, with these
reactors provide about 20 percent of electricity in the United States
and approximately 60 percent of our zero-carbon electric generation.
Nuclear power plants provide reliable power, maintaining the highest
capacity factors of all electricity generators.
In May 2016, the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar Unit 2
achieved criticality, and in June 2016, it produced power for the first
time and is currently undergoing start-up testing with commercial
operation planned for the fall of 2016. It is the United States' first
new commercial nuclear generation in the 21st century. Additionally,
two Vogtle units in Georgia are scheduled to come on-line in 2019 and
2020 respectively. Construction of two new AP-1000 units at V.C. Summer
in South Carolina are also under construction.
Market Structure and Early Closures
In spite of the good news associated with these new nuclear plants,
there are significant challenges facing the existing nuclear fleet. In
just the past 4 years, five reactors have shut down earlier than the
end of their licensed operating period and even more have announced
intensions to close early. The shutdown of these power plants
eliminates needed zero-carbon electricity generation just as states
begin design of Clean Power Plan implementation.
The challenges facing operation of these plants are largely due to
a combination of complex market factors. Inexpensive electricity prices
driven primarily by low natural gas prices, low demand growth, and
other market factors have made operating nuclear power plants
uneconomical in some parts of the country.
The current fleet of reactors was built under a very different
market structure: cost-of-service regulated utilities that incentivize
large capital investments. 54 GWe of the current generating capacity is
in regulated markets, with the rest in restructured electricity
markets, and all five new plants are in regulated markets. Today,
however, many nuclear reactors have to compete in wholesale power
markets, and some reactors with higher operating costs--especially
single-unit, smaller plants--are struggling. Several more reactors may
be at risk of early closure due to these economic forces and the
increasing costs of operation.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is working on
reconsideration of price formation--or how electricity prices are
established to balance supply and demand. Following several workshops
in the Fall of 2014 and following extensive industry response, FERC
required the regional transmission organizations and independent system
operators to submit reports considering a number of potential issues
for improving the function and transparency of pricing in electricity
markets. FERC has also docketed several proposed and final rules with
new market requirements that reconsider price formation principles.
Actions like these could ultimately help appropriately price the value
nuclear plants offer, which could in turn help their economics.
At DOE, we have been using our convening power to advance the
conversation. In May 2016, I convened a meeting of experts and
stakeholders in the nearby Hart Senate Office Building to discuss these
economic challenges and the unintended consequences that could arise
from early closures. I appreciate that Senator Crapo hosted this event
and that both he and Senator Booker participated and provided remarks.
At the meeting, we identified potential policy options that can be
pursued at Federal and state levels to address these concerns, as well
as technical options that utilities can use to improve the economic
competitiveness of operating nuclear power plants.
Actions at the State level were also discussed in the May meeting,
including power purchase agreements, tax credits, and clean energy
standards, and some are now being implemented. In August, New York
established a Clean Energy Standard that will give Zero Emission
Credits to some of the State's nuclear power plants. This action has
the potential to keep open three plants that were all at risk of
closure. In Illinois, a similar clean energy standard is under
consideration by the State, which has the potential to keep open about
3 GWe of clean electricity generation. As States struggle with these
energy related issues, we in DOE are available to provide technical
assistance as needed.
DOE's research programs are also working in a number of areas that
may begin having an impact in the 2020 timeframe to address longer-term
solutions to these issues. DOE is supporting R&D jointly with industry
through the Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program, Accident
Tolerant Fuel development, and CASL that can enable plant performance
gains and reduce operating costs. DOE recently convened a panel of
experts from industry, national laboratories, academia, and regulators
to identify research, development, and demonstration opportunities that
could prove economically beneficial, an effort that highlighted the
potential improve materials--already an area of emphasis for DOE's R&D
programs. Lastly, our joint work between the Office of Nuclear Energy
and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in nuclear-hybrid systems
has the potential to further improve the economics of nuclear power.
Clean Power Plan
The Clean Power Plan can also benefit the existing nuclear fleet--
although with implementation a few years off, bridge solutions may
still be required in the near-term. The plan is projected to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 32 percent versus
2005 levels by 2030. Its limits on carbon pollution from fossil fuel
power plans help by taking the cost of that pollution into account,
enabling the market to internalize the value of zero-emitting sources
like nuclear.
Under the Plan, the EPA's targets for each state provide tremendous
flexibility in implementation, leaving it up to the states to determine
incentives for the existing nuclear fleet. For example, the Clean Power
Plan allows either mass-based or rate-based approaches for compliance.
Under a mass-based approach, states can choose whether to cover new as
well as existing fossil fuel plants. By covering new as well as
existing coal and gas plants, a state would provide the greatest
incentive for the nuclear fleet because it most clearly reflects the
value of zero-emitting sources.
Quadrennial Energy Review and Valuation
The crux of the challenge for owners and regulators is economic.
Taking into account the climate benefits and the potential value of
baseload power, the benefits of nuclear power can outweigh the costs of
operating our nuclear fleet. This alignment requires characterizing and
pricing the benefits and costs provided by all electricity resources to
determine an optimal generation mix for the various regions across the
United States. Some benefits are regional, such as grid stability,
while others are national, such as improved energy security.
The first installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review (QER)
included a recommendation to appropriately value electricity services
and technologies. We are acting on this recommendation in our
Quadrennial Energy Review 1.2, which is focused on electricity from
generation to end-use. We are focused not just on valuing new grid
services and technologies, but also on understanding how existing
assets--like nuclear plants--should be valued as the grid's physical
and institutional structures evolve. Decisions about energy tariffs,
policies, and market structures should consider a full suite of value
streams, including reliability, flexibility, resilience, environmental
benefits, security, and others.
Some value streams that nuclear plants provide, like carbon-free
electricity and high availability, are either not valued completely or
are valued differently across jurisdictions. As a result, nuclear
plants are not always fully valued through electricity prices. Changes
in capacity markets to reward capacity performance are a step in the
right direction toward valuing firm capacity.
We also must remember that maintaining a vibrant nuclear industry
is important for national security. It is important for the United
States to serve a major role in setting international standards of
safeguards, physical security, nonproliferation, and safety, we must be
a major player in domestic nuclear energy. These and other valuation
issues are central to the analysis we are doing for the next
installation of the QER.
nuclear waste strategy
To help ensure the long-term contribution of nuclear power in
meeting the Nation's energy needs and to fulfill the Federal
Government's responsibility to manage the more than 75,000 tons of
waste accumulated over decades of defense activities and clean energy
production, we must find a sustainable path forward for the storage and
disposal of nuclear waste.
As outlined in the Administration's Strategy for the Management and
Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, the
Department is planning for an integrated waste management system to
transport, store, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste from commercial electricity generation, as well
national defense and research and development activities.
Consent-Based Siting
To achieve an integrated waste management system, the Department is
developing a consent-based siting process to help work collaboratively
with the public, communities, stakeholders, and governments at the
local, state, and tribal levels. In fiscal year 2016, the Department
launched an effort to solicit input from the public and interested
parties on what elements to consider when designing a fair and
effective consent-based siting process.
DOE issued an Invitation for Public Comment in December 2015 and
held a kickoff meeting in January 2016 requesting feedback from
communities, states, Tribal Nations, and other interested stakeholders.
From March through July, DOE hosted a series of eight public meetings
across the United States in order to engage with citizens at a national
level and discuss the development of a consent-based approach to siting
nuclear waste facilities. DOE is hosting a long-scheduled meeting
tomorrow, September 15, to wrap up this process and discuss comments
collected in our public meetings across the country. A report will
subsequently be issued summarizing the results of those meetings.
By the end of the calendar year 2016, the Department will issue a
number of documents, discussed below, for public comment and
discussion. These include a draft consent-based siting process, as well
as siting considerations for interim storage facilities and deep
geologic repositories.
The Department's fiscal year 2017 Budget Request includes funding
to help transition mutual learning and engagement activities for
consent-based siting to the community level through a Funding
Opportunity Announcement. Funds will enable communities to learn more
about nuclear waste management and explore their potential roles in
consent-based siting and the management of our Nation's nuclear waste.
In total, our fiscal year 2017 Budget proposes $39.4 million to
supports our efforts continuing to move forward with a consent-based
approach to siting storage and disposal facilities, including $25
million for grants to states, Tribal Nations, and local governments.
Consolidated Interim Storage
In parallel with developing a consent-based approach to siting, the
Department is developing the concept of consolidated interim storage of
commercial spent nuclear fuel. As outlined by the Administration's
Strategy, consolidated storage will benefit the Nation regardless of
how and when the waste is ultimately disposed.
Interim storage would encompass siting, though a consent-based
process, a pilot interim storage facility and subsequently a
consolidated interim storage facility with greater capacity and greater
capabilities. A pilot facility would be focused on the near-term need
of receiving spent fuel from the existing shutdown reactor sites around
the country. A larger consolidated interim storage facility,
potentially co-located with a pilot facility, would provide needed
flexibility in the waste management system and allow for important
capacity in implementing the Federal commitment to manage the Nation's
spent nuclear fuel. These interim storage facilities, as part of an
integrated waste management system, would perform important functions
including:
--Allowing for the permanent removal of spent nuclear fuel from
shutdown reactor sites;
--Allowing the Federal Government to begin meeting its contractual
waste management commitments;
--Providing crucial flexibility for the overall nuclear waste
management system, such as the ability to conduct thermal
management activities and re-package spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste if necessary to prepare for
permanent disposal, as well as the ability to regulate the
future flow of waste shipments to a permanent disposal facility
as circumstances require; and,
--Providing useful learning and experience, including opportunities
to conduct R&D on the behavior of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste over time.
DOE is currently in the process of developing generic design safety
analyses for interim storage concepts for two primary reasons. The
first is to inform potential host communities interested in learning
more about how such a facility may fit into their future in terms of
risks and benefits. This second is to develop the necessary regulatory
strategies for moving the spent fuel from existing facilities, where in
some cases it has been located for decades, and receiving it at new
facilities in a safe and efficient manner.
Private Initiatives for Interim Storage
It should be noted that in order to construct an interim storage
facility, DOE would need additional congressional authorization.
However, in parallel with DOE's efforts to develop DOE-constructed and
-operated facility concepts, we have seen the emergence of private
initiatives that may provide interim storage services and potentially
accelerate the schedule to remove spent fuel from the shutdown reactor
sites.
These initiatives present a novel approach that is distinctly
different from DOE's consent-based siting approach, as they essentially
already include an aspect of community, state, and tribal consent. DOE
is encouraged by the opportunities presented by these private
initiatives, and we are preparing to seek public input on how a
privately-owned storage facility could fit into the overall integrated
waste management system. DOE will issue a Request for Information
within the coming weeks.
Ongoing Efforts Towards Permanent Disposal
Moving forward with developing a consolidated interim storage
concept does not mean we are putting on hold efforts to find a
permanent disposal solution for nuclear waste. The Department continues
to work to better understand different methods and geologies that can
effectively isolate spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from the
biosphere for thousands of years into the future.
We are conducting analyses, as well as lab and field tests,
including collaborations with international partners, to evaluate three
main rock types for geologic disposal: crystalline, clay/shale, and
salt. This information is essential to starting a meaningful dialogue
with any community, state, or Tribe that is interested in learning
about hosting a waste disposal facility. As with interim storage
concepts, communities should have the most up-to-date information on
waste disposal facility risks and benefits to allow them to make an
informed decision on whether they wish to play a role in hosting such a
facility.
DOE is also pursuing our planned deep borehole field test to
advance the science and engineering knowledge and determine the
feasibility of using the deep borehole approach for the possible
disposal of smaller, DOE managed-waste as an alternative to mined
geologic repositories.
Our earlier effort to begin the deep borehole project in January
met with deep community concern after the contract was awarded, as
local governments felt they we not sufficiently part of the procurement
process. While this activity is a non-radioactive science project, the
initial mistrust led to a general fear and suspicion that the Federal
Government would force the community to accept waste at some point in
the future. We recognized that a ``reset'' was in order to form the
bonds of partnership from the onset and to ensure any community, state,
or Tribe who played a role in the field test would be an important and
valued partner.
As a result, the Department issued a new solicitation in August of
this year that now includes a phased approach and allows for making
more than one award. This will allow the best quality proposal to
continue through community outreach and support and permitting approval
before the more technically challenging design, testing, and drilling
phases are started by the most promising contractor team. The results
and data from this project, if the borehole disposal concept is proven
feasible, will be essential to inform a yet-to-be-determined, future
community on what it would take to host such a waste facility.
This improved approach is well underway, and we have recently
received Letters of Intent to Submit Proposals that indicate there is
continued strong interest. Full proposals are due October 21st with
plans to select one or more of those applicants early in 2017.
Defense Waste Repository
Consistent with the March 2015 Presidential determination that a
defense-only repository is required, DOE is also developing plans for a
defense waste repository. As I laid out in March of 2015, there are
many advantages to pursuing defense and civilian waste on separate,
parallel paths.
Unlike commercial spent fuel, which has an inventory that continues
to grow, the United States is no longer generating defense high-level
waste associated with weapons production, and the inventory is
essentially finite and known. Some defense waste is also less
radioactive, cooler, and easier to handle than commercial spent fuel,
and a defense repository could therefore have a simpler design and
present fewer licensing and transportation challenges. In addition,
defense high-level waste streams are heterogeneous, existing in many
different waste forms, which could allow for different disposal
pathways. A majority of the inventory of defense high-level waste has
been or will be vitrified, which means that it could be disposed in a
separate repository with a simpler design.
A defense high-level waste repository could be selected, licensed,
and built sooner than if it were disposed of in a common repository
with civilian waste. This could potentially reduce ongoing storage,
treatment, and management costs for defense waste currently stored at
DOE facilities. Finally, successful development of a defense-waste-only
repository could play an important role in a broader nuclear waste
strategy by providing important experience in the design, siting,
licensing, and development of the facility that could be applied to the
development of a future repository for commercial spent fuel.
A repository for disposal of defense high-level waste allows
greater flexibility in the selection of a site--and greater flexibility
can help to keep costs down. Over the last year and a half, we have
begun early planning to identify various activities that need to be
performed to evaluate and design a separate repository for defense
waste. Although these plans are preliminary, they begin to describe the
different components--including technical, regulatory, risk management,
cost and schedule considerations--that must come together to build a
viable program, all within the framework of a consent-based siting
process.
Fiscal year 2017 Budget to Continue Progress on Nuclear Waste Strategy
Overall, our budget proposes $76.3 million for integrated waste
management system activities, a $53.8 million increase from fiscal year
2016, to work towards waste storage and disposal solutions, in addition
to $74.3 million for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition R&D, to make
progress on the needed research for transportation, storage and
disposal. This budget will carry forward our consent-based siting,
consolidated interim storage, and disposal activities in fiscal 2017 to
move us toward a solution for managing the Nation's nuclear waste and
avoid leaving the burden to future generations.
conclusion
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how nuclear
energy is a vital component of the U.S. clean energy strategy. The
Administration looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and other
Members of Congress to ensure that our Nation can continue to benefit
from the significant contributions of nuclear power to our energy needs
and efforts to mitigate climate change.
The Department of Energy's programs continue to push to achieve
these goals by advancing reactor technologies, developing used fuel
management technologies and approaches, and supporting a world-class
nuclear energy research infrastructure.
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss this important topic
and the work that Department is currently doing. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
We'll now go to a round of 5-minute questions.
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
Mr. Secretary, you--as you know, I've been critical of the
Administration's, what I believe to be, obsession with giant
wind turbines and the continued subsidy of them. But, I would
be--I want to compliment you, and your predecessor, too, for
continuing to be an advocate for the importance of nuclear
power as a part of our energy future. And if it's true that,
within 20 years--2038--48 reactors will be 60 years old,
representing 40 percent of the nuclear generating capacity in
the United States, we could lose half our reactors if the
existing reactors can't be extended from 60 to 80 years, and
these reactors close.
Now, if nuclear reactors produce 60 percent of our carbon-
free emissions, and we lose 40 percent of that, it's a
significant blow to the effort to reduce carbon emissions.
Don't you see a real disconnect in the public discussion
between those who see the urgency of climate change but who
don't see nuclear as an important part of the solution?
Secretary Moniz. Well, again, it certainly is a fact that
nuclear power has been our largest carbon-free source. And I
certainly think that having a strong, robust nuclear energy
sector will be an important part of a highly decarbonized
electricity sector by mid-century. So yes, I think it's very,
very important.
Secondly, I agree with you, by the way, that--well, it's a
question of arithmetic, basically--with 60 years lifetime, the
major wave of retirement starts just around 2030, and I would
use that to suggest that, when you look at the planning times
for utilities, for investors, for large capital outlays, that
means that we don't have a lot of time to have both the
technology base, but also the kind of clear signals, in terms
of support for nuclear power, resolving the nuclear waste
issues, so that, in these next 5 years or so, those capital
planning activities can really weave nuclear energy into that
planning.
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE
Senator Alexander. You were a member of the President's
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, and you've
testified about that. Let me go to Senator Feinstein's comments
and some of your testimony.
You said that for consolidated storage to be of the
greatest value to the waste management system, the current
rigid legislative restriction that prevents a storage facility
developed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act from operating
significantly earlier than a repository should be eliminated.
Now, the way I read those remarks and other comments you've
made is this, that you support the idea that we should move on
several tracks at the same time. And if one gets stalled, that
doesn't mean we should stop the other two or three tracks. We
should just keep pushing ahead and hope that one or more of
those tracks succeeds. Am I correct about that?
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely. And, in fact, the interim
storage facility, in my view--facilities--always should have
been part of an integrated waste management system, providing
much greater flexibility and allowing us, again, also to avoid
the liability that we have. And we're paying billions of
dollars already by not moving spent fuel.
Senator Alexander. Well, Senator Feinstein and I have been
working for 5 years on this, and we were doing a pretty good
job of reconciling Senators who have fundamentally different
points of view on nuclear power in some ways, but not on
nuclear storage, not on the need for, the solution to it. And I
thought it was a particularly boneheaded move by the nuclear
industry to kind of jerk the rug out from under that effort by
moving away from the idea that, if we have a chance to go for a
short-term repository or a long-term repository or a private
storage option or a defense option or Yucca Mountain, that we
ought to push on all of those paths.
At present, Senator Feinstein and I have a different
opinion on Yucca Mountain, but that doesn't keep us from
agreeing that we should push ahead with something. And just
because we're stalled on one aspect of storage, I think people
who believe that if we stop one, we should stop all--are as
misinformed, I think, as those who believe that climate change
is urgent, but we don't need nuclear power to help solve the
problem.
Senator----
Secretary Moniz. May I----
Senator Alexander. Yes, sir.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. Just comment on that? That I
certainly agree with you. I would observe that, in particular,
for the utilities operating nuclear power plants, if you look
at their specific interests, the interest is to have the fuel
moved away, whether it's to a storage facility, a repository
immediately, or not. So, I think that this statement that we
need to be sending the signals very soon about how we're going
to meet the zero carbon generation in the 2030-and-beyond
period includes this issue of providing the signal that, yes,
you build a nuclear power plant, the government will move the
spent fuel away, whether it's to a private or a public----
Senator Alexander. We have significant bipartisan support
in the Senate for moving on several tracks at the same time and
with the hope that sometime that one or more of those will get
there first.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
And I think you said it like it is.
Mr. Secretary, I'd like to call your attention page 11.
There are two paragraphs I wanted to speak to you about. But,
you know, it----
Secretary Moniz. Excuse me, Senator Feinstein. Of my
testimony?
Senator Feinstein. Of your testimony.
Secretary Moniz. Yes. Okay.
Senator Feinstein. The consolidated interim storage part of
it. To me, this is the key. You know, I think Southern
California Edison has in the vicinity of 3300 rods in spent-
fuel pools right at the facility, and no place to put them. And
so, they sit there and--they've got 6 million people right
around them. And they've had the same--they have big security.
But, that isn't the answer. The answer is getting the stuff
secured.
You state what interim storage would encompass through the
consent-based process. And there's no question that it has to
be consent-based, and there's no question that I think consent-
based will work, because there are places and States that would
like to participate in this.
The question comes, Do you have the ability just to do it?
Your final paragraph here, which, ``DOE is currently in the
process of developing generic design safety analyses for
interim storage concepts for two primary reasons, to inform
potential host communities about how such a facility may fit
into their future, in terms of risks and benefits; the second
is to develop the necessary regulatory strategies for moving
the spent fuel from existing facilities.''
Now, this kind of endorses what the Chairman and I were
just saying. The question that I have is, Can you just go ahead
with it, or do you need legislation?
Secretary Moniz. So, certainly, again, my understanding is
that, for a government-operated facility, we would need
congressional authorization to do that. However, our general
counsel advises that, for a private storage facility, we have
the authority, although it's not explicitly spelled out in
statute, but language that has been put forward, I think,
acknowledges that authority. I think that acknowledging that
authority from the Congress is very important for confidence, I
think, also of the applicant. So I think we're on the same page
on that.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. So, would you be prepared to move
ahead on your own?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think if the Congress is
supporting us to do that, yes. As I said, we are in a process
of gathering information. We could move forward. There is some
language right now about moving forward on setting up the
contracting bases, which we could certainly do with the
funding--$10 million, I think, is proposed. And then, if we
wanted to try to move that rapidly on the timescale that some
of the interested parties are talking about, in fact, we would
want to start doing some additional activity, particularly on
the transportation of the spent-fuel side. That would require
some additional funds. But, there's a lot that we could do to
move forward.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you. I think we're all agreed
it should be consent-based. I mean, the problem with Yucca is,
nobody in Nevada wants to move ahead with it. That's a problem.
What would you advise? That you go ahead and develop the
consent? Obviously, it's----
Secretary Moniz. Yes. Well, so we want to go through this
process. We want to provide--we want to be able to provide some
support for interested communities so that they can work
through the issues, make sure there's a lot of public
confidence in this. Now, of course--again, there's public and
there's private, both. On the private side, in a certain sense,
going through the application to the NRC, which one group has
already initiated that process, that is, in some sense, already
suggesting a certain level of consent there. But, I think it's
very important that we learn the lessons, not only of the
past--1980s--but actually some also more recent events in which
we've got to do the upfront work, in terms of working with the
communities and the States and making sure we're all aligned in
the interest. And certainly, I would be prepared to accelerate
that process even more than we are currently doing.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. Is that process set to go, pretty
much, now?
Secretary Moniz. In terms of--yes--in terms of getting--for
example, the consent-based meeting--the summary meeting of that
will be tomorrow, as I mentioned, following eight regional
meetings. Then we will consolidate the input from the meetings
tomorrow into a consent-based siting plan that we would like to
issue later this year.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. And the consent would be the
Governor of the State, how would that part work?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think there's no----
Senator Feinstein. Because that's important. That's where
it all happens.
Secretary Moniz. Sure, there's no specific rule. But, if
they go back to the Blue Ribbon Commission, it was pointed out
that, fundamentally, at the community, at the State, and at the
Federal level, we have to be aligned to not get bad surprises
later on.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Good work.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Alexander. Senator Udall.
REGIONAL INNOVATION PARTNERSHIPS
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here, and for your
excellent testimony on all ends of the nuclear issue.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the visit you had to
New Mexico. Senator Heinrich and I sent you a letter, I think
today, expressing thanks for your participation in the
Southwest Regional Energy Innovation Forum hosted by the
University of New Mexico this July. The successful forum
brought together as you know, 140 university, National Lab,
government, and industry participants to discuss the critical
issue of clean energy technologies at the regional level and at
the national level. And nuclear energy played a key role in
those discussions.
I'd like to reiterate our strong desire to see New Mexico,
with our labs and universities, play a key role in the
Department of Energy's Mission Innovation Initiative. New
Mexico can be a hub for the Four Corners region to explore
revolutionary materials necessary to transform energy
technologies in markets, not only in nuclear energy, but
photovoltaics, fuel cells, novel materials essential for clean
energy growth. Lots going on in the Southwest. And I strongly
believe that New Mexico can bring together cutting-edge
industries, university researchers, local and State
governments, and national energy labs to address regional and
national energy challenges.
Can you talk about the progress we're making towards
regional innovation centers and how New Mexico can play a
greater role in mission innovation in the future, given DOE's
assets in the State?
Secretary Moniz. Well, thank you, Senator Udall. And thank
you for coming to Lab Day yesterday, as well.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. First of all, the regional meeting in New
Mexico, in Albuquerque, was really terrific. It had a focus
completely on materials, for hydrogen, for batteries, for
nuclear. So, that was terrific.
We just had our 13th regional meeting, on Monday, in
Morgantown. We've now covered just about all parts of the
country. The enthusiasm for the regional innovation
partnerships has been absolutely uniform. I have to say, if one
set of institutions has been particularly excited, it's been
our research universities. Like UNM, in the case of hosting
that meeting.
So, we are very, very eager to move forward with this. We
did make a proposal in the budget. We hope that will be
reconsidered in the final discussions of the budget, because
this would be a new start. So, I think we have to wait for some
form of bus at the end of the CR. We are putting together
summary documents of what we learned in these 13 meetings,
which included Tennessee and California and New Mexico, all
three of you. We would like to then, now, solicit ideas about
how one promotes regional innovation. Because I think this idea
has really got a lot of very, very positive attention. That was
one of 13 examples of that.
Senator Udall. Yes. No, thank you for----
Secretary Moniz. And New Mexico--that part of the
questions--again, I--obviously, I can't prejudge the
competition and----
Senator Udall. Right.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. How people would organize
nonprofits. But, certainly there's no question, New Mexico has,
obviously, some major innovation assets--universities, labs--
and could very well organize one of those teams.
Senator Udall. Yes. Great. Thank you very much.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
And let me take just a minute to stress that we're eager to
see that the Waste Isolation Plant be reopened, and that be
done with worker and community safety as a top priority. And I
know that you've talked about that many times.
On that topic, I want to ensure that inspections by the
Mine Safety and Health Administration will continue at WIPP at
least four times per year, as required by law, and that all
issues are remedied as quickly as possible. Unfortunately,
those inspections had fallen off, as you know, at WIPP prior to
the accident that caused----
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Senator Udall [continuing]. The radiation release. Will you
give DOE's commitment on this to continue----
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely. And, in fact, frankly, I think
we will be reopening with, certainly, I would say, upgraded
mine operations. There was a real issue, in terms of the
bolting, for example. That's been gone after now aggressively.
And, frankly, we are helped now by getting some more air down
below, which is going to allow greater work effort down there
to complete----for example, the mine inspector particularly
focused on those roof bolting issues, and those have been--the
pace of addressing that has been picked up dramatically.
Senator Udall. Yes.
CLEANUP AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Mr. Chairman, I only have one more quick question. I know
I'm running out of time here. Is that okay?
On the topic of nuclear waste cleanup, I believe it's
important for the Department of Energy to prepare a lifecycle
cost estimate cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Each
year, we need to make a case to our Chairman and Ranking Member
on why we believe Los Alamos needs funds for cleanup. And I
believe such an estimate would be helpful to demonstrate where
those funds are needed and can be used. Can I get your
commitment to work with us on that?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, absolutely, Senator. And we're well
along on that. We have a preliminary draft that, in fact, was
shared with some of the local citizens, but--it's a preliminary
draft, so we still have a process to go through. But, we hope
to have that, certainly this year.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much.
Secretary Moniz. And we'll work with you on that.
Senator Udall. Yes. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SAFELY EXTENDING LICENSES FROM 60 TO 80 YEARS
Senator Alexander. We'll have one more round of questions
for the Secretary, if he can spare that time, and then we'll go
to our next panel.
Mr. Secretary, I think I'm about right in this. It--a new
nuclear reactor might cost $10- or $12 billion and might take 8
years or so to build. I guess it would depend on factors.
Nobody's quite sure. But, they're very expensive and large
projects to do correctly. And while we're waiting to see
whether the California experiment in renewable energy takes it
down the road of Germany, or not, and while we're waiting to
see whether these 50 companies who are working in
entrepreneurial efforts in advanced reactors and other things,
over the next 20 years we could lose half of our existing
reactors if their licenses can't be extended from 60 to 80
years. Now, in practical terms, that means we can get another
20 years of cheaper, reliable, carbon-free electricity that
would represent about a quarter, from these reactors that I'm
talking about, of all of our carbon-free energy.
What are you doing--you've mentioned some things, but what
are the prospects for safely extending the licenses of, say,
half of the 99 reactors we have today for another 20 years, and
giving us that 20 years of cheaper, reliable, carbon-free
electricity?
Secretary Moniz. Well, clearly, I think I cannot judge the
outcome of the NRC evaluations, but let me say, as was
mentioned earlier, we are certainly supporting work to support
those applications--materials work, controls issues, et cetera.
And, by the way, I think CASL can be a big help in this. I
should add perhaps, as well, that, since I had the pleasure of
being the chairman of the CASL board for its first 2 years,
that, right from the beginning, another important issue, which
is quite relevant to this, is that, right from the beginning,
CASL leadership engaged the NRC to make sure the NRC could
understand these tool developments as they were happening so
that they could be integrated into their licensing. And when it
comes to the 80 years, I think that's going to be very, very
important.
So, we're working that. We work with NRC also directly, in
terms of the various criteria, whether it's for the 20-year
extension or for things like advanced reactors, how to develop
the criteria for advanced reactor licensing. So, we're pushing
on that. But, I think now some companies have come forward.
They're planning to go ahead with the additional 20-year
application with the NRC, and I think that's going to be a
process that we will support as best we can.
Senator Alexander. Well, for those companies and for the
country, I think--speaking as one Senator, I want to do
whatever I can to create an environment where a utility can
make that decision, if it's possible to extend the license and
do it safely.
Secretary Moniz. Safely, right.
Senator Alexander. I think it's in the best interests----
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Of the country, for many,
many reasons.
ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS
My last question is--has to do with those 50 entrepreneurs
you talked about. You released a draft Vision for Advanced
Nuclear Power. Do you support the goal stated in one of your
reports to have two advanced reactors licensed by the early
2030s? And why do you suppose there's this flurry of
entrepreneurial activity at a time when there are clearly
obstacles to building new reactors? The low cost of natural
gas, excessive regulation, the negative pricing from wind
power--despite that, you see all this entrepreneurial activity.
What's the source of that?
Secretary Moniz. Well I'm not sure I know. But, it
certainly is extremely interesting. I think it is driven, to a
large extent, by the expectation as evolves from any serious
scenario about meeting our climate goals, that the electricity
sector is the first sector to, essentially, totally
decarbonize. And in that future, then--and I am very bullish,
as you know, on both wind and solar. But, they are variable
technologies. Now, advances in storage--lower-cost storage,
would be very important. But, I still have to say that I find,
you know, the nuclear power zero-carbon baseload possibilities
to be very important.
In addition, some of those entrepreneurs are looking at
their--the technologies, not just for electricity, but for
other applications, as well. And some of those technologies
are, in fact, potentially well suited to producing low--zero-
carbon heat, for example, to do hybrid technologies with
renewables, a program that actually we are working on, as well,
right now.
So, I think they're seeing a lot of possibilities and
seeing new ideas. The fact is, you know, we have not, I think,
had--there was a long period of, I would say, not a terrible
amount of innovation in this arena. Obviously, given the long
hiatus in building plants, one can understand that. But, I
think the confluence of the low-carbon future, the importance
of that, specifically in the power sector, and the fact that so
many new tools and technologies are available to apply in this
space that haven't been applied for a long time, that I think
the entrepreneurial community is seeing that coming together.
We do have a challenge. As I said earlier, we feel a focus
area for us is to try to build up the accessibility to our
energy infrastructure--to our nuclear infrastructure for these
companies. But, I have to concede that there are some areas in
which we just don't have the infrastructure, in fact, and we
know that some of those entrepreneurs are going to other
countries to find, for example, fast neutron spectrum.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
ENERGY STORAGE
As to the storage, I hope we do make great advances in
storage. My suspicion is that the major source of electricity
that will benefit from improved storage will be nuclear,
because of the size of the nuclear generating capacity and you
can't turn a nuclear reactor up and down, and it produces a lot
of electricity at night that's not needed. So, my guess would
be that if we improve our storage capacities, that our reactors
may be able to take more advantage of that than any other form
of electricity.
Secretary Moniz. It depends on the mix. And, obviously, in
France, for example, where they had so much nuclear--75
percent--they had to have a third or 40 percent of their fleet
with ramping capability, in fact.
Senator Alexander. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
REACTOR LICENSE EXTENSIONS
I believe we have 16 new nuclear plants, so far, that have
shut down, and another 7 coming in the next few years. That's
for a variety of reasons. Some, like plants in Illinois and
Wisconsin, can't compete with natural gas. Others, like Vermont
Yankee, are closing after sustained local opposition. Still
others have had equipment or structural issues, like San Onofre
and Crystal River. Given these private-sector, market-driven
decisions, why would DOE invest by extending operating licenses
from 60 to 80 years?
Secretary Moniz. Well, of course, for those plants, unless
there were dramatic retrofits needed, a lot of it's capital
sunk costs. And capital costs, of course, drive it, so they can
have relatively low, at least, marginal operating costs.
Secondly, for the long term, there's no doubt that the
shale gas revolution has been a tremendous economic boom--boon
to the country, but also an environmental one, from the point
of view of--it accounts for about 60 percent of our lower
CO2 emissions by substituting for coal so
dramatically. However, as I said earlier, if we look forward to
mid-century and beyond, we're talking about really low carbon
in the electricity sector, like decarbonized, and then natural
gas will also have emissions. As long as it's substituting for
coal, it lowers emissions; but, if it substitutes for nuclear,
it's raising emissions. And so, I think that if you're a
utility executive and you're looking forward to the low-carbon
future, the natural gas production still looks very, very
strong. And EIA (Energy Information Administration) still
projects very modest prices for natural gas for a long time.
But, there is a vulnerability, a risk to fuel costs, which
traditionally was the issue with natural gas. So, in terms of a
portfolio and going to zero carbon, that's why we would see
nuclear as an important contributor along with renewables.
Senator Feinstein. Is it prudent, with all of the stresses
on plant and materials----
Secretary Moniz. Well, that's what I say. I mean, that----
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. To go from 60 to 80 years?
Secretary Moniz. That's what I'm saying, where I'm not
going to judge the outcome.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Secretary Moniz. So, all we are doing is, we are supporting
some of the research, for example, that will be needed to make
that judgment at the NRC--materials--the materials issues, for
example, with time, with more radiation flux and the like. So--
yes, so--no, so I don't judge the result. But, I do think it's
our responsibility to develop the technology and the tools to
help that informed decision.
FUSION ENERGY
Senator Feinstein. Could you just talk a little bit about
fusion energy? ITER--as you know, we had concerns about funding
ITER. And you won one from us, right? So--and small companies
are making progress with innovative approaches, with burning
plasmas and other things. Where is ITER? And what is your
position today, so we can be aware?
Secretary Moniz. The ITER situation is what we summarized
in our report to the Congress. Basically, our statement was
that there's no doubt that the new leadership of ITER--Mr.
Bigot--has made tremendous strides in pulling together this
project. But, we also said that there was a long way to go. And
we put down some, I think, pretty stringent conditions that we
are going to insist upon being met to make what we felt was
that the right time for the decision, given what's happened
with ITER, is probably--I think we said at the end of 2017, to
influence the next year--fiscal year's budget. So, we're
probably a year away from really having, I think, the
information that would come back, administration and Congress,
to make a decision.
Senator Feinstein. So, you won't ask for any additional
money.
Secretary Moniz. I didn't say that. Well, whoever it is,
next year--a reminder: Almost all the funding to ITER--in fact,
by congressional direction, all the funding of last year--was
to American institutions and companies building equipment for
ITER. So, it was not like just sending 100-and-some-million
dollars to Cadarache. The 100-million-dollar scale was for
building things here. And so, we said, ``Look, we have a
commitment to, in the international arena, at least to first
plasma, which is the middle of the next decade.'' Ignition
would be in the 2030s. So, we said, ``Look, we have a
responsibility to deliver some equipment that we manufacture to
first plasma. There's also, however, more work that needs to be
done''--I give Bigot a lot of credit for what he's done, in
terms of shaping that up as a project. But, there's still a
ways to go. And, frankly, the countries have to cooperate in
making this really go as an integrated project and not as,
``Well, I'll do my thing here, and you do your thing there.''
So, that's where we are. And so, we are deeply engaged. I
think we've brought more discipline to this. And the real time
to judge this will be just over a year from now.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator--Secretary Moniz, thank you for----
Secretary Moniz. You keep promoting me to----
Senator Alexander. I know. Well----
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. To Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. Senator Collins, Secretary Moniz is
about to leave. Would you like to ask questions before he--all
right.
Secretary Moniz. We had an interaction earlier today----
Senator Alexander. Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. On an offshore wind. Your
favorite subject.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. No, no. We took care of it, Senator
Collins.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. I don't know how many other times you'll
appear before our subcommittee. Maybe this is the last. But, I
genuinely appreciate the way you've worked with us in Congress
from the day you arrived, being accessible and letting us know
in advance of things, whether we liked those things or not, and
the fact that you had a lot of experience in the Department
where you went, and you knew the subject cold--has made you a
very effective member of the President's Cabinet. So, I thank
you for that service and look forward to continuing to work
with you during the rest of the year.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the
opportunity to have worked with you, including on the issues
that Senator Feinstein described earlier. But, working not only
in a bipartisan way, but in a nonpartisan way.
Senator Alexander. Well, we like to work that way.
We will now excuse Secretary Moniz and invite the witnesses
for our second panel to be seated at the witness table, and
then I will introduce them.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Senator Alexander. Our second panel includes someone very
familiar to all of us, Senator Judd Gregg, of New Hampshire, a
flinty individual who served in this body with great
distinction, watching the budget and working on education and
healthcare and other matters. We are delighted to see him and
welcome him back. He is the Leadership Chair of Nuclear
Matters. We welcome, again, Jay Faison, whom many of us know,
Founder and CEO of The ClearPath Foundation.
We have your testimony, and have read it. If you could
summarize it in 5 minutes or so and give us a chance to have a
conversation with you, we would appreciate it.
Senator Gregg, we'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JUDD GREGG, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Gregg. Well, first off, let me say what a great honor
it is to be here to address this Senate committee, of which I
had an opportunity to participate. And obviously, it's a great
honor to be here with folks that I consider friends. Thank you
for having me.
PREMATURE CLOSURE OF PLANTS
Actually, so much of what I was going to say has already
been said, and said better than I could say it, by the
Chairman, by Senator Whitehouse, by the Secretary. I'm not
speaking about waste issues, so I haven't necessarily gotten
into the issues of Senator Feinstein, but, on the issue of
premature closure of plants, the Chairman has said, Why would
we do it? The Secretary has said, Why would we do it? And
Senator Whitehouse has said, Why would we do it? And that's
what our group is about, asking, Why would we do something like
that? Because it makes no sense, from the standpoint of policy.
The Nuclear Matters Coalition essentially takes the
position that if a plant has useful life, it should not be
closed, that you shouldn't have premature closure, that there
are approximately five plants now that have been closed
prematurely, that still had useful life, that there are eight
more that are at significant risk of being closed, that still
have useful life, and then probably another five to ten that
are likely to fall into that category.
As has been suggested here rather effectively and
forthrightly, obviously nuclear power plays a very positive
role in our electrical production in this country. It is
noncarbon-based. Twenty percent of the baseload is nuclear, as
was mentioned, and 60 percent of the noncarbon-based energy in
this country is nuclear. Every time you close one of these
plants, it's the practical effect of putting a million cars on
the road. And so, it makes no sense, from the standpoint of
environmental protection, especially.
It also makes no sense from the standpoint of reliability.
Those of us who suffered through the polar vortex of 2014 know
that we came very close to a major blackout in the Northeast
and the Midwest, which would have had devastating economic
effect. The only thing that saved us from that was our nuclear
plants, because they function 24/7, and they are not affected
by that type of weather event.
In addition, of course, nuclear brings big-time jobs and
economic benefit to the communities in which it's located, and
it completes the diversity picture of our energy supply. As we
move towards gas replacing coal, as was mentioned by the
Secretary, we don't want to get in the position of all the eggs
in one basket. Nuclear being 20 percent of our baseload really
is an important part of making sure that we don't have an all-
eggs-in-one-basket approach.
These plants that are being closed prematurely are being
closed for economic reasons primarily, and it's because nuclear
is at a significant disadvantage in the present culture of
structured markets. Essentially, these markets end up with spot
pricing of energy. And in a spot-pricing situation, nuclear
can't compete as effectively as the other types of energy,
especially gas, because the capital costs of building the plant
are not really factored in to the pricing of the product or,
alternatively, it's competing against energy which is highly
subsidized. And nuclear isn't highly subsidized.
How do you address this? Well, our view is, you address it,
first, by making people aware of how important nuclear is, and,
second, by giving nuclear some sort of support in the area of
recognizing that it is carbon-free and that it is reliable and
it is part of the diversity mix. This probably is going to be
done on a State-by-State basis. It's being done in New York
now. It's being moved forward, hopefully, in Illinois, as
different States realize the importance of their nuclear mix in
maintaining and reducing their carbon, and in maintaining their
reliability.
So, that's our theme. We are an advocacy group, in the
sense that we've been out proselytizing this approach across
the country. We aren't involved in the other areas of nuclear
issues directly, other than to be very supportive of nuclear
power, as I personally am.
I thank the Chairman for his time, and the Ranking Member
for her time, and obviously, the Senator from Maine.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Judd Gregg
Good afternoon, Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you as the Chairman of Nuclear Matters to talk about the role
nuclear energy will play in our clean energy future.
Nuclear Matters is a coalition of organizations that recognizes the
value of America's nuclear energy plants, educates the public on the
clear benefits of nuclear energy, and explores possible policy
solutions to preserve this essential part of the Nation's energy
infrastructure.
Our Nation's nuclear power plants are vital national assets that
provide reliable, carbon-free electricity to tens of millions of
households and businesses around the country.
Despite their value, a combination of factors--including low
natural gas prices and market rules that fail to recognize this value
and subsidies that depress electricity prices--have caused otherwise
exemplary performing nuclear plants to close and put the future of
others in jeopardy.
The implications of these closures--both today and in the future--
will have staggering impacts on the country's economy and its goals to
decarbonize the electricity sector.
With Watts Bar II coming online in Tennessee, the United States has
nearly 100 nuclear power plants, which generate 20 percent of our
electricity and 62 percent of the Nation's carbon-free electricity.
Nuclear plants are the Nation's most reliable source of electricity,
operating nonstop for 18 to 24 months before they have to refuel.
Nuclear energy has a distinct set of attributes, generating vast
amounts of electricity, emission-free, around the clock. No other
electricity source can match that. In a carbon-constrained world, with
an economy and a way of life that depend on reliable electricity, we
cannot afford to take nuclear energy for granted.
For most parts of the country, meeting state and national carbon
reduction goals, including the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean
Power Plan, will be compromised without existing nuclear power plants.
Bear in mind that the carbon-reduction targets for the Clean Power Plan
reflect an energy supply that includes a large contribution of
electricity from carbon-free nuclear power plants. When nuclear plants
shut down, most of the baseload generation that fills the gap usually
comes from fossil-fueled electricity sources, with a resultant rise in
carbon emissions. This was a measurable result in the New England
region after the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant closed in 2014.
Renewables like wind and solar represent a growing share of our
electricity supply, and it is vital that we continue to develop them.
However, these sources are still a small fraction of our total
generation and renewables are not equally viable in all parts of the
country. States need the flexibility to keep existing nuclear plants
online.
In 2015, U.S. nuclear power plants avoided 564 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide. Without the 99 nuclear power plants that operate in
30 states, carbon emissions from the U.S. electric sector would be
approximately 25 percent higher. After Vermont Yankee closed carbon
emissions in New England increased by almost 1.5 million tons. That's a
5 percent increase in emissions at a time when we desperately need to
be going in the other direction.
In contrast, the Clean Energy Standard (CES) that New York recently
approved assigns a value to nuclear energy facilities based on their
clean electricity output. The new policy could keep at-risk nuclear
power plants operating, help the state meet its emission reduction
goals and keep electricity rates predictable. Already, the prospect of
beneficial changes resulting from the CES is helping to facilitate the
sale of one nuclear plant that was under the threat of closure. I hope
that policymakers from around the country are paying attention to New
York's example.
The clean-air benefits of nuclear energy ought to be obvious. Their
reliability ensures that we can maintain safe temperatures in our homes
in the worst heat waves or the coldest winters. Their fuel doesn't
freeze. It doesn't have to be delivered ``just in time'' as it is
used. They don't stop generating electricity when the sun doesn't
shine or the wind doesn't blow.
Nuclear energy also provides substantial economic benefits. At the
national level, they are significant. Each year, the average nuclear
plant generates approximately $470 million in economic output or value.
This includes more than $40 million in total labor income. These
figures include both direct output and secondary effects. The direct
output reflects the plant's annual electricity sales--approximately
$453 million.
At the local level, nuclear plants are often the economic anchors
of their community employing 500-700 workers per plant. Shutting down
safe, reliable nuclear plants because the markets haven't found a way
to compensate their value unfortunately means that hundreds of people
lose good-paying jobs, while local businesses lose customers. The
closure of Vermont Yankee is a loss of 600 highly skilled jobs.
The average nuclear plant pays about $16 million in state and local
taxes annually. These tax dollars benefit schools, roads, and other
state and local infrastructure. The average nuclear plant also pays
Federal taxes of $67 million annually.
The U.S. Department of Energy projects that demand for electricity
in the United States will rise by 22 percent by 2040. That means our
Nation will need new sources to provide electricity for our homes and
continued economic growth.
As Congress considers its policies toward nuclear energy we
encourage this committee and your colleagues to consider policies that
recognize the benefits that nuclear energy provides and support
regulations that streamline the regulatory process of permitting and
license renewal, while still maintaining rigorous oversight.
On behalf of Nuclear Matters, I want to thank this committee for
giving consideration to these important issues facing the industry.
We look forward to supporting Congress in its efforts to maintain
nuclear as a valuable energy source for hard working Americans well
into the future.
Senator Alexander: Thank you, Senator Gregg.
Mr. Faison.
STATEMENT OF JAY FAISON, FOUNDER AND CEO, THE CLEARPATH
FOUNDATION
Mr. Faison. First, I'd like to thank the Chairman, Ranking
Member, and members of the committee for the chance to testify.
I come to this discussion as an entrepreneur, turned
philanthropist, turned energy policy advocate. At ClearPath, we
focus on accelerating conservative clean energy. We don't make
any money at this, and so I hope I can contribute an
independent perspective on nuclear energy policy.
ADVANCED NUCLEAR ENERGY DESIGN
Fifty years ago, when America was the major innovator in
nuclear technology, we demonstrated many nuclear concepts--
concepts beyond the light water reactors we have today. In
recent years, American nuclear entrepreneurs have dusted off
these alternative technologies and are refining them, designing
reactors that most estimate will cost significantly less than
the current reactors. There are now 40 to 50 companies working
on advanced nuclear designs across America. These concepts have
attributes that can provide services beyond those available
from today's large light water reactors, including: many can be
built in a factory to reduce construction costs; they can ramp
up and down quickly, essential for a modern energy system; most
of the concepts are walkaway safe, with passive safety features
automatically halting a nuclear reaction if a malfunction
occurs; some can recycle used fuel and therefore, potentially
help deal with our nuclear waste problem.
While the prospect for advanced reactors is bright, our
nuclear industry faces challenges abroad, where Russia and
China are moving quickly to develop their own designs and
export technology around the world. Domestically, our fleet is
aging. A number of them may retire prematurely in the coming
years, in part due to the market distortions caused by highly
subsidized wind generation. Additionally, since the 1970s, only
five new reactor construction projects have been started in the
U.S., all of them within the last 5 years. This drastically
reduces our ability to deliver new projects affordably, given
the complexity of building a large new nuclear plant.
ELECTRICITY MIX
Despite these challenges, I believe that nuclear should be
between 30 and 40 percent of our electricity mix if we're to
maintain affordability and reliability while reducing
emissions. 2040 is an aggressive, but doable, target for this
goal. Doing so would require dozens of new reactors to be built
to replace some of our aging light water reactors. Before those
commercial projects, multiple projects for advanced reactors
will need to be carried out in the 2020s to prove feasibility
and economics for these technologies. Federal policy should
embrace this goal to provide the support necessary to achieve
it.
Given the large regulatory hurdles and the high initial
cost for each technology, government can contribute in four
areas:
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
First, we need a rational regulatory environment for
advanced nuclear. Recent bills in the Senate and the House are
good first steps, but need to be accompanied by the NRC aiding
advancement of R&D in improved technologies.
TECHNOLOGY GOALS
Second, and building on the Secretary's testimony about the
need for clear signals, DOE needs to work with industry to set
ambitious technology goals. The DOE performs well when given a
steady funding source and a target. While recent goals and
initiatives like the Advanced Reactor Concepts Program are a
good start, they won't go far enough. For example, one possible
goal would be for DOE to support the demonstration of at least
five different advanced reactor technologies by 2026 at $65 to
$70 a megawatt hour. While ambitious, I believe this is
achievable.
PRIVATE-SECTOR INNOVATION
Third, the government should work more closely with
industry by complementing private-sector innovation. DOE and
the Office of Science and Technology Policy should work closely
with an advisory board of reactor designers, utilities, and
other end users to identify research priorities and efficiently
co-invest public and private capital to accelerate innovation
efforts. The DOE and NRC should continue recent efforts in the
spirit of the GAIN Initiative, enabling companies to develop
their designs, removing regulatory roadblocks, creating and
maintaining high-quality user facilities while solving these
fundamental challenges.
ELIMINATING SILOS
Fourth, silos must be eliminated. Appropriators should work
together with the DOE to consider how the budget can better
enable crosscutting nuclear initiatives outside the standard
funding framework. We should stop funding tools and start
funding outcomes. DOE should be given the flexibility to work
towards a goal, even when that goal spans multiple offices and
lab jurisdictions. Oversight should be focused on whether or
not the DOE is working towards its technology goals while
recognizing that some ideas will fail.
In closing, America has an opportunity to continue to lead
the global market for clean, affordable, reliable advanced
reactors. Without a more focused government effort, we will be
unable to sustain our nuclear industry and control nuclear
proliferation. ClearPath and our advisors are eager to assist
in realizing this opportunity.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jay Faison
I'd like to thank Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and
other members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify
today. This subcommittee has continued to be a staunch supporter of
nuclear innovation through initiatives such as the Advanced Reactor
Concepts Program and initiatives for Small Module Reactor (SMR)
research. I come to this discussion as an entrepreneur-turned-
philanthropist-turned-energy policy advocate. After donating the money
from the sale of my last company to create ClearPath Foundation, I
developed a passion for better energy policy, and have been studying it
with our expert policy team ever since. At ClearPath, we focus on
accelerating conservative clean energy. We don't make any money at
this, and so I hope that today I can contribute an independent
perspective on nuclear energy policy.
Energy drives everything we do. Our businesses and households
depend on reliable, affordable energy. And Americans increasingly
expect cleaner energy sources to reduce environmental risks. However,
as the saying goes, ``What got us here, won't get us there.``
We know how critical energy diversity is to reducing the risks of
price spikes, supply shortages and natural disasters. We are now
putting pressure on our energy system to modernize, and, while doing
so, it is important that we maintain the diversity of our energy mix.
Intermittent renewables such as wind and solar can be good additions to
our energy supply. But unlike other energy sources, as their system
penetration increases, costs rise rather than fall due to the burden of
compensating for their intermittency. Greatly scaling up these
intermittent resources requires expensive backup sources when the sun
isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. Germany has shown what
happens: it's trying to both close its nuclear plants and dramatically
increase solar and wind, a plan which has only raised electricity
prices and increased reliance on inefficient lignite coal.
Nuclear remains our most reliable clean energy source. It is our
clean energy workhorse, supplying almost 20 percent of our energy
supply and more than 60 percent of our clean power. On average, the
plants operate year-in, year-out at about 90 percent of their
theoretical maximum (and 95 percent of the time during the extreme
temperatures of winter and summer)--significantly higher than any other
source of electricity. Fuel is a relatively small fraction of the cost
of electricity produced by nuclear plants and is stored onsite. By
comparison, fuel represents 80-90 percent of the cost of electricity
from a gas-fired combined cycle plant, and gas supply can be
interrupted during periods of extreme weather, when gas is diverted to
homes and businesses.
A healthy nuclear industry is also vital to our national defense.
Our preeminence in nuclear science and engineering allows us to lead
globally on nuclear safety and nuclear weapons non-proliferation.
Ceding that leadership to other countries is not in our national
interest and could prove to be dangerous. A robust domestic nuclear
energy infrastructure and supply chain is vital to maintain global
leadership.
However, since the 1980s, only four new reactor construction
projects have been started in the US, all of them in the last 5 years.
This drastically reduces our ability to deliver new projects
affordably, given the complexity of building a large new nuclear power
plant. The supply chain and experience base for new construction has
been decimated by years of inactivity.
This factor, coupled with unusually cheap natural gas, subsidized
renewables, and a complicated regulatory system make building more
large light-water nuclear plants a difficult proposition--at best. Like
all of our infrastructure, our existing fleet is aging. A number of
them may retire prematurely in the coming years, in part due to the
market distortions caused by highly subsidized wind generation,
outdated price controls in the wholesale markets, and the painfully
slow pace of new transmission build-out. Most of today's reactors will
operate for at least 60 years. But this decline places our entire
energy infrastructure and national security at risk and will almost
certainly result in increased carbon emissions.
Despite these challenges, I believe that nuclear should be between
30 and 40 percent of our electricity mix if we are to maintain price
stability, affordability, and reliability while greatly reducing
emissions.
2040 is an aggressive but achievable goal for this level of
penetration. Doing so requires three categories of actions: (1) support
our existing fleet of nuclear power plants by removing the distortive,
non-market barriers and disincentives; (2) reduce bureaucracy to enable
substantial investment in the construction of new nuclear power plants
using proven light water technology; and (3) accelerate and remove the
obstacles to research, development and commercial deployment of a new
generation of advanced nuclear energy technologies. This testimony
focuses on that third pillar, aggressively moving forward with advanced
nuclear energy technologies.
Increasing the amount of nuclear energy made in America by 2040
would require dozens of new reactors to be built in the late 2020s and
30s to replace some of our aging light-water reactors, to meet
additional demand growth, and to gain market share. The speed and scale
of this build-up cannot be accomplished with today's technologies:
Advanced reactors are the answer to increase nuclear penetration and to
preserve this critical industry. Before committing to those commercial
projects, industry will need to participate in multiple demonstrations
of advanced-- mostly non-light water--reactors in the 2020s to prove
out their feasibility and economics. Federal policy should embrace this
goal and provide the support necessary to achieve it.
Forty to fifty years ago, when America was the world's innovator in
the peaceful use of nuclear technology. We demonstrated many advanced
nuclear power approaches beyond light water reactors. Recently,
American nuclear entrepreneurs have dusted off, and begun to refine,
these alternatives--designing reactors that most estimate will cost
significantly less than the current leading reactor from Westinghouse.
There are now 44 companies and organizations working on advanced
nuclear designs across America.
These concepts, some many years in the making, have attributes and
can provide services beyond those available from today's large light-
water reactors, including:
--Many can be built on an assembly line and delivered to the site,
reducing construction costs and delays.
--Many can ramp up and down quickly, which complements the
intermittency of renewables and variations in demand.
--Many of the concepts have passive safety features automatically
halting a nuclear reaction if a malfunction occurs.
--Many are expected to have far lower operating costs.
--Many can recycle used fuel, and therefore potentially help deal
with our nuclear waste problem.
--Many operate at low pressure, requiring a fraction of the concrete
and steel associated with current pressurized reactors, at
tremendous cost-savings.
--All excite the new generation of engineers desperately needed to
replace an aging workforce and breathe life into the industry
as a whole.
Given the extraordinary regulatory and financial hurdles faced by
the nuclear industry, government can contribute in four areas to enable
private sector investment:
First, it must create a rational regulatory environment for
advanced nuclear.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) overly conservative
regulatory approach could squelch advanced nuclear efforts even before
they get off the ground. The Commission is focused on traditional
light-water reactors and is not prepared to oversee new technologies in
an efficient and effective manner. As a result, some of our nuclear
entrepreneurs are moving their development and testing overseas to
countries that are eager to embrace these innovative technologies. We
chronicled one such promising company, ThorCon, and its decision to
move offshore to Indonesia. Recent leadership changes in the NRC's
Office of New Reactors is a major step in the right direction, and we
applaud this progress. However, reluctance by line reviewers to embrace
new concepts and technologies could still scuttle entrepreneurial
efforts. NRC's mission needs to be clarified to explicitly encourage
advanced reactor licensing.
Recent legislation in Senate Bill 2795 and House Bill 4979
represent a step in the right direction by developing a potential
framework that is staged, risk-informed, and performance based. The
proposed budget to begin developing this separate regulatory pathway
inside the NRC is only $5 million. We were pleased to see this money
make it into the committee's markup earlier this year and hope the
advanced licensing capacity at NRC continues its growth in the future.
Second, the government must provide a new framework that works with
industry to set ambitious technology goals.
The Department of Energy's (DOE) continued support for SMR
technology will help lay the groundwork for advanced reactor licensing.
The DOE's recent draft goal of two advanced reactors licensed by 2030
as well as the Advanced Reactor Concepts (ARC) program to help achieve
that goal have started us in this direction. Considering the need to
demonstrate multiple technology pathways (as some will fail), we can
surely do better than our current goal. Some advanced reactor
developers are also planning construction for the mid-2020's, which is
faster than the current 2030 licensing expectation. While a step in the
right direction, the $2 million in Gateway for Accelerated Innovation
in Nuclear (GAIN) vouchers, for private companies to access national
lab resources, is insufficient to support the technologies beyond the
ARC programs.
Any effective goal must be understood by contributors at all
levels, and used to actively guide and prioritize efforts. The current
DOE portfolio is aimed at early research--as appropriate--but such
research should be targeted at commercially relevant problems. The goal
should be based on price points, time, and performance characteristics.
It should be broad enough not to automatically exclude technologies,
but specific enough to act as a forcing mechanism to identify cross-
cutting research priorities, work through licensing issues, and guide
cost-sharing with industry on new demonstrations.
For example, one possible goal would be for DOE to provide research
facilities to enable the demonstration of at least four different
advanced light water and non-LWR reactor technologies by 2026--a decade
from now--producing power at $65-70/MWh (or below) for the nth of the
kind reactor in competitive markets.
While ambitious, I believe this is achievable. NuScale already has
an arrangement with Idaho National Lab to deploy an SMR on site--
targeting the early 2020's. The ARC program has begun development of
two specific technologies with the private sector, both of which would
need to be accelerated to achieve this goal. It is now a question of
broadening the technology portfolio, providing funding support, and
accelerating the timing.
Third, government should work more closely with industry by
complementing, not replacing, private sector innovation.
Advanced nuclear companies have already raised over $1.5 billion in
private capital, and the government and philanthropy need to leverage--
not replace--that investment. End users of technologies--utilities and
other potential customers--often make better decisions than government
alone. DOE and the Office of Science and Technology Policy should
collaborate closely with an advisory board of reactor designers,
utilities, and other end-users and innovators to efficiently co-invest
public and private capital to accelerate innovation efforts.
Independent guidance from the private sector can identify research,
commercialization, and deployment priorities with potential to help a
broad range of technologies, keep that research on track, and result in
technologies that are more innovative and commercially realistic than
might be produced with DOE going it alone.
This private sector board's mandate will include a strategy that
supports development of more nascent but less mature technologies as
well as demonstrating more mature technologies. DOE efforts should
encourage a broad portfolio of technologies at different stages of
maturity.
Focused in this way, DOE should see its role as investing in
enabling tools and capabilities. Most of these tools exist today, but
DOE should expand access to the private sector.
For example, advanced reactor companies need a supply and a
technical understanding of a variety of fuel forms. The current process
for qualifying new fuels takes 10 to 20 years, which alone could prove
a nearly insurmountable barrier for most companies. Despite significant
improvements in analytical capabilities, the fuel qualification process
has not been simplified for many decades. Providing alternatives, such
as use of analytical modeling of advanced nuclear fuels, is an area
where DOE-funded research may prove essential to the rapid development
of advanced reactors. Better communication on the quality of these
tools will also enable NRC to leverage them to speed licensing.
In addition, we should learn from, and not repeat the mistakes of
FutureGen or Solyndra--both recent examples of the government deciding
to invest huge amounts of money into technologies with questionable
commercial prospects. The DOE and NRC should continue recent efforts in
the spirit of the GAIN initiative, and enable the private sector to
develop their designs, remove regulatory roadblocks to enhance
efficiency, create and maintain high-quality user facilities, and solve
fundamental challenges. Recognizing that technology development
benefits company profits as well as our energy system, industry cost-
share must be part of the equation.
Fourth, our government must eliminate the silos that stifle
progress on innovation.
Appropriators should work together with the Department to better
enable crosscutting nuclear initiatives outside of the standard funding
framework. This is more effective than allotting specific budgets for
various offices and specific national labs to work on specific
individual line items.
We should stop funding tools, and start funding outcomes. DOE
should be given the flexibility to work towards a goal, even when that
goal spans multiple office and lab jurisdictions. This level of
cooperation requires setting an ambitious national goal for advanced
reactor development. Quantitative goals provide both accountability and
flexibility. Research isn't locked into programs that are deemed
ineffective, and price and time targets help select efficient research
pathways.
Two potential models for this approach that have generated results
are the SunShot Initiative and the Joint Bioenergy Institute (JBEI).
SunShot is a 10 year DOE initiative to reduce the cost of solar
electricity to $1/watt (.06 cents/KWh) by 2020. Although only 5 years
in, the initiative is already 70 percent of the way there. SunShot
works closely with utilities, industry, and universities to conduct its
work.
JBEI is a program working across multiple national labs with
industry to drive cost reductions in biofuels and biopower. JBEI has a
private sector board of advisors, continuously assesses which
strategies are working and which are failing, and is about to hit its
cost target of $2.20/gallon of highly efficient, gasoline-equivalent
biofuel. While we can't predict whether their technology is the future
of transportation fuel, their goal-based research model has produced
results.
Each of these programs demonstrates that the DOE can work well with
industry and achieve significant technology improvements when given a
strong vision and checkpoints along the way. The same could be possible
in nuclear energy.
America has an opportunity to continue to lead the global market
for clean, safe, affordable, reliable, proliferation-resistant advanced
nuclear reactors. Without a more focused government effort, we will not
sustain our vital nuclear industry and control nuclear proliferation.
We do not want these innovative American reactor designs to move
offshore because of regulatory over conservatism and government
inertia. ClearPath and our advisors are eager to assist in realizing
this opportunity and currently have multiple cost benefit projects
underway to support our positions in great detail. We look forward to
making these reports publicly available.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Faison.
We'll have a round of questions.
ENERGY SUBSIDIES
Senator Gregg, you talked about spot pricing. Sometimes we
talk about negative pricing. I'm going to ask you, since you're
skilled as an economist in many ways, to explain to us the
effect subsidies for wind, for example, have on nuclear power
operation. One example of what's going on is, the subsidy for
wind is so generous that, in some regulated markets, producers
can actually give away the power and still make a profit. I
know that we've got a company coming into Tennessee, and with
plans to build these massive turbines that are twice as tall as
our football stadium, destroy the landscape, and do it in an
area where the Energy Information Administration says that the
wind blows 18 percent of the time and where the Tennessee
Valley Authority has said it doesn't need the power. So, the
only justification, I would assume--only economic justification
of them coming to Tennessee to do that would be that they're
getting such a generous subsidy, they have to build those
somewhere. But, talk about the effect of so-called spot pricing
on nuclear power generation, and to what extent that
contributes to the premature closing of reactors.
Mr. Gregg. Well, I am very familiar with the Senator's
views on wind. Is it Bristol Motor Speedway now or is it the
stadium?
Senator Alexander. Well, it's going back to being a
speedway. I think there's one more football--one more football
game to be played.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gregg. The issue for nuclear is that, because it does
these good things, like reduce carbon and have reliability and
be part of the diversity mix, it gets no credit for this in the
marketplace the way that other types of energy production does
get credit. And we're not against--our group has no position;
in fact, most of us support alternative energy sources. But,
what we're pointing out is that, with nuclear power, and
especially the plants that are at risk of closing prematurely,
they're being pushed into a situation which is primarily driven
by the economics--and I know Senator Feinstein mentioned that
Vermont Yankee was closed because of popular opposition. There
was significant popular opposition in Vermont--Vermont Yankee,
but it was actually closed, in the end, because of the numbers.
And it's ironic, because all of Vermont Yankee's power is now
being replaced by gas. And so, it's gone totally to a carbon
production energy source to replace Vermont Yankee, which was
noncarbon. And that's an example of what happens when you don't
reward nuclear for the fact it's not producing carbon and it's
reliable and it's diverse. And so, what we've--suggesting is
that, as States move through their plans for addressing a clean
plan--Clean Power Plan or whatever they--however they decide to
take on carbon emissions, such as New York has--that they
consider the fact that if nuclear is to compete, because it is
a long-term capital investment of significant amounts, it must
get--it must be reflected in the process of reimbursement, the
fact that they do not produce carbon, they are reliable, and
that they are diverse.
CLEAN POWER PLAN
Senator Alexander. But, the Clean Power Plan which is
currently being appealed, I guess to the Supreme Court, if I'm
correct about this, it would require States to come up with
their plans by 2030--compliance is by 2030, so get their plan
and--so their compliance with whatever the standards are, the
reduction of carbon by 2030, that's--it takes a long time to
build a nuclear reactor, at least under the current way of
doing it, maybe 8, 10 years. And then, under the Clean Power
Plan, as I understand it, you'd only get credit for the carbon-
free emissions in the remaining years before 2030. So, there
would be very little--so, it would seem to me that we're just
introducing one more element of policy, the Clean Power Plan,
in the name of carbon-free emissions that discriminates against
the single largest producer of carbon-free emissions and makes
it more difficult to build more reactors.
Mr. Gregg. Well, from our viewpoint, the Nuclear Matters
viewpoint, we think that State-by-State decisions on this make
sense, that some States are reacting to the Clean Power Plan
proposal in a way that is constructive to nuclear power, such
as Illinois and New York, but that it's going to depend on each
State making its own decision. And, in making those decisions,
if you've got nuclear plants in--operating in your region which
are producing power and could continue to produce power, that
are going to be prematurely closed because they're not being
rewarded for the fact that they're noncarbon, that they're
reliable, and they're diverse, then, in our opinion, these
State plans should take that under consideration, whether it's
pursuant to the Clean Power Plan or whether it's pursuant to a
State decision, such as New York is doing.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein.
ENERGY MARKETS
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I sort of wanted to get into the difference that regulated
versus unregulated markets make in the building of a plant. And
my understanding is, all five reactors in the United States
under construction today are in regulated electricity markets.
And these markets can support the very large, long-term
investments needed to make the power competitive. Also,
utilities in these markets are allowed to pass on the costs of
construction to consumers even before the plants are finished.
Now, utilities in deregulated markets aren't investing in
nuclear power, because, I'm told, they don't have certainty
about future electric--electricity prices, and sources like
wind and natural gas are cheaper near-term options.
Mr. Faison, what is your group's position on this
regulated-versus-unregulated marketplace, in terms of the
incentive to develop a reactor?
Mr. Faison. I think that's a very good question. And
regulated markets do have an advantage, in that they can look
long-term, they can look 30, 40 years down the road and make
sure that we have a diverse and reliable mix so that we don't
have problems that the Senator spoke about. When the vortex
came through, we had a spike in natural gas prices and the
question about reliability. So, they're looking--they can look
further down the road. I think they could sell that to public
utility commissions. Whereas, a nonregulated utility has to buy
the lowest-cost power, effectively, every day, and that
preempts paying for that kind of dependability and reliability.
Now, wind being heavily subsidized gives that an advantage,
where nuclear does not have that advantage. And that also, I
think, distorts markets, particularly----
Senator Feinstein. So----
Mr. Faison. Sorry.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Speak a little bit about
how big this is in the consideration of whether you're going to
go into a certain place. Is this an important determinant of
whether you will go or not, whether the market is unregulated
or regulated? For example, we have a regulated market.
Mr. Faison. Right. Well, I--the only potential new plants
that I know of--Southern just got approval for a plant--I think
about 100 miles away from Vogtle, where they're going to start
doing--apply for a license for a new generation-3 nuclear
plant. I don't think we're going to see a lot more generation-3
light water nuclear plants, and certainly not in competitive
markets.
I applaud Southern, because they are looking at the market
as a whole, and they want to preserve the nuclear industry.
They are employing advanced--well, people coming out of the
Navy right now can't find jobs. The nuclear engineers--there's
a big national security concern, I think, when our Navy nukes
don't have jobs, coming out of the Navy, when we have power
plants coming offline. For example, advanced welders, nuclear
welders, a lot of those folks are down at Vogtle. And so,
Southern has spent a lot of time and money training these
people up, adding additional cost to build out these reactors,
and they want to keep that supply chain and those benefits
going. If they weren't building this next set of plants 100
miles away, I think it's really hard to rebuild supply chains
as big and complex as nuclear, so I really applaud them for
what they're doing.
Senator Feinstein. So----
Mr. Faison. It has to be in regulated markets.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. It has to be a regulated market.
Mr. Faison. In today's environment.
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Mr. Faison. Unless we sort of change the rules, I think
you're right. I think it has to be in regulated markets.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Gregg, do you differ with that?
Mr. Gregg. Under the present rules, yes. However, if the
State----
Senator Feinstein. You differ, or you agree?
Mr. Gregg. No, I agree.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, I see. Okay.
Mr. Gregg. But, under--but, you know, we're in a time of
change. And as States and regions try to address the noncarbon
reduction capabilities of their power sources, I think they're
going to take a look at nuclear as an option which they can
lock in over a long period of time, or they should. And
certainly, in maintaining plants that have a useful life, that
makes a lot of sense. So----
Senator Feinstein. Well, that would be a good thing, then,
for people that are interested in doing this to take a good
look at the difference between regulated and unregulated
markets. And that will certainly skew the base for nuclear
power, it seems to me. Because if what you said is true, that
you cannot build in a deregulated market today, effectively or
efficiently, or be assured that you have some certainty, you're
not going to do it. Is that not right?
Mr. Faison. If you want to keep your job as the CEO, I
think it would be difficult, right?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, right. Okay, thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Collins.
CLEAN-AIR BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR POWER
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm so happy that my Aging Committee hearing, which I was
chairing, ended in time so that I could get to the end of your
important hearing, and particularly to welcome back our
esteemed colleague and friend, Senator Gregg.
Senator Gregg, I was struck by the statistics in your
written testimony about the magnitude of nuclear energy's clean
air benefits. You said, and I quote, ``Without the 99 nuclear
power plants that operate in 30 States, carbon emissions from
the U.S. electric sector would be approximately 25 percent
higher.''
As someone who's very concerned about climate change and
the impact on coastal States like mine, where we're already
seeing changes in our waters, I am puzzled why there is not
more acknowledgment of the carbon benefits of nuclear power.
And, as we were sitting here, I was thinking about all of the
meetings that I have--and they are frequent--with environmental
groups from Maine and nationally that I've had in the last
couple of years because of our shared concern about climate
change. And I cannot remember a single one of those meetings
touching on the benefits of nuclear power to improving clean
air and lessening carbon emissions, despite the fact that Maine
is at the end of the Nation's tailpipe and receives emissions
from coal-fired power plants, even though we don't have coal-
fired power plants.
So, I guess that's largely a comment rather than a
question, but I'm going to turn it into a question. And that
is, why aren't the clean-air benefits of nuclear power more
widely promoted by those who are sincerely and fervently
committed to efforts to reduce carbon emissions?
Mr. Gregg. That goes to me, Senator?
Senator Collins. Yes, it is.
Mr. Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Collins. I thought I'd try to stump you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gregg. Well, I can't really speak for the environmental
community that you've been meeting with, because I don't know
them. But, I can say that, amongst our group--and our group's
purpose was to raise the level of education as to the
importance of nuclear power, and specifically in the area of
reducing carbon. And you cited the fact it's 25 percent. Try to
put it in real terms that people can understand: If all the
nuclear power plants were closed in this country, it's the
equivalent of adding 115 million cars to the road. Staggering
amount of emissions which will affect our environment and
obviously affect the issue of global warming.
So, that's why we came together. It's a totally bipartisan
group. And one of our members is Carol Browner, who was
formerly head of the EPA and who was very active in the Obama
administration, also, on environmental--and she openly admits
that, at one time, as an active environmentalist, she was
totally opposed to nuclear power. And she's moved 180 degrees,
because she sees nuclear power as one of the key elements of
addressing the global warming issue. And there are a number of
people like Carol. And she's speaking, I think--it's starting
to resonate.
But, it takes education. That's what it takes. And that's
why we came together. We're an educational group, primarily,
and we're trying to do exactly that, tell people that--
proselytize the fact that nuclear power makes a lot of sense if
you're concerned about this environment.
Senator Collins. Thank you. That's really interesting,
about the former EPA Commissioner coming to be part of your
group, as well.
ADVANCED REACTORS THAT REDUCE NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. Faison, I think part of the issue is one which the
Ranking Member mentioned just as I was getting here, and that
is concern about nuclear waste. This is an issue in my State,
where we have a decommissioned nuclear plant, and there's no
repository to accept spent nuclear fuel. So, Maine has had to
store that nuclear fuel on the site for decades now. And I'm
interested--in your written testimony, you mentioned, briefly,
advanced nuclear design concepts that are being developed. And
I would ask you, How would they deal with the nuclear waste
issue?
Mr. Faison. Thank you for that question. I think Secretary
Moniz could much more articulately--he could articulate that in
a thoughtful way.
Having talked to nuclear entrepreneurs, and read a bit
about it, a lot of those designs can use spent fuel, and they
can process the fuel longer. It was very--there's a drastic
reduction in the amount of waste that they produce. And nuclear
waste--I think there is a bit of a misnomer on the amount of
nuclear waste. I think right now we're sort of at four football
fields stacked on top of one another, as far as the total
amount. So, I wish I could give you a better answer than that,
except that a lot of these designs do--do what the France
system does, which is regenerate the waste.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Building on Senator Gregg's testimony, you said, in your
comments, that future that you see is an environment in which
30 to 40 percent of our electricity is produced by nuclear. Is
that correct?
Mr. Faison. That's a goal. It's a----
Senator Alexander. Yes. That's a goal. And today it's 20
percent.
Mr. Faison. Correct.
Senator Alexander. And we know that maybe half our reactors
may close in the next 20 years.
Mr. Faison. Right.
Senator Alexander. So, a few years ago, I recommended--5
years ago, in a speech at Oak Ridge--that we build 100 new
reactors. People thought that was a fanciful idea. It seems to
me, if you add it up, that we'd have to build at least 100 new
reactors, or the equivalent of that, if we were to have any
chance of getting to 30 to 40 percent of our electricity
produced by nuclear by the year 2040. What's your comment on
that?
Mr. Faison. It sounds like we're aligned.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Faison. But, I do have quite a bit of passion around
this, having spent a lot of time at the Department of--not a
lot of time--a week, a great week, touring the Labs, including
Oak Ridge, and was incredibly impressed about the, sort of,
national treasure we have there. But, a lot of folks that work
there, when I asked, sort of, ``What do you need?''--I heard,
over and over again, ``Goals.'' And, you know, I'm a little bit
of a sap on this. I think America could still do great things,
but I think we have to aim at great things. You're definitely
not going to hit something you don't shoot at. And I don't know
what we're shooting at. And the people that I find in this
industry don't know, either.
And I think we have to set big--these are big, huge, long-
term projects, with multiple inputs. I think we need to
identify the bottlenecks, we need to be ready to really roll up
our sleeves across a lot of different sectors. And, without
goals, and working towards longer-term goals, then backing down
to shorter-term goals, as a business guy, I don't know how you
do that. Smarter people than me might know, but I--that's what
I struggle with.
So, we want to be, maybe, an instigator, if you will, on--
try to stack up these goals and then work backwards to the
things that we think we need to get there. And I think a short-
term goal of four to five advanced, demonstratable concepts on
a site like Idaho National Labs, where you have NuScale
demonstrating their--they've been, I guess, approved to start
building that test site--without a diversity of technologies
and a hard push to it in the short term, I think our nuclear
energy percentage, as a whole, is going to go down, and we're
going to have a decimated industry that will not give us the
capability to do much in the future around nuclear.
Our average employee in the nuclear industry, I believe, is
56 years old; and roughly 25 percent of these employees, these
workers, are going to retire in the next 5 years. So, I think
we're actually at a very critical juncture, here. And when I
went to the Nuclear Energy Conference, the NEI Conference,
there are a lot of young people that want ambitious goals, and
they're coming into this industry with a chance to attack
carbon emissions. And I think we've got to give them something
to shoot for.
So, sorry for the long-winded answer, but I couldn't agree
with you more. We need to set big, ambitious goals.
NUCLEAR PLANT CLOSURES
Senator Alexander. Thanks.
Senator Gregg, I'll ask you one last question. Three
reactors in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York, up in your
neck of the United States, are scheduled to close in the next
few years. We've talked about--Vermont Yankee, which closed a
couple of years ago, had the capacity for providing Vermont 70
percent of its electricity, but now it doesn't. And they've
chosen, instead, to take a carbon-emitting source of
electricity.
On the other hand, New York, instead of closing a plant, is
trying to find a way to keep one open. You say Illinois may be
doing the same. Do you see a shift in attitude?
Mr. Gregg. Yes, I do. And it's driven by people being
concerned about carbon emissions and global warming, and common
sense taking hold. It's a commonsense answer that you don't
shut down your noncarbon-emitting energy source to replace it
by carbon-emitting energy sources. In fact, hopefully, even in
Massachusetts, the closure there may be reconsidered. I'm not
sure of it, but that's a possibility, because you're going to
end up with----
New England's a unique situation. You know, we don't have a
natural energy source. We don't have coal, we don't have gas.
What we have is nuclear power. New Hampshire still has a
nuclear plant. So, when we shut a nuclear plant down in New
England, we have to not only replace it with carbon-emissions,
and we also lose reliability if we hit another polar vortex--
and it does get fairly cold in New England on occasion, mostly
in Maine--she's not here to defend herself anymore--but, we
have to import the energy.
So, one of our--when I was Governor of New Hampshire, one
of our advocacy points was, ``We have our energy source right
here.'' Now we don't, in western New Hampshire.
So, it really is a ``cut off your nose to spite your face''
approach to close nuclear plants prematurely, and that's the
case we've been making. And I think it's getting traction,
because I think people see--you know, American people are
inherently filled with common sense. That's one of our great
strengths as a Nation. When you explain the issue to folks,
they pretty much get it.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
Senator Gregg, thank you. Mr. Faison, thank you. This has
been our first hearing on the future of nuclear power. Our
purpose in this is, just what you stated, to try to focus
attention on the irony and the inconsistency of, on the one
hand, having a national goal to produce carbon--to reduce
carbon, but, at the same time, closing nuclear plants and
making it harder to build new ones at a time when nuclear
produces 60 percent of your carbon-free electricity. It makes
no sense whatsoever, and it's apparently--certainly makes no
sense for the same people to be urgently arguing to deal with
climate change and then either quiet or urgently opposed to
nuclear power.
I'd like to also say, because I think it's important to say
at any nuclear hearing, there's never been a death at a nuclear
power plant as a result of a reactor accident in the United
States; nor, since the 1950s, there's never been a death in
connection with a reactor accident in the nuclear Navy. Our
most celebrated nuclear accident in the United States was Three
Mile Island, in Pennsylvania, in 1979, I guess, and no one was
hurt at Three Mile Island. So, if we're looking for a form of
electricity production that we know a lot about, that produces
reliable, clean, and safe electricity, and helps meet our low-
carbon future, nuclear certainly ought to be a part of our
future.
Without objection, the written testimony from our witnesses
will be included in the record. Hearing record will remain open
for 10 days. Senators may submit additional information within
that time. The Subcommittee requests all responses to questions
be provided within 30 days of receipt.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee thanks the witnesses
and stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m., Wednesday, September 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER, PART II
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander, (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Feinstein, Tester, Udall, and
Shaheen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
will please come to order. This afternoon we'll have the second
of two oversight hearings to discuss the future of nuclear
power in the United States.
In our previous hearing in September, we discussed what
actions should be taken to maintain today's nuclear power
plants and to ensure our country continues to invest in nuclear
power.
Today we'll discuss the recent Task Force Report on the
Future of Nuclear Power from the Secretary of Energy's Advisory
Board. We'll also discuss basic energy research and development
to support nuclear power, the work that's being done to safely
extend reactor licenses from 60 to 80 years where appropriate,
and the development of new nuclear technologies, including
advanced reactors, small modular reactors, and accident-
tolerant fuels.
Senator Feinstein and I each will have an opening
statement. I will then recognize each Senator for up to 5
minutes for an opening statement, and we'll go from there.
We'll then turn to the witnesses for their testimony. The
first panel will be Dr. John Deutch. He is Chair of the
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board and an Institute Professor
at MIT. He is a former Director of CIA, Deputy Director of
Defense, and Director of Energy Research at the Department of
Energy.
The second panel includes Dr. Alan Icenhour and Dr. Matthew
McKinzie. Dr. Icenhour, Associate Lab Director for Nuclear
Science at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dr. McKinzie,
Director of the Nuclear Program at the Natural Resources
Defense Council.
After that, we'll have some questions.
Now I would like to make a brief opening statement. Today's
hearing, as I said, is our second oversight hearing to discuss
steps we can take to ensure that carbon-free nuclear power has
a strong future in our country.
Our first hearing, we heard from Secretary Moniz about the
challenges. We heard about research, a lot of which is being
done at our national laboratories, including Oak Ridge.
We heard Senator Whitehouse, who is very concerned about
climate change, tell us that in his view it made no sense to
close carbon-free reactors at the same time we're trying to
deal with climate change.
We also heard from Senator Judd Gregg and Jay Faison, CEO
of the ClearPath Foundation, who gave us much of the same
message and talked about the amount of innovation, 40 to 50
companies are working on advanced reactor concepts that would
lower construction costs, increase safety, and make better use
of fuel management than today's reactors.
FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
I believe the future of nuclear power can be bright, but
that we need to prepare now by building more reactors; by
ending the stalemate on what to do about nuclear waste, Senator
Feinstein and I are united on that; stopping Washington from
picking winners and losers in the marketplace, which sometimes
disincentivizes the use of nuclear power; pushing back on
excessive regulation; and fueling more free market innovation
with government-sponsored research.
TASK FORCE REPORT
The witnesses today will discuss the Task Force Report I
mentioned, R&D, and steps we can take to maintain the fleet.
We received the report in October of the Secretary's Energy
Advisory Board, which examined the challenges that the nuclear
industry is facing, as well as steps necessary to develop new
technologies. It emphasized, and I'm sure Dr. Deutch will talk
about, five factors limiting investment in nuclear power in our
country. First is that nuclear power doesn't get enough credit
for being carbon-free. Second, new nuclear technologies are
complex, expensive, and heavily regulated. Third, we haven't
solved the nuclear waste stalemate, which has been going on now
more than 25 years, the stalemate, market conditions and
unanticipated events, such as an accident.
At a time when leading science academies of 20 developed
countries and many Americans say climate change is a threat and
that humans are a significant cause of that threat, nuclear
power produces 60 percent of our country's carbon-free
electricity, and power plants produce nearly 40 percent of the
carbon produced in our country.
Now, just speaking for myself, in my hometown of Maryville,
Tennessee, if I had 20 fire marshals of repute come around and
tell me my house might burn down, I might buy some fire
insurance. So my recommendation is that we should get some
insurance in this country against climate change, and I think
the best insurance in the near term is nuclear power. It makes
no sense to close reactors at a time when people believe
climate change is a problem.
NEXT GENERATION ON NUCLEAR REACTORS
We need to invest in the next generation of reactors. We
need to continue to work with the Regulatory Commission to move
forward with small modular reactors. Our bill, the
appropriations bill of this committee, includes $95 million for
that work.
The Task Force recommends we undertake an advanced nuclear
reactor program to support the design, development,
demonstration, licensing, and construction of a first-of-a-kind
commercial scale reactor. I'm looking forward to hearing more
about that from Dr. Deutch.
Dr. Icenhour, who is here today on behalf of the Oak Ridge
Laboratory, leads a consortium for advanced simulation of light
water reactors. We're looking forward to hearing his discussion
of that.
INTERIM STORAGE FACILITY
Secretary Moniz said at our hearing that by the end of the
year, the Department would begin the process of moving forward
with interim storage facilities for nuclear waste. That's
something Senator Feinstein and I congratulated him for and
have encouraged.
And I'm pleased to report after our hearing, the Department
took the initial step of seeking information on private interim
nuclear waste storage sites. We need to move on all tracks at
the same time to solve the nuclear waste stalemate, and I
appreciate the Secretary's attention to this.
Secretary Moniz took that important step. The new Congress
should take the next steps and pass the Bipartisan Nuclear
Waste Administration Act, introduced last year by Senators
Feinstein, Murkowski, Cantwell, and me. Congress should pass
the pilot program that would allow the Secretary to take title
to used nuclear fuel. Both the pilot program and funding for
private interim storage were included in this year's Senate
Energy and Water Appropriations bill that Senator Feinstein and
I have recommended and the committee approved.
EXISTING NUCLEAR FLEET
We need to maintain our existing nuclear fleet. We need to
extend reactor licenses from 60 to 80 years where it's
appropriate and safe to do so. We need to relieve the burdens
of unnecessary regulation, to use our supercomputing resources.
Since our hearing, another reactor has shut down, Fort Calhoun
Nuclear Generation Station shut down on October 24th, which
means we've lost another 484 megawatts of carbon-free
electricity.
In conclusion, I would say this, imagine a day when the
United States is without nuclear power. That's a day I don't
want to see in our country's future. It seems distant and
unlikely, but it's a real threat. By 2038, just 20 years from
now, 50 reactors will have reached 60 years of operation,
representing 42 percent of the nuclear generating capacity in
the United States. So our country could lose about half our
reactors if existing licenses can't be extended from 60 to 80
years, and those reactors close.
While there are four new reactors being built, all in the
Southeast, there are eight reactors, three in the Northeast, at
seven sites, which are scheduled to shut down by 2025. The
Energy Information Administration estimates that shutting down
these eight reactors, plus the recent closing of Fort Calhoun,
will result in a 3 percent increase in total carbon emissions
from the U.S. electricity sector.
We need to take steps today to ensure nuclear power has a
future in our country. And with that, I would like to recognize
Senator Feinstein, our committee's distinguished Ranking
Member, for her opening statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
The Subcommittee on Energy and Water will please come to order.
This afternoon we will have the second of two oversight hearings to
discuss the future of nuclear power in the United States.
In our previous hearing, in September, we discussed what actions
should be taken to maintain today's nuclear power plants and ensure our
country continues to invest in nuclear power.
Today, we will discuss the recent Task Force Report on the Future
of Nuclear Power from the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board.
We will also discuss:
--Basic energy research and development to support nuclear power;
--The work that's being done to safely extend reactor licenses from
60 to 80 years; and
--The development of new nuclear technologies, including advanced
reactors, small modular reactors, and accident tolerant fuels.
Ranking Member Feinstein and I will each have an opening statement.
I will then recognize each Senator for up to five minutes for an
opening statement, alternating between the majority and minority, in
the order in which they arrived.
We will then turn to the witnesses for their testimony. The first
panel will be Dr. John Deutch.
He is the Chair of the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board and an
Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He is also a former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Director of Energy Research at the
Department of Energy.
The second panel includes Dr. Alan Icenhour and Dr. Matthew
McKinzie.
Dr. Icenhour is the Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear
Science and Engineering at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Dr. McKinzie is the Director of the Nuclear Program at the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
After witness testimony, Senators will then be recognized for five
minutes of questions each, alternating between the majority and
minority in the order in which they arrived.
* * *
Today's hearing is our second oversight hearing to discuss steps we
can take to help ensure that carbon-free nuclear power has a strong
future in this country.
In September we held our first oversight hearing on the future of
nuclear power, and we heard from Secretary Moniz about the biggest
challenges facing nuclear power, and the work the Department of Energy
is supporting in nuclear research and development programs to help
solve those problems. A lot of that research and development is
performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the other laboratories.
We'll hear more about that today.
At that hearing, Senator Whitehouse discussed his efforts to drive
innovation in next generation nuclear technologies at our national
laboratories, and foster a regulatory environment that enables these
technologies to come to market. He explained the reasons he supports
advanced nuclear reactors--compared to today's reactors, they are
potentially safer, less costly, may produce less used fuel.
We also heard from former Senator Judd Gregg and Jay Faison, CEO of
ClearPath Foundation. Senator Gregg said it makes no sense to close
down nuclear reactors if they still have useful life. He explained how
nuclear plants are closing, in part because they are competing with
other forms of energy that are highly subsidized. Mr. Faison talked
about the innovation--he said 40 to 50 companies are working on
advanced reactor concepts that have lower construction costs, increased
safety and better used fuel management than today's reactors.
Our nuclear future can be bright, but I believe we need to prepare
now by:
--building more reactors;
--ending the stalemate on what to do about nuclear waste;
--stopping Washington from picking winners and losers in the
marketplace;
--pushing back on excessive regulation; and
--fueling more free market innovation with government sponsored
research.
The witnesses today will discuss:
--The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force Report on The
Future of Nuclear Power;
--Research and development of the next generation of nuclear
reactors;
--Steps we can take to maintain our existing reactor fleet:
--Recognizing nuclear as a carbon-free source of electricity;
--Extending reactor licenses from 60 to 80 years if it is safe to
do so; and
--Solving the nuclear waste stalemate.
In October we received the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task
Force Report on The Future of Nuclear Power.
The report examined challenges that the nuclear industry is facing
today, as well as the steps that are necessary to deploy new advanced
nuclear technologies in the future.
The report concluded that there are five factors that are limiting
investment in nuclear power in the U.S.:
--Nuclear power does not get credit for being carbon-free;
--New nuclear technologies are complex, expensive and are heavily
regulated;
--We have not solved the nuclear waste stalemate;
--Market conditions; and
--Unanticipated events, such as a nuclear accident.
At a time when he leading science academies of 20 developed
countries, and many Americans, say climate change is a threat--and that
humans are a significant cause of that threat--nuclear power produces
about 60 percent of our country's carbon-free electricity.
Power plants produce nearly 40 percent of the carbon produced in
our country.
If in my hometown of Maryville, I had twenty fire marshals come
around and tell me my house might burn down, I think I would buy some
fire insurance.
So my recommendation is that we should get some insurance against
climate change.
I think the best insurance is nuclear power. It makes no sense
whatsoever to close reactors at a time when many people think climate
change is a problem.
We need to invest today in the next generation of nuclear reactors,
advanced reactors, small modular reactors, and accident tolerant fuels.
The Department of Energy should continue to work with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to move forward with small modular reactors, a
technology I strongly support.
The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill includes $95
million for this work.
The Task Force recommends that the United States undertake an
advanced nuclear reactor program to support the design, development,
demonstration, licensing and construction of a first- of-a-kind
commercial-scale reactor.
Dr. Icenhour, who is here today on behalf of Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, leads the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water
Reactors, also known as CASL.
Dr. Icenhour and his colleagues at our national laboratories are
currently developing the advanced nuclear technologies that will be
needed to ensure nuclear power has a future in our country.
Secretary Moniz said at our hearing that by the end of the year the
Department would begin the process to move forward with interim storage
facilities for nuclear waste.
Solving the nuclear waste stalemate is a priority that Senator
Feinstein and I agree on.
I am pleased to report that after our hearing the Department took
the initial step of seeking information on private interim nuclear
waste storage sites.
We need to move on all tracks at the same time to solve the nuclear
waste stalemate, and I appreciate the Secretary's attention to this
issue.
Secretary Moniz has taken an important step. Now Congress should
take the next steps, and pass the bipartisan Nuclear Waste
Administration Act, which was introduced last year by me, and Senators
Feinstein, Murkowski, and Cantwell. Congress should also pass the pilot
program that would allow the Secretary to take title to used nuclear
fuel. Both the pilot program and funding for private interim storage
were included in this year's Senate Energy and Water Appropriations
bill.
We need to maintain our existing nuclear fleet and extend reactor
licenses from 60 to 80 years if it is safe to do so.
We need to relieve the burdens of unnecessary regulation. We want
to be safe, but we don't want to make it so expensive and difficult to
build reactors that we don't build them.
We need to use our supercomputing resources to model and simulate
reactor designs in ways that we never could before to make sure new
reactors are safe and more cost-effective.
Since our hearing another reactor has shut down--the Fort Calhoun
Nuclear Generating Station in Nebraska shut down on October 24 which
means we have lost another 484MW of carbon-free electricity.
Imagine a day the United States is without nuclear power--a day I
don't want to see in our country's future.
That seems like a distant and unlikely scenario but in fact it's
more of a threat than many people realize.
By 2038--that's just over 20 years from now--50 reactors will have
reached 60 years of operation, representing 42 percent of the nuclear
generating capacity in the United States. The U.S. could lose about
half our reactors if existing licenses can't be extended from 60 to 80
years and those reactors close.
While there are four reactors being built, all in the southeast,
there are eight reactors, three in the northeast, at seven plants,
which are scheduled to shut down by 2025.
The Energy Information Administration estimates that shutting down
these eight reactors, plus the recently closed Fort Calhoun reactor,
will result in a 3 percent increase in total carbon emissions from the
U.S. electricity sector.
We need to take steps today to ensure nuclear power has a future in
our country, and with that, I'd like to recognize Senator Feinstein,
our subcommittee's ranking member, for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I think you know that there really is no one that I respect
more in the Senate from either party than you, and one of my
great pleasures has been to work with you. And on most things
we have agreed.
We do not agree on nuclear power, as you know. And so
because I'm a history major, I thought that I might, in my
opening remarks, just cite some facts of history about the
nuclear experience.
ADVANCE REACTORS
I think examining the potential risks and opportunities of
advanced reactors is important. They're in competition with
Federal research funding, with other clean energy sources, and
the 4,400 megawatts of California's nuclear power, which is in
the process of being shut down, will be replaced with clean
energy, and California is going to aim to make 50 percent of
its power all clean power before too long.
Now, some may claim the future is bright for this
technology. I suggest otherwise. Advanced nuclear reactors are
those that achieve higher efficiencies in electricity
production through the use of graphite, salts, and metals as
coolants and moderators instead of water.
In 1956, United States Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover, the
father of our nuclear Navy, said of advanced reactors, and I
quote, ``They are expensive to build, complex to operate,
susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor
malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair.'' And
strangely enough, his words have been prophetic.
In 1965, the Fermi sodium-cooled fast reactor went online
in Southeast Michigan. Ten months later, it suffered a partial
meltdown when a coolant inlet became blocked and the core
overheated. It operated briefly again from 1970 to late 1972,
when it was shut down due to cost issues. The plant took 9
years to build, and operated for only 3 years.
Then in the 1970s, the United States spent over a billion
dollars on the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project in eastern
Tennessee. Costs were initially estimated at $400 million, but
by 1983, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) said the
project would cost $8 billion, something that we go through
with uranium and plutonium processing now. Congress abandoned
the project before construction was completed.
President Carter, a nuclear engineer, said of the project,
and I quote, ``The Clinch River Breeder Reactor is a
technological dinosaur. It's an assault on our attempts to
control the spread of dangerous nuclear materials. It marches
our nuclear policy in exactly the wrong direction.''
Now, these are fundamentally the same reactor designs we're
still discussing today.
More recently, the Monju fast-breeder reactor in Japan
operated for only a few months in 1994 and 1995 before a
coolant leak caused a fire. Then it operated again for 3 months
in 2010 before another accident during a refueling. After
spending $12 billion building, briefly operating, and repairing
the facility, the Japanese government decided last month to
abandon the project once and for all.
The recent history in the United States is not much better.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized DOE to work with
industry to develop a next-generation nuclear plant. The plant
was intended to process heat and hydrogen for use in industrial
applications. The program included cost-shared research and
development activities with industry that would eventually lead
to a demonstration facility.
By 2012, this committee had invested $550 million in the
next-generation nuclear plant, and was ready to move into Phase
2 by inviting industry participation, but not a single company
could be found to put up the meager $40 million cost share that
was needed. DOE ended the program in 2013 because the
government could not justify spending millions to develop
advanced reactor designs that have no real support from the
industry.
Even if advanced reactors overcome their history of
disappointment, this Congress has not yet grappled with the
need to find a workable solution to nuclear waste despite the
best efforts of this committee. A bottom line fact is that the
existing fleet of reactors has generated 77,000 metric tons of
highly radioactive spent fuel. That staggering amount is
growing by an average of 22 tons per year.
Even if some advanced reactor designs someday run more
efficiently or even consume more spent fuel, a future built on
nuclear power is impossible if we don't have a solution for
dealing with existing waste.
Mr. Chairman, the Nation faces real challenges in
addressing climate change, grid reliability, increased energy
efficiency, and a proper mix of generation sources. In each of
these areas, this committee funds complex and necessary
programs for research. I don't see how we can afford to divert
several billion more dollars from these programs in order to
explore speculative technologies that the industry itself has
shied away from.
I think nuclear power must overcome its own significant
shortcomings--one, astronomical upfront costs; and, two, waste
that is toxic for thousands of years--if nuclear is to be a
significant solution to our climate challenges.
Before this committee decides to devote significant new
resources to the development of advanced nuclear reactors, I
believe we need to see three things: one, a solution to nuclear
waste, long term and viable; two, an indication that these
reactor designs can overcome their history of technical
shortcomings; and, three, an industry willing to make a
financial commitment on its own. And I know that's a tall
order.
So I very much look forward to our witnesses today. I've
known John Deutch for a long time. I have great respect for
him. And I look forward to listening to his testimony and the
others.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. Yeah, I'll be brief. First of all, thank
you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Feinstein, for having this
hearing. I think this is a good discussion to have and talk
about the challenges. And I appreciate you, Mr. Chairman,
bringing up climate change because it's occurring whether we
want to deny it or not, it's happening. I've been on the farm
now since 1978, and things are happening that never ever
happened before. Some of them are good, but a lot of them
aren't so good.
And just for full disclosure, and I've been farming my
whole life, I lost more money on an investment in an electrical
energy company that had a nuclear power plant than I ever lost
in anything else I've ever done in life.
So with that aside, I certainly don't have issues with the
power. I think that there are positive things about the
environment from a CO2 standpoint. And I think
Dianne, Senator Feinstein, brought up some points on reactor
design.
NUCLEAR WASTE
The waste is the problem. We've got to figure out how you
can repurpose it and get it done if we're going to do this. We
may be changing CO2 for nuclear waste, and I don't
think we want to do that. I think we want to make sure that if
we're going to have something that our kids and grandkids and
generations and generations from now can deal with, it's got to
work. And so I appreciate the hearing. I think it's a good
discussion. And I don't think anybody on this committee, and I
certainly have the utmost respect for you, Mr. Chairman, wants
to do something that our kids are going to have to pay for
forever. So thank you very, very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to proceed to the
witness. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Dr. Deutch, usually we ask witnesses to take about 5
minutes because that gives more time for questions, but you're
the only witness on the first panel, and you've worked long and
hard on a Task Force Report, plus you've got a lot of
experience, so if you need more time than that, why don't you
take it.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DEUTCH, INSTITUTE PROFESSOR,
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
CHAIR, SECRETARY OF ENERGY ADVISORY BOARD
Dr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Feinstein, Senator Udall.
I'm very pleased to be here. I was chair of the Secretary
of Energy Task Force----
Senator Feinstein. Could you speak directly into the mic,
John?
Dr. Deutch. Yes. Is that better?
Senator Feinstein. Better.
Dr. Deutch. If it's not, poke me again and I'll do better.
TASK FORCE
So I'm here to report to you on this Task Force that I
chaired, and I want to make clear what our task was. The
Secretary asked the Task Force to describe an initiative that
had the potential of giving the country the option, the
ability, to have between 5- and 10,000 gigawatts of electricity
built annually in the time period 2030 to 2050. That was our
task.
Many other questions about nuclear power were not part of
our task. So what would the country have to do to restore the
level that, for example, was here when I joined the Department
of Energy in 1976? That was the task.
The summary report, I mean the report and summary charts,
are in the public domain. They've been supplied to committee
staff, so I'm just going to focus on the main views of the
committee, what were the message we want to--of our Task Force,
what the message is, and then say a few words about five or six
main findings.
NUCLEAR INITIATIVE
So here are the main takeaways. If the country is going to
have a nuclear option in 2030, it must undertake an initiative
of the scope and size that this committee described. It doesn't
have to be exactly the same, but if you do not undertake a
major initiative now, it is inevitable that in 2030 the country
will not have a nuclear option.
Secondly, any such initiative is going to require time,
considerable Federal resources, redesign of electricity
markets, and sustained and skilled management.
Third, there is no shortcut to doing this. There is not
going to be a magic technology provided that at low cost
quickly can get you safe and reliable nuclear power.
Those are the takeaway messages.
CENTRAL TASK REPORT FINDINGS
So I want to now speak to the five or six central findings,
recommendations, of the Task Force Report.
First, as you know, the nuclear fleet is aging, and there
have been a number of early retirements. The early retirements
are due in many respects to the rules governing electricity
rates and dispatch that differ in different parts of the
country, which makes it challenging to have value-based nuclear
power. Examples include the structure of rates in wholesale
capacity markets, preferential dispatch rules for renewable
generation, exclusion of nuclear power from renewable portfolio
standards, and rates that are inadequate to assure recovery
investment.
The Task Force Report makes several suggestions for
redesign of market rate structure, but for existing plants,
this has to be done on a State-by-State basis, and different
States are approaching it in different ways. New York came to
some agreement which seems to be suitable for that State. I
believe that Illinois is under detailed discussions at the
present time, but fundamentally for existing reactors, that
disparity in market structure has to be addressed at a State
level, and it's not going to be changed easily.
The outlook for the construction of nuclear plants in the
United States and other OECD (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development) countries is bleak primarily
because of the high overnight capital cost of nuclear power,
roughly $5,000, compared to natural gas, $1,000 or less, which
makes the levelized cost of nuclear power for the foreseeable
future higher than the closest competitor, which is at least
for the time being with low natural gas prices being levelized
cost of electricity from natural gas.
The cost disparity would be greatly diminished if the
carbon-free nature of nuclear power were recognized. It could
be recognized in two ways, by the assessment of a carbon
emission charge based on the social cost of carbon on fossil
fuel generating electricity plants or, alternatively, on a
production payment to new nuclear plants, not existing nuclear
plants, for their carbon-free--that you recognize their carbon-
free character. That is on the order of 2.7 cents per kilowatt
hour. That is their carbon-free equivalent value.
Let me note that wind and photovoltaics, solar electricity
generation, have that same carbon-free character and indeed do
have an ongoing through the investment tax credit, a
contribution for the taxpayers of this country roughly
comparable to the 2.7 cents I mentioned before. So that would
be a rule that I would apply to all new carbon-free electricity
generation.
The Task Force actually recommends a two-part program. It
is not only about advanced nuclear reactors.
The first point is, are there light water reactor
technologies which will lead to new plant constructions of
lower cost and which have other advantages, such as a small
modular reactor? So the first aspect of the recommendations is
pursue promising light water reactor technologies, which no
longer have an unproven technology, but which have the
practical questions of cost, licensing, siting, waste
management. That's our first, but all new plants need to have a
2.7 cent production payment or its equivalent in order to prove
itself competitive with natural gas generation, which is
generating, of course, carbon.
For advanced reactors, based on new technology, the Task
Force recommends a four-part program to bring an advanced
program from the research level to the construction of a first-
of-a-kind plant, first-of-a-kind commercial plant.
The Task Force based its estimate of the time and cost of
that as being $11.6 billion with huge uncertainty around that
number, and taking about 25 years. An important aspect of that
judgment was based on carefully looking at a stage-by-stage
development program from concept all the way to construction of
a first commercial scaled plant.
There are many people who believe that could be shortened,
and indeed it was mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there are 20 or 30
venture capital-based firms which are exploring all different
sorts of technologies. They would see optimistically a much
smaller time and cost for going through this development
process for an advanced reactor.
We don't believe that's so, and we believe one important
way of deciding is to compare the template for development that
the Task Force has proposed with a template for development
that the private sector firms are suggesting.
In any event, the point I want to leave with the committee
is in our judgment, roughly speaking, this is a $6.5 billion
program for the period from selecting a plant all the way to
the point where you develop where you start spending money on
your first commercial plant.
We talked about financing of that. We believe that it
should be in a well-run program, half, roughly half, provided
by the Federal Government, mostly in the early stages where
there are great technology efforts to reduce technology risks,
and the latter half, more by private sector investors who see
the practicality of these new reactor types.
Let me next turn to fuel cycle and waste management. I
should say to you that when I was in the Department of Energy
in the mid-'70s, the Department confirmed President Ford's
decision not to do commercial reprocessing of spent fuel, and
the Department continually proposed no additional funding for
Clinch River Breeder Reactor, but there was a great effort to
maintain light water reactor technology and the base nuclear
technology for next-generation plants.
But there is no question about it, that advanced reactors
will have a different fuel cycle, and therefore require
different approaches for both licensing and for waste
management. That is part of the challenge of moving to a new
generation of reactors.
Now, we recommend for the management of this program that
we propose, this 25-year, $11.9 billion, $11.6 billion program,
the creation of a quasi-public corporation created by the
Congress with a one-time appropriation for that long period of
a difficult technical task going through several different
administrations to pay attention and responsibly execute this
program. I notice that the Blue Ribbon Task Force that you
mentioned, that you both support, as I understand it, of Lee
Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft, recommends exactly the same sort
of a creation of a quasi-public corporation to carry out the
waste management part of this challenge. There may be a
possibility for having a single, as committee staff has
suggested to me, quasi-public corporation to carry out both the
waste management piece and the new reactor development piece.
The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) today only has
recent experience with licensing light water reactor plants.
That means if you want to proceed to an advanced reactor, the
NRC must develop the capability to do that licensing carefully.
It's going to require more time and more resources for the NRC
to do that job. We believe, and in our report we discuss--we
have two ex-chairs of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on our
Task Force, a staged approach for the licensing of the advanced
reactors that we believe deserves attention.
Some developers may choose to construct and license new
advanced reactors in other countries, for example, China. I
remind those developers, and everyone here, that the first time
one of those plants come back into the United States, it will
have to go through the whole entire NRC process again, so we
will always have the oversight of the NRC prospect.
My final point, Mr. Chairman, has to do with international
linkages. For a long, long time, the counterproliferation
policy of the United States, where we've been a world leader,
has been based on the influence we have through our knowledge
and our activities in nuclear power technology.
As you know, the plants which are going to be built around
the world are not going to be in Europe, they're not going to
be in the United States, they're mainly going to be in China,
in India, in Russia, in several countries in Asia, which this
will be their first plant, the Emirates, Turkey, Jordan. We
want to make sure that the proliferation and safety of those--
the proliferation resistance of those plants is maintained. We
have a national security interest in maintaining our
international activities, especially in safety in the future of
nuclear power.
I want to make a concluding remark. The Task Force,
completely unanimous with this report, we had a wide range of
people with different experience and backgrounds, unanimous,
especially unanimous on the point that if the United States
does not undertake an initiative like this, the nuclear option
is not going to be there in 2030.
Now, that leaves open the broader question Senator
Feinstein addressed. Does the country need this? Is it a
practical thing that we can do given the fact that we have a
changing administration all the time?
And there are very widely ranging different views on that.
So it's not the case that everybody on our Task Force believes
the country must do exactly this, but we all agree that if you
don't do something like this, there is no possibility of
nuclear power.
Then there is a set of people who say, well, what is the
consequence of not having that base load generation, can it all
be done with clean power or renewable sources? Differences of
view on that, too. It depends very heavily, as you--as this
committee knows, on how the grid develops.
But let me say it again, we give you a program to consider,
which is in the scale of both time and dollars, one way of
getting possibly a substantially 30 percent or so cheaper, not
zero cost, nuclear power in the future. And we raise a warning
that if you don't do something like this, the country does not
have a nuclear option in the future.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Deutch
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is John Deutch
and I am here to present the results of the SEAB Task Force study on
The Future of Nuclear Power, which I chaired. I served as Director of
Energy Research and Undersecretary of the Department of Energy in the
Carter Administration and, for many years I was a director of CMS
Energy, a Michigan utility that operated two nuclear power plants.
Secretary Moniz charged the Task Force to describe an initiative
that, if successful, would result in a revitalized U.S. nuclear
industry of a scale able to deploy 5,000 to 10,000 MWe of nuclear power
annually, during the time period 2030 to 2050. The Task Force report
and a summary set of charts are available on the web and these
materials have been provided to Subcommittee staff. In order to allow
the greatest opportunity for discussion, I wish to confine my remarks
to the basic thrust of the Task Force report and then to summarize very
briefly its major findings and recommendations.
--If the nation wants to have a nuclear option in 2030 it must
undertake now an initiative of the scale and scope such as that
described by the Task Force.
--Such an initiative will take time, significant public resources,
redesign of electricity markets, and sustained and skilled
management.
--There is no shortcut to reestablishing a vigorous U.S. nuclear
power industry that could be a major source of carbon-free
electricity generation for this country and the rest of the
world.
I draw your attention to following findings and recommendations of
the Task Force:
--The U.S. nuclear fleet is aging and there have been a number of
early retirements. The early retirements are due to the many
aspects of the rules governing electricity rates and dispatch
that differ in different parts of the country, which make it
challenging to value base load nuclear generation
appropriately.
Examples include the rate structure in wholesale capacity markets,
preferential dispatch rules for renewable generation, exclusion
of nuclear power from renewable portfolio standards, and rates
that are inadequate to assure recovery of investment. The Task
Force report discusses a variety of market design measures that
could overcome these obstacles. For existing plants the market
obstacles need to be addressed at a State level such as has
occurred in New York. However, absent market reform, additional
early retirements are likely to occur and in most regions of
the country there will be no real prospect for new base load
generation. The Task Force believes that significant market
restructuring is a prerequisite for the success of any nuclear
power Initiative.
--The outlook for construction of new nuclear plants in the United
States and other OECD countries is bleak primarily because of
the high overnight capital cost of nuclear ($5,000 per kWe)
compared to natural gas ($1,000 per kWe), which makes the
levelized cost of electricity of nuclear generation
significantly higher than the cost of natural gas generation.
The cost disparity would be greatly diminished if the carbon
free nature of nuclear power were recognized either by direct
production payment proportional to the social cost of carbon
avoided or by imposition of a carbon charge on natural gas
generation emissions. Absent an economy-wide carbon emission
charge the Task Force recommends a 2.7 /kWe-hr production
payment for new nuclear plants.
--The Task Force has reviewed analyses of the technical readiness of
many advanced nuclear reactor systems that have experienced or
are experiencing R&D either under the sponsorship of DOE or
private firms. The Task Force recommends a two-part program:
New plants based on proven Light Water Reactor, LWR, technology do
not need additional Federal financial support beyond the 2.7
cents/kWe-hr production payment mentioned above. DOE assistance
with NRC licensing and possibly placing early reactors on DOE
or DoD sites would be appropriate and helpful.
For advanced nuclear reactors based on new technology, the Task
Force recommends a four-part program to bring an advanced
reactor from early concept to construction of first-of-a-kind,
FOAK, commercial scale plant. The Task Force estimates this
program will take up to 25 years and cost approximately $11.5
billion. However, this estimate is highly uncertain. There is a
realistic prospect of achieving a new reactor system that has
significant advantages in such attributes as safety, lower
cost, and water usage over present day pressurized water LWRs,
but this is by no means certain. The Task Force envisions the
cost to be split approximately 50--50 between the government
and the private sector entity undertaking the project, with the
government contribution coming in the earlier phase of the
program.
--A program plan template developed by the Task Force supports the
Task Force estimate of the duration and cost of an advanced
nuclear reactor development:
Some observers may believe the Task Force estimate is excessively
high. Note, however, the recommended program includes a $2
billion, 5 year, Part I initial R&D period, leading to down
selection of one or more advanced technologies for further
development, and the Part IV 5 year period for construction of
the $3 billion FOAK commercial plant. These two stages are
often not explicitly considered. An estimate that does not
include these two stages would have an estimated cost and
project length in the range of $6.5 billion and roughly 15
years.
--Fuel Cycle and Waste Management. Advanced nuclear reactors will
raise different issues from LWRs for the front and back end of
nuclear electricity generation. The issues depends on the
advanced nuclear technology and the Task Force underscores the
importance of addressing fuel cycle and waste management as
part of the proposed initiative.
--The Task Force recommends the creation of an independent quasi
public corporation to manage the proposed advanced reactor
initiative. The corporation should be funded by a one-time
Congressional appropriation and should be exempt from Federal
personnel and acquisition regulations. The independent board of
directors of the corporation would be subject to Senate
confirmation and an annual financial and operational report
would be submitted to Congress. Such a structure is appropriate
for a highly technical program that takes place over several
years and requires stable funding and expert management.
The 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, co-
chaired by Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft, recommended the
creation of a similar organization to manage their recommended
program for nuclear waste. Committee staff has made the
interesting suggestion of considering the creation of a single
entity to manage both the advanced nuclear initiative proposed
here and implementation of the Blue Ribbon Commission nuclear
waste plan.
--Nuclear Licensing and Safety. The United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, NRC, license is the gold standard for safety.
However, the NRC recent experience is only with licensing LWRs.
Since the time and cost needed to obtain a construction and
operating license is large, it is important for the NRC to
develop a staged approach for the licensing of advanced
reactors. The Task Force believes the NRC has the authority to
proceed and should do so now although more some budgetary
support will be needed. Some developers may choose to construct
and license new advanced reactors abroad, e.g., in China, but
U.S. deployment will require full NRC review.
--International Linkages. For the next one to two decades, the
majority of new nuclear deployments will be in Asia, especially
in China and India, but also with new entrants such as United
Arab Emirates, Jordan, Vietnam, and Turkey. South Korean,
Russian, and Chinese firms will do most of the construction. As
U.S. and OECD Europe nuclear deployments and exports decline,
influence inevitably shifts to China, India, South Korea and
Russia. This has important national security consequences for
U.S. counter proliferation policies that could be partially
reversed by the advanced nuclear initiative proposed by the
Task Force. Since a nuclear accident anywhere in the world is
an accident everywhere, the United States must continue to
encourage safety and security in all countries.
--Concluding Remark. The Task Force report is unanimous. All members
agree that if the nation wants to have a nuclear option in 2030
it must undertake now an initiative of the scale and scope such
as that described in the report. The Task Force recognizes that
there will different views on whether the proposed initiative
is ``practical'' (i.e., whether it could gain Congressional
support given alternative demands) or ``necessary'' (i.e.,
whether the future electricity system will depend on
distributed generation and there will no longer be a need for
base load generation).
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Dr. Deutch, and thanks to you
and your committee for your leadership.
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
We'll have a round of 5-minute questions now. And I'll
begin. Just to reiterate, today we have, what, 99 reactors or
about that. They produce about 20 percent of all of
electricity, about 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity. I
know in the region where I come from, the Tennessee Valley
Authority expects to have about 40 percent of its electricity
from nuclear power within a few years, and when combined that
with its pollution control equipment on coal and new gas
plants, it's going to be a very clean, lower cost mix of power.
You're saying, though, that your committee unanimously
agrees that if we don't take some action like the one the
committee recommended, that by 2030, as a country, we won't
have the option of having electricity produced by nuclear
power. Is that what you're saying?
Dr. Deutch. Precisely. Precisely. Let me say to you that
when I joined the Department of Energy, six or seven nuclear
plants were being fielded every year. We had four U.S.
manufacturers of reactors, Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion
Engineering, GE, and Westinghouse, four competing U.S. firms.
That kind of capability is not going to be there in 2030 for
sure, no new plants will be built in the United States unless
they have very favorable regulatory findings about managing the
market problems that I mentioned to you.
Senator Alexander. So we would lose 20 percent of our what,
we call our base load capacity, of our electricity, which is
base load capacity in this case, and about 60 percent of our
carbon-free. What is likely to replace that if that were not
there?
Dr. Deutch. Natural gas. But--so let me point out to you,
you, I think, said that--how many--there are 50 or so plants
which are going to reach 80 years of age?
Senator Alexander. By 2038.
Dr. Deutch. And I personally do not think it likely that
the companies that manage those plants for the NRC are likely
to relicense these plants from 60 to 80 years. They're the
oldest plants we have. It would require quite a lot of
additional investment without any attention to whether--not
whether their cost of construction is cheaper, but if they
actually don't have their electricity dispatched for one reason
or another, they're not going to be there.
Senator Alexander. Now, to reiterate again, you gave us a
recommendation and said, ``Unless you do something like the 25-
year $11.6 billion program to create advanced reactors, we
won't have the option. If we did something like that, we were
more likely to have the nuclear option.
Dr. Deutch. Let me pull it back one step further.
Furthermore, in the first 5 years, we're proposing part 1, is
the R&D phase. Meanwhile, you have these advanced light water
reactors coming on. They may fit the bill, but they're going to
need some help, and there is no certainty that that will be
there, but there may be somebody who comes forward with a light
water reactor proposal that's as good as the advanced reactor
stuff. We're not married to any particular technology. We want
to see the best technology developed and pushed.
CREDIT FOR CARBON-FREE ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Senator Alexander. And you said that one of the
difficulties--you mentioned five different difficulties in the
report, but one of the difficulties is that nuclear power
doesn't get credit for being carbon-free at a time when many
people think carbon-free electricity is important. And if I
heard you right, you said that in order to get credit that
would be equal to the credit given to wind power, for example,
it would be 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour.
Dr. Deutch. Roughly. Roughly.
Senator Alexander. Roughly.
Dr. Deutch. The advancement tax credit.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Dr. Deutch. Which wind and solar--and, of course, as you
know, as the penetration of wind and solar increases, there's
an intermittency cost which has to be carried by somebody on
the grid one way or the other.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Dr. Deutch. That's not included in these----
Senator Alexander. So at the moment, taxpayers give wind,
for example, a 2.7 cents advantage over nuclear power. Both of
them are equally carbon-free.
Dr. Deutch. Yes. And I hope that I wouldn't be
misunderstood to say I think we should take that away from
wind----
Senator Alexander. No, I didn't mean that. I might do that,
but I understand you wouldn't.
Dr. Deutch. Right. But my point, I want to underscore this,
carbon-free electricity generation is important in the United
States and the world, and nuclear is an essential piece of that
here and elsewhere in the world.
Senator Alexander. Senator Feinstein.
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
Senator Feinstein. You know, John, I've known you for a
long time. It's interesting to me because I look at this so
differently. I look at it from the California perspective. I've
been to Southern California Edison three times, seen the
reactors. They have a problem with the steam generator. They
buy two from a Japanese company. They're faulty. They end up
having to shut down the plant. They've got 3,300 rods in spent
fuel pools, no place to put them. They have a big security
force. They've got a plant on a shelf above the Pacific with 6
million people living around.
Then I get a call from Tony Earley, of PG&E (Pacific Gas
and Electric Company), that they're going to shut down both of
their reactors because they believe they can now find cost
effective clean energy to replace their 1,100 megawatts. So I
have all this spent fuel sitting in metropolitan areas in an
earthquake-prone State when the rim of fire is going around the
Pacific with big quakes----
Dr. Deutch. New Zealand.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. 7.8. I don't understand the push
for this and the absence of a push to safely secure the waste.
And we have tried and he has enormous patience with me, and so
we have tried year after year to get a pilot waste. We know
there are people that want to build it, a waste facility, where
some of this waste--because even if Yucca went ahead, Yucca
would be filled, and we have 77,000 metric tons of hot waste
all over the country.
To me, until you've got a methodology to properly harbor
this waste for the millennium, it's ridiculous to talk about
any of this because something is going to happen one day, and
it's probably on the Pacific Coast, some kind of Fukushima is
going to happen, and all the probabilities of a big quake are
up.
So I sit here and I listen to this, and it's like I'm in a
fairy tale, that what I see in my State with four of the
biggest reactors shut down, waste piling up, it makes no sense
to me. And I don't understand why the industry doesn't help us
push for waste facilities, and they don't.
Dr. Deutch. First of all, again I want to remind you, these
are very sensible questions to raise about the--our task was to
describe it. You may say--just the waste alone. But I want to
make some remarks about that. This Congress commissioned a
group of people under the chairmanship of Brent and Lee
Hamilton. In 2012, they came out with a report, which was a
systematic approach to managing the waste.
You know, Senator, I've got to say I'm old enough to
remember Lyons, Kansas, and trying to put the wastes away. And
I'll tell you, that proposal from Congressman Hamilton and
General Scowcroft is an absolutely sound way to, in an orderly
fashion, address all of the concerns that you properly are
raising.
Senator Feinstein. We had Hamilton in. We sat there with
the chairs of the Authorizing Committee. We put together a
nuclear waste policy for this country, which was voluntary. We
went through three chairs of the Energy Committee working on
this, oh, from New Mexico, Bingaman, Wyden, and Murkowski.
Murkowski worked with us all along. We've got a bill in there
that the two appropriators, the two authorizers, all support,
and it sits in committee, and the nuclear waste industry does
nothing to help pass it. Why? I mean, I don't understand this.
And we see the accidents take place? It's a kind of madness to
build stuff and not be able to properly dispose of the waste.
Dr. Deutch. Pass the bill.
Senator Feinstein. Pass the bill.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Deutch. The other thing--the other thing was--now,
California,--may I say a word about California?
Senator Feinstein. Sure.
Dr. Deutch. Which I know little about except that I have
now two grandsons living in Palo Alto, so I have a much bigger
interest in their safety.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Dr. Deutch. I don't know how California is going to manage
without those plants, but I don't think it's so clear that it's
going to be cost-free, I mean cost now in a risk sense. So I
would say I don't know the head of PG&E, but I know a lot of
people in California who know a lot about energy, I don't think
it's going to be so easy to get that energy. Maybe--maybe----
Senator Feinstein. All I can say is so far, so good.
Dr. Deutch. So far, so good is good, and we have to keep at
it, but I think it's not at all clear how it's going to come
out.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I guess I plead with the industry
to help us get a permanent waste facility, and one won't do it,
and there have to be a number of them. You know, the WIPP
(Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) accident, which is now costing in
the billions of dollars, it's expensive stuff. We deal with the
waste, with the plutonium and uranium processing, and it's the
same kind of thing. It comes in, in the hundreds of millions
and it grows to the billions of dollars to build these
facilities. So somebody like me that sees what's happening in
California says, why are we thinking about this if we can't
provide the infrastructure to do it right?
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR PROJECTS
Dr. Deutch. We have to be players because there are going
to be much bigger problems with these issues in India and
China, and the people who are going to be building these plants
are going to be Russian firms, Japanese firms, and Chinese
firms. We have to be players in that.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Well, Senator Feinstein and I are going to figure out how
to pass that bill, so we'll----
Senator Udall.
PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you both for your commitment to this and having this hearing.
Mr. Deutch, thank you. Very interesting testimony up till
now, and I hope it will continue.
110 nations have ratified the Paris climate deal, which
will demonstrate and initiate a need for nuclear power. Here at
home, more than 360 businesses and investors support the Paris
climate agreement and a low-carbon energy future for the United
States.
I am very concerned about President-elect Trump's
statements about withdrawing from the Paris agreement. Many
nuclear companies and supporters recognize the need for nuclear
energy to meet emission goals, especially in the short term,
when we need dramatic movement on emissions.
Won't withdrawing from Paris have potentially negative
consequences on the future of nuclear power? Could you give me
a yes or no on that? And then you can expand, or course.
Dr. Deutch. I don't think so, Senator.
Senator Udall. You don't think so.
Dr. Deutch. I don't think I can give you a yes or no
answer.
Senator Udall. Okay, go ahead.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Deutch. No, no, no, I don't think--I don't think it's a
question which--my credentials here are to report on the
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board, not to make comments----
Senator Udall. But the expertise that you have directly
reflects on this question.
Dr. Deutch. Senator, I'm just not going to be able to be
helpful to you on this. I mean, I would go in a completely
different direction, but this is not occasion to address the
question of Paris, or now they're in Morocco now, right? That's
where they are, Secretary Moniz and Secretary Kerry, unless
they're coming back. They've been planning for COP 22.
Senator Udall. Right. Right.
Dr. Deutch. But this, I'm not the person--here I'm not the
person to ask about this.
SAFELY EXTENDING EXISTING NUCLEAR PLANTS
Senator Udall. Okay. Today, 20 percent of the U.S.
electricity, and as the Chairman said, 63.3 percent of our
carbon-free electricity is produced by approximately 100 light
water nuclear reactors. However, many of these plants may be
prematurely closing before their 2030 planned retirement, which
will result in an increased proportion of energy produced by
carbon-emitting sources unless other renewables, solar, wind,
are able to replace the capacity of these LWRs.
What structural or statutory changes are needed to ensure
that our current nuclear energy fleet remains a part of the
U.S.'s carbon-free energy grid, and what structural or
statutory changes are needed to enable nuclear innovation and
the modernization of nuclear energy reactors?
Dr. Deutch. Sir, the answer is that there has to be market
redesign, and that subject is dealt with in great detail,
market redesign and some choices, what choices have to be made,
in the report.
I would not have the--you wouldn't want to hear me talk
about all of them, but let me just say that you cannot have the
circumstances now with around the country, not everywhere, the
Southeast United States is an exception, you cannot have the
market you have giving preference to--in the dispatch of
electricity to non-base-load-generating plants so that they
cannot make money even if they were cheaper.
So you have to find some solution to that. That has to be
done on a State-by-State basis, and it's a very, very tough
task. But otherwise, you're going to continue to have more
early retirements like happened in California.
Senator Udall. The--and I want to ask that first question
in a little different way. I mean, there are many efforts both
at the international level, at the State level, and at our
national level to push us towards renewable sources of energy.
Pulling back on those do you think would be a good idea?
Dr. Deutch. No.
TECHNOLOGY-NEUTRAL PRICE ON CARBON
Senator Udall. Okay. Now, nuclear energy has a production
tax credit incentive, and has had it for many, many years, as
you know. However, that credit has now expired and the nuclear
industry is preparing to ask Congress for new forms of support.
On the other hand, while renewable energy credits were
recently extended, as you know, they are being phased out, and
there is no guarantee they will be extended again. Rather than
Congress debating and continuing new technology-specific tax
credits, like the nuclear PTC or renewable PTCs, would the best
policy be a technology-neutral price on carbon, which would
promote all clean energy technologies, including nuclear
renewables and carbon capture and sequestration?
Dr. Deutch. You say--I didn't quite get the last sentence,
sir.
Senator Udall. The last is--and it's a long one, so I'm
going to say it again here, so I understand that.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Deutch. Thank you, sir.
Senator Udall. Rather than Congress debating and continuing
new technology-specific tax credits, that I mentioned earlier,
like the nuclear PTC or renewable PTCs, would the best policy
be a technology-neutral price on carbon, which would promote
all clean energy technologies including nuclear, renewables,
and carbon capture and sequestration?
Dr. Deutch. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Udall. And that's----
Dr. Deutch. And I would include--I would include in that
all the oil and gas drilling things as well, which gives
subsidies for certain kinds of fossil fuels. The answer is yes.
A single carbon charge, how the revenue is spent is critical to
how it looks elsewhere.
But the answer is yes, it would be the most efficient way
to do it, and that's--some members of my Task Force think
that's exactly what should be done, but that's not part of our
report because we are asked to frame an initiative, not to say
balance it with all these things we're now discussing.
Senator Udall. Yes. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Dr. Deutch, for being here and for your work
on the report. I have to say I share the issues that you raised
in your testimony with respect to the importance of nuclear
power as we're addressing our need to reduce carbon emissions,
not only in the U.S., but throughout the world.
I also share your concerns about the importance of American
technology when it comes to nuclear safety around the world. I
remember talking to one of our engineers from the Seabrook
Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire, who relayed to me what he
was doing with Russia after Chernobyl in an effort to try and
address safety there.
So I think those are very important and very relevant as we
think about our policy. And I'm disappointed, as you've heard
from several of the people here, that--I served on the Energy
Committee under Chairman Bingaman when we produced an energy
bill that would have addressed nuclear power in the future.
That never made it to the floor. We have another bill that's
currently being negotiated. It's not at all clear if that's
going to make it out of Congress. That also addresses the
future of nuclear power in this country. So I think we have not
been responsive in the way that we should in order to address
the future challenges.
In New England, 30 percent of our total electricity comes
from nuclear power, so the retirement of nuclear generators is
of particular concern. And you recommend significant reforms in
the energy and electricity markets to help value the base load
power that's produced by nuclear reactors.
ELECTRICITY MARKET REFORM
I wonder if you could discuss in a little more detail than
you did in the response to Senator Udall what those kinds of
reforms should look like, because as we look at New England's
wholesale electric operator, ISO New England, I think it's a
challenge that we have both now and are looking at in the
future. So what kinds of things are you talking about?
Dr. Deutch. Thank you, Senator. Let me say that I'm not
going to do as good a job as I could if I were here with some
of my Task Force members who really specialize more in this
than I do.
But let me just take the case of Illinois, where they
closed I think two reactors because there was no way for them
to dispatch the electricity. At night, wind will even bid
negative prices so that they get dispatched in order to earn
the 3 cents or whatever it is per kilowatt hour production
payment, production tax credit, that they get.
So the fact is you have to fix that. You cannot have a
situation where some sources of technology get dispatched with
a favorable rate because of a government subsidy, others don't
have the government subsidy, they can't--if they can't dispatch
it. So that's a specific example.
Many of the States do not acknowledge the kinds of rates
that need to be set given whatever dispatch rules they have so
that a company can get back its investment over time. That's a
negotiation between the regulatory commission and the company,
but there is a balance there. It's not being met in many
places.
Every State is different. So some parts of the country,
like the Southeast, are much more accommodating. But without
market reform of some kind, this ain't going to happen.
And again here's a situation, everybody in the committee is
unanimous on this, and our Task Force is unanimous on this.
Senator Shaheen. Well, should FERC (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) have a role in this? What should their
role be in trying to look at this issue?
Dr. Deutch. I'm going to get myself into trouble, but I
think, yes, I think FERC should have a much larger role in
this. I guess there's a Supreme Court decision that gives them
more ability to go and--but, you know, we have a long jealously
guarded history of having local and regional utilities set
their own rates on their own basis. But fundamentally, this
does, in my mind, require more of a role for FERC, but it's
another battle that I'm sure you guys would have to face.
SAFELY EXTENDING LICENSES OF EXISTING NUCLEAR PLANTS
Senator Shaheen. I'm almost out of time, but I also wanted
to raise an issue that we're seeing in New Hampshire with the
Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant because they will come up for
relicensing I think in the early 2020s. And they've encountered
some issues concerning concrete degradation, the ASR, alkalized
silica reaction, and they have led to concerns about the safety
of the plant and the relicensing process.
So is this something that the committee, looking at the
future of nuclear power, has looked at? Are there--how should
we address safety issues like that and----
Dr. Deutch. I believe Senator, that you're making exactly
the same point that I tried to make earlier. When these plants
turn to be 80----
Senator Shaheen. Well, this one is not going to be 80. It's
a relatively young----
Dr. Deutch. But they're all going to be 80, but as they
turn--as they get to be older, questions are going to be raised
that would be applied--new plants would have to conform to, and
now you have the question about, are you willing to make an
assessment of the risk and say to them, ``No, we're not going
to relicense you, or you have to repair this''? And that's
going to be done on a case-by-case basis by the NRC. I don't
know the circumstances in Seabrook, although at one time I knew
it pretty well, but I don't know it anymore. But those
questions and concrete is a big deal.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Dr. Deutch, you've been terrific with us, and it's good to
have your experience and your straightforwardness here. I think
I'm speaking for all of us, we thank you and your committee for
your time and work, and Secretary Moniz, for impaneling you. If
you have additional comments that you would like for us to
consider, why, we would welcome your sending those to us after
you leave.
I think it's time now to go to the second panel. So we'll
excuse you and ask Dr. McKinzie and Dr. Icenhour, who I
introduced earlier, to come forward.
Dr. Icenhour is the Associate Laboratory Director of the
Nuclear Science and Energy Directorate at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and Dr. McKinzie, Nuclear Program Director and
Senior Scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council.
Dr. Icenhour, we'll start with you, if we may. And I'll ask
each of you to summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes, if
you will, which will give us time to consider--to ask
questions. And Senator Feinstein has an important appointment
at 4:00, so we'll conclude either by then or not long after
that.
Dr. Icenhour.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN S. ICENHOUR, ASSOCIATE LABORATORY
DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
DIRECTOR, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Icenhour. Thank you, Chairman Alexander and Ranking
Member Feinstein. I am very pleased to participate in this
panel today.
At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, I'm privileged to lead a
very talented group of scientists and engineers as we address
scientific and technological challenges in both fission and
fusion energy, radioisotopes, nuclear modeling and simulation,
and nuclear security.
NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Our nuclear fission R&D efforts include advanced reactor
technologies, light water reactor sustainability, accident-
tolerant fuels, used nuclear fuels, modeling and simulations,
such as the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water
Reactors, materials and extreme environments, manufacturing and
maintenance technologies, and safety analysis and licensing
approaches. This expertise enables broader contributions to
nuclear security, safeguards, and non-proliferation related to
R&D.
We are all familiar with the so-called nuclear cliff, which
is the point in time when the current fleet of plants rapidly
retires. So how will we replace that capacity? How can we
rapidly innovate and enable affordable and reliable advanced
reactor technologies?
The United States has historically led nuclear energy
innovation, and I believe that we must continue to do so.
Development of the next generation of reactors will provide
clean, secure, and affordable energy, and will ensure that the
U.S. industry is positioned to compete internationally.
Rapid deployment of advanced nuclear systems requires a
science-based design and licensing approach. With contemporary
science-based tools and techniques, development can be
accelerated in laboratory and high-performance computing
environments, and this can also accelerate licensing.
Materials used in nuclear systems directly affect
economics, performance, and safety. The opportunity is at hand
for a new generation of reactors that will also employ a new
generation of materials.
We also have the opportunity to see into reactors as never
before. Modern instrumentation and sensing techniques can
optimize operations and further enhance safety. Predictive
modeling and simulation tools provide a new basis for
regulatory action and licensing.
Innovations can be introduced more quickly and designs can
evolve on the drawing board. Recognizing the challenges ahead,
we must move forward deliberately to avoid the nuclear cliff.
Future U.S. policy for nuclear energy will be critical.
Decisions are needed with specific goals. Rapid innovation will
be essential and requires collaboration among the national
laboratories, industry, and universities.
We must also leverage existing assets. For example, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory has unique facilities, such as our
research reactor and hot cells for the safe handling,
experimentation, and analysis of nuclear materials.
ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) is working with Idaho
and Argonne National Laboratories to implement the Department
of Energy's Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, or
GAIN, initiative, which is providing easier access to the
technical capabilities of the national laboratories.
The timelines and economics are a hurdle for new reactor
technologies, but they can be overcome through approaches such
as increased use of modeling and simulation, advanced
manufacturing techniques, and development of new materials.
There is a growing national interest in the deployment of
advanced reactors and the associated fuel cycle, as evidenced
by the number of summits, symposia, workshops, hearings, and
other events focused on this. Such events reflect a collective
sense of urgency. National laboratories are a vital part of
meeting the challenges for the future of nuclear power.
A sustained R&D program is needed with clear long-term
goals. Such program will retire technical and regulatory risk,
improve economic competitiveness, develop the next generation
of scientists and engineers, establish advanced facility
capabilities, and address the entire fuel cycle.
We are prepared to help solve these compelling challenges,
and we are partnering to enable rapid innovation. Together, we
can succeed in bringing the best of our Nation's scientific
understanding and engineering capabilities to bear on deploying
the next generation of carbon-free nuclear energy technologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with the
subcommittee. I request that my written testimony be made a
part of the public record. And I would be happy to answer your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan S. Icenhour, Ph.D.
Thank you Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members
of the subcommittee. I am Dr. Alan Icenhour, Associate Laboratory
Director for Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL), and I am pleased to participate in this hearing with
this distinguished panel today.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the largest U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) science and energy laboratory, conducting basic and
applied research to deliver transformative solutions to compelling
problems in energy and security. ORNL's diverse capabilities span a
broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines, enabling the
Laboratory to explore fundamental science challenges and to carry out
the research needed to accelerate the delivery of solutions to the
marketplace. ORNL supports DOE's national missions of:
--Scientific Discovery.--We assemble teams of experts from diverse
backgrounds, equip them with powerful instruments and research
facilities, and address compelling national problems;
--Clean Energy.--We deliver technology solutions for carbon-free
energy sources such as nuclear fission/fusion and solar
photovoltaics, as well as energy-efficient buildings,
transportation, and manufacturing. We also study biological,
environmental, and climate systems in order to advance
biofuels, while exploring the impacts of all of these
technologies;
--Security.--We develop and deploy ``first-of-a-kind'' science-based
security technologies to make the world a safer place.
ORNL supports these missions through leadership in four major areas
of science and technology:
--Neutrons.--We operate two of the world's leading neutron sources
that enable scientists and engineers to gain new insights into
materials and biological systems;
--Computing.--We accelerate scientific discovery through modeling and
simulation on powerful supercomputers, advance data-intensive
science, and sustain U.S. leadership in high-performance
computing;
--Materials.--We integrate basic and applied research to develop
advanced materials for energy applications;
--Nuclear.--We advance the scientific basis for 21st century nuclear
fission and fusion technologies and systems, and we produce
isotopes for research, industry, and medicine.
As the Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science and
Engineering, I am privileged to lead a talented group of scientists and
engineers as we address scientific and technological challenges in both
fission and fusion energy, radioisotopes, nuclear modeling and
simulation, and nuclear security. Our nuclear fission research and
development (R&D) efforts span the nuclear fuel cycle and address the
current fleet, as well as future reactors. These efforts include:
--advanced reactor technology development and design;
--light water reactor sustainability;
--research and development of nuclear fuels--increased accident
tolerance and understanding the science of used nuclear fuel;
--modeling and simulation, including integrated multiphysics
modeling, developing new physics codes, and exploring exascale
applications;
--measurement and analysis of nuclear data;
--understanding the science of materials in extreme environments;
--development of new manufacturing and maintenance technologies; and
--safety analysis and licensing approaches.
The expertise we have established in these areas enables our
broader contributions in the areas of nuclear security, safeguards, and
nonproliferation-related R&D. As a result, ORNL in partnership with
other DOE National Laboratories is well positioned for key
contributions toward the R&D needed to meet our Nation's energy policy
objectives for the next generation.
We recognize that future energy demands will continue to require a
mixture of sources that are closely and efficiently tailored to
regional resources and needs. The shift to carbon-free energy sources
also tells us that nuclear must play a role if we are to meet growing
needs, particularly in urban and industrial environments where the
baseload demand requires the availability of reliable, large-scale
electricity production. As we transition toward a clean-energy economy,
nuclear energy must therefore continue to be a meaningful and sustained
component of the overall U.S. energy balance.
ornl supports nuclear power as a continued carbon-free energy source
Nuclear energy is the largest clean-air energy source in the U.S.
and the only such source that produces large amounts of electricity
around the clock. It is a secure source that is not subject to changing
weather conditions, unpredictable fuel cost fluctuations, or dependence
on foreign suppliers. Nuclear power plants produce no air pollution and
do not emit greenhouse gases. These features combine to make nuclear
energy an essential part of the overall global energy system. In the
U.S. alone, it already provides almost two-thirds of our emission-free
generation and about 20 percent of total electricity, all while
producing at a greater than 90 percent capacity factor.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nuclear Energy Institute, 2015 statistics--In the U.S. nuclear
energy provides: (a) 62.4 percent of emission-free generation; (b) 19.5
percent of electricity, and; (c) produces at a 92.2 percent capacity
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet many challenges remain for nuclear energy--both for the
existing U.S. fleet, as well as for new reactors. The near-term future
of the commercial nuclear power industry hinges upon furthering power
uprates, realizing higher fuel burn-up, and operating the existing
plants for longer lifetimes--all while dealing with market challenges,
and also providing confidence in enhanced nuclear safety for both the
current fleet and the next generation of nuclear power technology. In
the longer term, the next generation of nuclear power technologies
offers the opportunity to expand upon past successes by further
improving performance, safe operations, and fuel efficiency, while
contributing an even greater share of baseload electric power that is
carbon-free and environmentally sound.
Avoiding the ``Nuclear Cliff''
We are all familiar with the so-called ``nuclear cliff,'' which is
the point in time when we will rapidly see retirements of the current
fleet of plants as they reach the end of their operating licenses.
Recently, one new plant has come on line (Watts Bar Unit 2) and four
plants are in the construction phase (Vogtle 3&4 and Summer 2&3).
However, six plants have also been closed since 2013,\2\ with the most
recent, Fort Calhoun, shutting down on October 24, 2016. While some
remaining plants have been granted marginal capacity upratings, there
are also further plants under threat of closure. From a practical
perspective, nuclear electric generating capacity replacement is not
yet robust and the ``nuclear cliff'' remains a persistent challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant was shut down on
December 29, 2014. Another four reactors were permanently closed in
2013 before their licenses expired: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California,
Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin. The Fort Calhoun
plant shut down on October 24, 2016.
Effect of operating life extensions on current U.S. nuclear
generating capacity, depicting original operating license (blue);
current operating license (brown), which reflects only the plants that
have been granted a license renewal; all operating plants assumed to
have one license renewal (grey); and all operating plants assumed to
have two license renewals (yellow)
The question is how will we replace that retiring capacity? How can
we rapidly innovate and enable affordable and reliable advanced reactor
technologies?
the next generation of nuclear energy
The United States has historically led nuclear energy innovation,
and I believe that we must continue to do so. Nuclear energy has
important impacts in terms of our national economy and security. More
broadly, nuclear technology capabilities enable many other uses within
science, industry, and medicine, such as high energy physics research,
deep space missions, imaging, analysis, and isotope-based disease
treatment. Our efforts in this area also invigorate our Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) capabilities, as we prepare
the next generation of scientists and engineers. Our common objective,
across the government, academic, and industrial sectors, must be to
bring the best of our Nation's scientific understanding and engineering
prowess to bear on deploying the next generation of nuclear energy
technologies. Meeting this objective will enable nuclear power to
provide clean, secure, and affordable energy to meet growing demand,
and will ensure that U.S. industry is positioned to compete
internationally.
While there is a huge potential global impact by deploying advanced
nuclear systems rapidly, there are also scientific questions that must
be addressed in the process. By using a science-based design and
licensing approach, we can improve upon history, rather than repeat it.
The existing fleet of U.S. nuclear plants was developed using empirical
engineering approaches. That is to say, systems were initially
designed, built, and tested; designs were then marginally improved as
operating experience was gained. Billions of dollars were invested in
generating operating data to determine what worked best. Because of
advancements in scientific capabilities, we have the opportunity to
take a new approach. With contemporary science-based tools and
techniques, the development phase can be rapidly accelerated in
laboratory and high-performance computing environments. Similarly,
there are also opportunities to accelerate the licensing phase.
The materials selected for use in nuclear systems directly affect
the economics, performance, and safety of power plants. By using new
materials, we can improve upon each of these important factors. The
current U.S. reactor fleet relied upon alloys available from 1950s and
1960s technology which have incrementally improved. There has been a
high bar for introducing new materials into reactors due to regulatory
requirements that discourage design change. The opportunity is now at
hand to move to a new generation of reactors that will also employ a
new generation of advanced materials that can increase safety while
reducing cost.
Finally, we have the opportunity to see into reactors as we could
never see before. Obtaining measurements in nuclear environments is
particularly difficult due to rapidly changing temperature, fluid
dynamics, and radiological environments. However, the information
obtained through measurements is critical to our understanding of
limits to operating conditions and system lifetime. With modern
instrumentation and advanced sensing techniques, a new approach can be
taken to optimizing operations and further enhancing safety.
The DOE National Laboratories are the best organizations to assist
in rapidly moving nuclear science and engineering toward these new
horizons--because the labs rely on the science-based approach, and they
field world-class facilities and capabilities. Through research,
development, and demonstration of predictive modeling and simulation
tools, the labs are largely displacing the old empirical approach. This
provides for a new basis for regulatory action and licensing for the
next generation of nuclear systems. An important outcome is that
innovations can be introduced more quickly, and advanced designs can be
confidently evolved ``on the drawing board'' without the historic need
for a large investment in systems development and testing to gather
experimental observations.
Extrapolating atomic-, nano-, and micro-scale processes to
engineering-scale properties and performance represents a significant
scientific challenge that can be met by the National Laboratories. Not
only does engineering qualification of new materials take a long time,
but more than 60-year service lifetimes are also difficult to
demonstrate. In order to extrapolate what we can do in our laboratories
with modern scientific instruments to long-term engineering
performance, we must continue to improve our understanding of three key
domains:
--Understanding the mechanisms of material failure enables
improvements to complex alloy chemistry and permits tailoring
of new materials to the challenges of operating environments;
--Understanding long-term material performance provides the basis for
accurate predictive modeling and thus reduces uncertainty in
life cycle analysis; and
--Accurately characterizing harsh conditions, such as radiation, high
temperatures, and corrosion, further increases the fidelity and
thus the reliability of our understanding of engineering
performance.
While progress in modeling and simulation is rapidly advancing at
the National Laboratories, the need for empirical measurements in
extreme nuclear environments will never be entirely overcome. Theory
advances most rapidly when validation through testing remains
available. Currently, reactor and experimental instrumentation is
limited. As a result, reactor operation and safety must all be designed
and quantified up front. In the future, the ability to measure detailed
environment conditions can be used in real time to inform operations
and safety. In-core measurements during irradiation testing and new
characterization tools will also improve the development process.
Several related issues also need to be addressed, including:
--Survivability of sensors in extreme environments;
--Being able to place sensors in key locations;
--Transmitting data through vessels;
--Reliability of instrumentation system; and
--Being able to introduce a large number of sensors.
Recognizing the challenges ahead, we must nonetheless move forward
deliberately and decisively if we are to avoid the ``nuclear cliff,''
which shows the rapid retirement of a large capacity in a relatively
short period of time, i.e., 100 GWe starting in the early 2030s
(depending upon subsequent license extensions for some plants). This
21st century real and present threat creates a palpable sense of
urgency that must be translated into action if we are to successfully
modernize our nuclear power generating capacity on the needed
timescale.
The Road Ahead
Recently, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) assembled a
Task Force that provided expert recommendations for a ``Four-Phase
Advanced Nuclear Reactor Program.'' \3\ The phases proceed from
technology selection through demonstration plant licensing and
culminate in plant operations in preparation for private
commercialization. The SEAB report points out that there are many
challenges that need to be addressed--some are technology-based, while
others are policy-based. The Task Force midpoint estimate is that such
a four-phase program would require about 25 years. The future U.S.
policy for nuclear energy will be critical. Given the challenges and
timeline, decisions are needed with specific goals. It is also clear
that rapid innovation will be essential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Report of the Task Force on
the Future of Nuclear Power, September 22, 2016, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the vital role of the national laboratories in rapid innovation
If we are to achieve practical realization of ubiquitous carbon-
free energy in the next generation of nuclear power, then rapid
innovation in nuclear science and engineering is an undeniable
prerequisite. While the challenges are great, our national capabilities
have also been advanced as a direct result of Federal investments. We
have already demonstrated some of the tools needed to accomplish rapid
innovation (e.g., modeling and simulation in a high-performance
computing environment), but success will require more than just
advanced tooling. Rapid innovation also relies heavily on two critical
factors:
--Intensive collaboration across the affected sectors--government,
academia, and industry; and
--DOE National Laboratory strategic positioning to assist in
systematically identifying and overcoming technical challenges
through a science-based approach.
National Laboratories play an important role by providing both the
expertise and facilities to work on some of the Nation's most
challenging problems. And, with respect to nuclear energy, the National
Laboratories are important as we innovate. The laboratories possess
unique nuclear technology expertise, ranging from very fundamental
science to applications. This expertise must be preserved and further
developed for the long term.
The National Laboratories are distinguished by their demonstrated
ability to assemble large teams of experts from a variety of scientific
and technical disciplines in order to tackle compelling national
problems. They also design, build, and operate powerful scientific
facilities that are available to the international research community.
They work in partnership with universities and industry to train the
future science and engineering workforce and transfer the results of
their R&D to the marketplace.
Intensive collaboration on the next generation of nuclear science
and technology will require:
Advancing Progress Through National Laboratory Partnerships.--ORNL
works in close partnership with Idaho National Laboratory,
Argonne National Laboratory, and other national laboratories to
define and solve complex nuclear science and engineering
problems--drawing upon the collective national capacity.
Advancing Technology Through Industrial Partnerships.--ORNL works
closely with industry to move research into the marketplace and
collaborates with other private research institutions to expand
capabilities, increase the availability of facilities and
expertise, and create research and development opportunities
for both large institutional labs and small innovative
entrepreneurs.
Advancing Science Through University Partnerships.--ORNL partners
with more than 250 universities and includes several major
Southeastern research universities on the UT-Battelle
management team. Our core university partners--Duke, Florida
State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, Vanderbilt,
University of Virginia, and Virginia Tech, in addition to the
University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge Associated Universities--
ensure broad engagement of faculty and students in ORNL's
science programs.
Advancing Development by Leveraging Existing Assets.--ORNL has
unique facilities that enable nuclear R&D. Facilities such as
our hot cells and glove box facilities allow for the safe
handing, experimentation, and analysis of nuclear materials.
Such assets are vital to ensure our fundamental understanding
of nuclear materials and technologies and to further
innovation. Additionally, we use our world-class capabilities
such as the Spallation Neutron Source, the High Flux Isotope
Reactor, and the Titan high-performance computer to explore
materials and phenomena that are important for nuclear
applications.
Using the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN).--
ORNL is working with Idaho National Laboratory and Argonne
National Laboratory to implement the DOE's GAIN initiative,
which provides the nuclear community easier access to the
technical capabilities of the National Laboratories, with the
goal of enhancing innovation and moving technologies closer to
commercialization. GAIN enables access to nuclear and
radiological facilities, testing capabilities, and
computational capabilities; as well as information and data.
As reflected by GAIN, in order to deploy new reactor technologies,
we must change our approach. The timelines and economics are a hurdle,
but they can be overcome through new methods such as increased use of
modeling and simulation, use of advanced manufacturing techniques, and
development of new materials.
Modeling and Simulation has an Important Role to Play.--modeling
and simulation along with data exploration have joined
experiment and theory as the third and fourth pillars of
science, allowing researchers who make the most of
supercomputers to quickly draw conclusions from complex and
copious data. Large-scale computing underpins scientific
disciplines including materials science, chemistry, plasma
physics, astrophysics, biology, climate research, and nuclear
fission/fusion. ORNL supercomputers and support systems for
data generation, analysis, visualization, and storage
illuminate phenomena that are often impossible to study in a
laboratory. Simulations allow virtual testing of prototypes
before their actual construction and speed the development of
technology solutions.
Advanced Manufacturing Techniques will Add Efficiencies.--we are
also exploring new approaches to the production of qualified
components for nuclear energy service, such as additive
manufacturing (AM). ORNL is collaborating with equipment
manufacturers and end users to advance state-of-the-art
technologies and revolutionize the way products are designed
and built using AM technology. Drawing on its close ties with
industry and world-leading capabilities in materials
development, characterization, and processing, ORNL is creating
an unmatched environment for breakthroughs in AM.
Advances in Materials Science are Essential.--ORNL is a premier
materials laboratory where we are researching ways to reduce
the time from discovery to use. Additionally, we are exploring
how to extrapolate short time experiments and measurements to
the much longer times required for components in service.
Scientific investigation with neutrons gives researchers
unprecedented capabilities for understanding the structure and
properties of materials important in biology, chemistry,
physics, and engineering. ORNL provides two of the most
powerful neutron science facilities in the world--the
Spallation Neutron Source and the High Flux Isotope Reactor.
Through materials research, scientists are discovering
remarkable ways to address our energy needs.
The CASL (Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors)
DOE Energy Innovation Hub Experience
The ORNL experience in conceptualizing, organizing, and executing
the CASL mission to provide leading edge modeling and simulation
capability to improve the performance of current operating light water
reactors represents a valuable model. This is because many of the rapid
innovation aspects discussed above were successfully implemented in the
CASL methodology. Collaboration via partnerships across the government,
academic, and industrial sectors of the nuclear energy community
remains a core management principle of CASL, and multiple DOE National
Laboratories (ORNL, INL, SNL, LANL) are founding partners with critical
roles in addressing specific technical challenges. CASL has been a
widely acknowledged success as a direct result of these practices.
CASL has been developing the Virtual Environment for Reactor
Applications (VERA) software suite, which was recently recognized with
an R&D 100 award. VERA simulates nuclear reactor physical phenomena
using coupled multi-physics models including neutron transport,
thermal-hydraulics, fuel performance, and coolant chemistry. These CASL
tools are now being used in several areas for reactor analysis related
to confirmation of vendor analysis tools, analysis of reactor startups,
assessment of the risk of Corrosion-Related Unidentified Deposits
(CRUD) Induced Power Shift (CIPS), applications to investigate fuel
performance, and special studies that provide the physics simulation
and fidelity to address issues that industry codes cannot. Test stands
have been deployed at Westinghouse Electric Company, the Tennessee
Valley Authority, and the Electric Power Research Institute to enable
direct industry participation in the test and evaluation stage of CASL
technologies.
Examples of CASL applications include:
--Simulation of 14 cycles (20 years) of TVA Watts Bar Unit 1
operation and simulation of Watts Bar Unit 2 startup;
--Westinghouse simulation of the AP1000TM startup and
first cycle;
--CRUD and CIPS simulations by Duke Energy, AREVA, and NuScale; and
--Modeling of accident tolerant fuel designs at Westinghouse.
setting the pace for the future
To further the development of advanced reactor technologies, DOE
has established two projects under a Funding Opportunity Announcement
(FOA), and ORNL is participating in both projects. In the advanced
reactor arena, we are partners on:
--Molten Chloride Fast Reactor: A project led by Southern Company
Services, a subsidiary of Southern Company, focuses on molten
chloride fast reactors (MCFRs). The effort includes ORNL,
TerraPower, the Electric Power Research Institute, and
Vanderbilt University. The liquid-fueled MCFR is a molten salt
reactor design that offers advantages in terms of its
simplicity, fuel cycle, and efficiency. Compared to other
advanced reactor concepts, MCFRs could provide enhanced
operational performance, safety, security, and economic value.
--Xe-100 Pebble Bed Advanced Reactor: ORNL is also supporting a
project led by X-energy to develop the fuel manufacturing
methodology needed to supply the Xe-100 Pebble Bed Advanced
Reactor. Partners on the project include BWX Technologies Inc.,
Oregon State University, Teledyne-Brown Engineering, SGL Group,
and Idaho National Laboratory. The next-generation design,
advanced safety features, and small footprint of the pebble bed
high-temperature gas-cooled reactor will enable such a reactor
to serve a wide array of community and industry needs while
ensuring public safety.
Growing National Interest in Advanced Reactors
Collectively, our efforts must consider the entire fuel cycle
including the supply chain. Innovation and deployment of reactors does
not begin and end with just the reactor. There is clearly growing
national interest in the deployment of advanced reactors and the
associated fuel cycle as evidenced by the number of summits, symposia,
workshops, and other events over the past several years. Last month, at
ORNL we hosted our second Molten Salt Reactor Workshop, which was
attended by 185 representatives from industry, academia, and
government. In February 2016, we hosted the Nuclear Infrastructure
Council's Advanced Reactor Technical Summit III, which brought together
another 190 technologists focused on topics and methods for improving
the cost and deployment timeframe of advanced reactors. Once again,
industrial, academic, and government organizations were all
represented.
Such events reflect the collective sense of urgency in the electric
power generating community about the next steps for nuclear energy, and
the National Laboratories are an important part of those next steps.
conclusion
Nuclear energy faces a number of challenges and the National
Laboratories play a vital role in helping to meet those challenges. A
sustained R&D program is needed, with clear long-term goals. Effective
R&D programs will retire technical and regulatory risk, improve
economic competitiveness, develop the next generation of scientist and
engineers, establish advanced facility capabilities, and address the
entire fuel cycle. Rapid innovation will also be essential to achieve
success on the time-scale needed to replace capacity and to enable
deployment of new technologies.
ORNL is prepared to help address these compelling national
challenges, and we have already begun partnering with other National
Laboratories, industry, and academia to enable the rapid innovation
that will be required. With your continued support, together we can
succeed in bringing the best of our Nation's scientific understanding
and engineering prowess to bear on deploying the next generation of
carbon-free nuclear energy technologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with the
Subcommittee. I request that my written testimony be made a part of the
public record, and I would be happy to answer your questions.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Dr. Icenhour.
Dr. McKinzie, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DR. MATTHEW MCKINZIE, NUCLEAR PROGRAM
DIRECTOR AND SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Dr. McKinzie. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for providing the
Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, with this opportunity
to present our views on the future of nuclear power.
NRDC is a national non-profit organization of scientists,
lawyers, and environmental advocates with over 2 million
members and supporters. NRDC has been engaged with nuclear
energy and nuclear weapons since our founding in 1970, and NRDC
maintains a nuclear program, which I direct.
FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
The future of nuclear power in the United States is
uncertain and faces significant challenges. As we've heard,
most reactors will reach the end of their licenses and close in
the decades ahead, and some are at risk of near-term shutdown.
In addition to economic challenges, difficulties for
nuclear power arise from safety, security, proliferation, and
nuclear waste. And the role of nuclear power as a low-carbon
energy resource is being superseded by advances in energy
efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
Only four reactors are currently under construction in the
United States, four large AP1000 reactors, in Georgia and South
Carolina. One type of small modular reactor, the NuScale SMR,
may soon submit a license application to the NRC. So with many
nuclear closures and few nuclear builds, the future of nuclear
energy is one now of decline.
Today's hearing considers what are called advanced nuclear
reactors and how they could impact the future of nuclear power
and government support for their research and development.
To summarize my written testimony in a few words would be,
be very cautious on advanced nuclear. First, see what results
we get with our current government investment in new nuclear
projects, the AP1000s, the NuScale SMR, and, importantly,
prioritize unfinished business for nuclear, the waste issue,
among others.
For decades, nuclear scientists and engineers have sought
to develop advanced nuclear designs that reduce the amount of
waste generated, that lower nuclear weapons proliferation risk,
and that improve safety, but such benefits from advanced
nuclear are still theoretical, and importantly, there is no
evidence that advanced nuclear would be economically
competitive in the future.
In our testimony, NRDC respectfully offers five
recommendations for the subcommittee in consideration of the
government's role in advanced nuclear energy research and
development. So I'll go through these five recommendations.
Recommendation one, and I think this was echoed a lot in
today's hearing, give priority to solving the nuclear waste
problem. Many thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel must be
isolated from people and from the environment for millennia. So
our recommendation is site and construct a deep geologic
repository using a consent-based and science-based process
before spending money on advanced nuclear.
Recommendation two, wait on the construction of the AP1000s
and the NuScale SMR. Assess the lessons learned from these
projects for their safety, reliability, and cost before looking
at an advanced nuclear demonstration plan.
Recommendation three, consistently apply a nuclear weapons
proliferation test to advance nuclear designs among the energy
technology choices, for the United States nuclear power is
unique, and the overlaps between civilian energy technology and
nuclear weapons. The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation from
nuclear power can be managed, can attempt to be managed, but
never eliminated. Preventing proliferation is of utmost
importance for the future of nuclear energy.
Recommendation four, consider the full impacts of the
nuclear fuel cycle associated with advanced reactors, including
severe accidents. Many aspects of the light water reactor fuel
cycle are still not worked out, including, it hasn't come up
yet at this hearing, but the issue of decommissioning.
Recommendation five, get clear on the economic
competitiveness for advanced nuclear early on. NRDC feels like
history should teach us a caution--this was echoed in your
opening statement, Senator--that funding advanced nuclear
research and development for uneconomical designs can mean
taxpayers are then responsible for far greater sums in the
future.
To conclude, if an energy policy goal for subcommittee
members is to preserve the nuclear power option in the future,
then we hope you maintain a healthy dose of skepticism
regarding the benefits promised by advanced nuclear technology
concepts that seek taxpayer support.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew G. McKinzie, Ph.D.
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for providing the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. (NRDC) this opportunity to present our views on ``The
Future of Nuclear Power.''
NRDC is a national, non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers,
and environmental specialists, dedicated to protecting public health
and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC serves more than two million
members, supporters and environmental activists with offices in New
York, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman,
Montana, and Beijing. NRDC has been engaged with the environmental
issues surrounding nuclear energy and nuclear weapons since our
founding, and NRDC maintains a Nuclear Program staffed by a nuclear
physicist, a nuclear engineer, a radiation health physicist and an
attorney.
This testimony focuses on four topics: (1) the future of nuclear
power, including NRDC recommendations to the Subcommittee regarding
research, development and demonstration (RD&D) of advanced nuclear
reactors; (2) deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs); (3)
development and licensing of advanced nuclear reactors; and (4) nuclear
energy RD&D by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
the future of nuclear power
Facing significant challenges, the future of nuclear power in the
United States is uncertain. Today 99 reactors produce 19.5 percent of
U.S. electricity; most of these reactors will reach the end of their
current licenses and may close by mid-century, and approximately
fifteen percent of these reactors are at risk of near-term closure due
to market competition, including the possible need to replace expensive
major components. Only four reactors are currently under construction
in the United States. In addition to the economic challenges for
nuclear power, difficulties for nuclear power arise from safety,
security, proliferation and nuclear waste. The position of nuclear
power as a low-carbon energy resource is being superseded by advances
in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. A primary role
of the Federal Government in energy policy is to foster energy
technologies and energy systems with public benefit--prioritizing
values of energy sustainability and stability of supply at low cost and
without public health and environmental harms. NRDC is skeptical that
nuclear power can deliver these energy values in the future.
Nevertheless, the Federal Government will continue to play primary
roles in nuclear energy policy: in oversight of safety and security at
operating nuclear reactors; in preventing the proliferation of nuclear
weapons; and in disposing of spent nuclear fuel in one or more deep
geologic repositories. Other important roles of the Federal Government
include support of programs in nuclear engineering and science and in
health physics at our universities and national laboratories.
The future of nuclear power could be impacted by new nuclear
technologies. Today all reactors in the United States delivering
electricity to the grid use low-enriched uranium as fuel with light
water (i.e., water containing the natural proportions of hydrogen
isotopes) serving as the coolant and neutron moderator. These U.S.
light water reactors (LWRs) are of two basic designs: the Pressurized
Water Reactor (PWR) and the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), with the
latter making up about one-third of operating reactors. Of the new and
proposed nuclear power technologies--all as yet untested via operating
U.S. prototypes--the AP1000 and the NuScale SMR are PWRs, and similarly
use low enriched uranium as fuel and light water as the coolant and
moderator. But there are also a host of other nuclear technology
concepts being advocated for future Federal research and development
support that are varied in terms of potential technological attributes.
Termed ``advanced reactors,'' these include, but are not limited
to, the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR), the lead-cooled fast reactor
(LFR), the gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR), a variety of molten salt
reactor designs (MSRs), the high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR) and
very high temperature gas reactor (VHTGR). These can be designed as
large reactors or SMRs. DOE when referring to ``advanced reactors''
excludes LWRs. This is misleading because some of the non-LWR concepts
predate LWRs and there are new LWR designs, e.g., some SMRs, that are
more advanced that the current fleet of deployed LWRs. NRDC's testimony
will address selected advanced reactor concepts individually, and NRDC
respectfully offers five recommendations for the Subcommittee in
consideration of advanced nuclear energy research and development:
A. Prioritize solving the nuclear waste problem over the
demonstration of new nuclear technology;
B. Wait for the construction of domestic AP1000s and a prototype
SMR, and assess lessons learned from their safety, reliability
and potential economic competitiveness before entertaining
Federal cost sharing investments to license and construct non-
LWR advanced nuclear reactor demonstration plants;
C. Consistently apply a nuclear weapons proliferation test to
advanced nuclear designs;
D. Consider severe accident consequences and the full impacts of
the nuclear fuel cycle associated with advanced nuclear
reactors; and
E. Require greater clarity on likely economic competitiveness
for advanced nuclear designs earlier in the research and
development cycle.
These five recommendations address the varied impacts of nuclear
power and the legacies and lessons from past nuclear operations in the
United States.
A. Prioritize solving the nuclear waste problem over the demonstration
of new nuclear technology
Nuclear power has resulted in the production of approximately
72,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel which is currently stored at
operating nuclear power plants or decommissioning reactor sites at over
100 sites across the United States, and continued operation of existing
U.S. nuclear reactors will result in producing another 70,000 tons for
a total of over 140,000 tons by mid-century.\1\ Due to high levels of
radioactivity, this spent nuclear fuel must be isolated from people and
the environment for millennia, and thus is an intergenerational
problem. NRDC recommends to the Subcommittee that the Federal
Government should give higher priority to demonstrating the geologic
disposal of spent fuel and high level nuclear waste over demonstrating
advanced nuclear reactors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Moving Forward with Consent-Based Siting for Nuclear Waste
Facilities: Recommendations of the BPC Nuclear Waste Council,
Bipartisan Policy Center, September 2016, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/
library/consent-based-siting-nuclear-waste/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Wait for the construction of domestic AP1000s and a prototype SMR,
and assess lessons learned from their safety, reliability and
potential economic competitiveness before entertaining Federal
cost sharing investments to license and construct non-LWR
advanced nuclear reactor demonstration plants
The four nuclear power plants now under construction in the United
States in Georgia and South Carolina are all AP1000s. The engineering
goals of the AP1000 design are improved safety, increased operating
efficiencies and smaller physical footprint than currently operating
reactors. The four AP1000 construction projects are over budget and
behind schedule, with the target of early next decade for first
connection to the electric grid. Operator experience, capacity factors
and importantly the capital cost and operation and maintenance costs of
the AP1000 will remain uncertain until the completion of these
projects. Given that the AP1000 represents the bulk of today's Federal,
State and ratepayer investment in new nuclear power technology, the
AP1000 should be carefully assessed before further significant Federal
investment in advanced nuclear reactors, to determine whether the
AP1000 is likely to play a role in the future of nuclear power in the
United States.
Not as far along as the AP1000 is the SMR nuclear reactor concept.
The Federal Government is currently supporting work to prepare one SMR
design for license application at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)--the NuScale SMR--and may support construction of a
first NuScale SMR plant at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). If a first
comprehensive SMR license application is submitted to the NRC in 2016,
the NRC has outlined a license application review of 39 months, or
possibly through 2020. But there are many unknowns for SMR licensing
that impact cost and operations, for example the size of the SMR
Evacuation Planning Zone, and requirements on SMR plant staffing and
security. Given that the SMR represents a substantial current U.S.
Government investment in new approach to commercial nuclear power, the
SMR technology should be further assessed regarding its economic
viability before further Federal investment in non-LWR advanced nuclear
reactors, as the NuScale SMR may or may not be built.
C. Consistently apply a nuclear weapons proliferation test to advanced
nuclear designs
Among energy technology choices for the United States, nuclear
power is unique in that there are substantial overlaps between civilian
energy technology and military applications of this technology to
nuclear weapons. The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation can be
managed but not eliminated. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear
weapons remains a cornerstone of U.S. national security policy and is
of utmost importance in considering the future of nuclear power.
Proliferation risk depends on the design of a nuclear reactor,
safeguards on its operation, and the reactor's associated nuclear fuel
cycle. At the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the capacity to
enrich uranium for use as fuel in LWRs has the inherent potential to
produce highly-enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. At the back end of
the nuclear fuel cycle, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel confers the
technical potential to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
If spent nuclear fuel is not reprocessed, the fuel cycle is defined
as a ``once-through'' or ``open'' nuclear fuel cycle, and if spent fuel
is reprocessed (with or without reuse as reactor fuel), the nuclear
fuel cycle is defined as ``closed.'' As a general matter, the open
nuclear fuel cycle represents a significantly reduced proliferation
risk compared to a closed nuclear fuel cycle.
Advanced nuclear designs should reduce or at least not increase
proliferation risks compared with current LWR technology. Reactor
concepts that contemplate reprocessing spent fuel should not be pursued
during the foreseeable future.
D. Consider severe accident consequences and the full impacts of the
nuclear fuel cycle associated with advanced nuclear reactors
Full impacts of plant operations and the nuclear fuel cycle
include: uranium mining, enrichment and fuel fabrication; normal
nuclear plant operations and accident scenarios; decommissioning of
closed nuclear reactors and interim storage and final disposition of
spent fuel. There are substantial aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle for
current LWRs that must still be resolved. Three prominent examples are
the currently inadequate U.S. regulatory frameworks for In-Situ Leach
uranium mining, nuclear reactor decommissioning, and interim storage
and final disposition of spent nuclear fuel.
The full life cycle impacts of operations and the nuclear fuel
cycle need to be considered for advanced nuclear reactor designs early
in the research and development cycle.
E. Require clarity on economic competitiveness for advanced nuclear
designs early in the research and development cycle
Before significant Federal investing in research and development of
advanced nuclear technologies, there should be greater clarity on
economic competitiveness. The economic competitiveness of advanced
nuclear will incorporate issues identified above: safety, operations
and maintenance, decommissioning and waste.
As seen in recent nuclear reactor closures, the current market
competitiveness of LWR technology is fragile. The price of electricity
from AP1000 and SMR reactors will likely be at least as expensive or
more expensive than from currently operating reactors. While the AP1000
has the relative economic benefit of larger scale, the business model
for the SMR seeks to make up some of the competitive difference with
the AP1000 through efficiencies in construction, operation and
maintenance, and decommissioning. The price of electricity from
advanced nuclear will likely be more expensive than from AP1000 or
NuScale SMRs due to additional complexities of design and operations
for non-light water technologies.
The Federal Government should not invest research and development
funds into non-LWR advanced nuclear projects without early clarity on
economic competitiveness, as ultimately this will be one important
factor in whether the technology flourishes or becomes yet another
failed Federal effort to force nuclear energy onto the commercial
marketplace.
deployment of commercial small modular reactors
Over the past decade the status of SMRs has developed from initial
interest and exploratory work, through preliminary SMR design programs
by several consortia and businesses, and now to an imminent SMR design
certification application to the NRC by NuScale Power and Utah
Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS)--the first such SMR
licensing application in the United States. NuScale and UAMPS then plan
to apply to the NRC for a combined construction and operation license
in late 2017 or early 2018.\2\ In February 2016 DOE issued a Site Use
Permit to the UAMPS Carbon Free Power Project granting it access to the
Idaho National Lab site for the purposes of identifying potential
locations for the NuScale Power Plant.\3\ The license application to
the NRC will likely reference an SMR design containing up to 12 reactor
modules at the single UAMPS nuclear plant. DOE has played a substantial
role in SMR research and development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NuScale Power, LLC and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems
Combined Response to NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2015-07, June 17,
2015, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1517/ML15170A296.pdf.
\3\ U.S. Department of Energy Use Permit No. DE-NE700065, February
17, 2016, http://www.id.energy.gov/insideNEID/PDF/
DOE_UAMPS%20Use%20Permit%20DE-N700065.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC staff has developed a 39-month ``optimum baseline
schedule'' for evaluating the SMR license,\4\ but SMR licensing may
prove challenging. particularly with respect to the size of the
Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).\5\ Planning for nuclear accidents within
the EPZ is one of the government's most important responsibilities in
nuclear energy policy with the goal of averting and minimizing
radiation doses to people at risk from an accident. For an SMR, a
smaller EPZ reduces cost and opens potential new markets near
population centers, but with a corresponding loss of safety in defense
in depth. Other outstanding issue for SMR licensing that also implicate
SMR economics are requirements for site personnel and security,
safeguards against cyber threats for digital instrumentation and
controls, and decommissioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Status of the Office of New Reactors Readiness to Review Small
Modular Reactor Applications, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
August 28, 2014, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/
commission/secys/2014/2014-0095scy.pdf.
\5\ Ramana, M. V., Laura Berzak Hopkins, and Alexander Glaser.
``Licensing small modular reactors.'' Energy 61 (2013): 555-564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 50 MWe output of a single NuScale SMR module should be compared
with the approximately 100 GWe of current U.S. nuclear capacity.
Replacing current U.S. nuclear capacity with NuScale SMRs would require
approximately 2,000 NuScale reactors. The business model for the SMR
includes favorable assumptions about cost savings from assembly-line
manufacturing and industrial learning; however NRDC cautions members of
the Subcommittee to visualize the vast scale of SMR adoption that would
be required to have any impact on future U.S. nuclear energy use. While
the regulatory hurdles and future operational uncertainties of the
NuScale SMR project are substantial, the NuScale SMR design is better
understood than advanced non-light water nuclear reactor designs.
development and licensing of advanced nuclear reactors
For decades, nuclear scientists and engineers have sought to
develop reactor designs that involve one or more of the following
goals: reduce the amount of nuclear waste generated, involve the
production or handling of weapons-useable nuclear material, and lower
the likelihood or the consequence of severe accidents. The current
leading concepts for advanced non-LWRs also pursue some of these goals.
While there are many non-LWR advanced nuclear technologies in early
stages of development (many of them based on ideas from early in
nuclear power programs), no advanced nuclear design has demonstrated
any of these goals in a working prototype. These benefits of advanced
nuclear are still theoretical at present. More importantly there is no
evidence that any would be economically competitive with renewable
energy technologies or even with the AP1000 or the NuScale SMR.
From a practical standpoint, advanced reactors are just different
reactor types that must compete economically with energy resources that
are currently available, including renewable energy resources. Past
experiences with non-LWRs has been largely unsuccessful. Some non-LWR
advanced nuclear reactor designs use fast neutrons to sustain
criticality (in comparison to light water reactors that use slow or
thermal neutrons), and some non-LWR designs breed and burn additional
fissile material during operations. Dozens of fast breeder reactors
were built and have operated for varied lengths of time since the
1950s.\6\ Because of the high costs and reliability and safety issues
for fast breeders, no commercial breeder reactors have been deployed in
a competitive energy market setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Cochran, Thomas B., et al. ``Fast breeder reactor programs:
history and status.'' International Panel on Fissile Materials (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a consensus within the scientific community that advanced
nuclear will remain a costlier nuclear technology option than LWRs
until a speculative, future period of uranium scarcity not anticipated
before the end of this century. For example, a 2011 study by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology ``The Future of the Nuclear Fuel
Cycle'' concluded: ``There is no shortage of uranium resources that
might constrain future commitments to build new nuclear plants for much
of this century at least. . . . For the next several decades, a once
through fuel cycle using light water reactors (LWRs) is the preferred
economic option for the U.S. and is likely to be the dominant feature
of the nuclear energy system in the U.S. and elsewhere for much of this
century. Improvements in light-water reactor designs to increase the
efficiency of fuel resource utilization and reduce the cost of future
reactor plants should be a principal research and development focus.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Kazimi, Mujid, et al. ``The future of the nuclear fuel cycle.''
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some proponents of advanced nuclear reactor designs argue that
these reactors coupled with a closed nuclear fuel cycle will address
the nuclear waste problem. But, in reality, advanced nuclear will
increase the U.S. nuclear waste burden, and the root of the nuclear
waste problem is the lack of geologic disposal sites for the waste from
any kind of nuclear power reactor.
Advanced reactors concepts differ substantially in design and
operation, including nuclear fuel cycle aspects, from the currently
licensed and operating U.S. light water reactors. There are many
advanced nuclear reactor design concepts. The United States is part of
the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) \8\, a collaboration among
14 countries ``on the development of advanced next generation nuclear
energy systems.'' Members of GIF evaluated 130 advanced nuclear reactor
concepts and selected six technologies for further research and
development focus: gas-cooled fast reactor; lead-cooled fast reactor;
molten salt reactor; super-critical water-cooled reactor; sodium-cooled
fast reactor; and very high temperature reactor. But even with respect
to these six categories of advanced nuclear reactor concepts, the
designs are varied and utilize thermal or fast neutrons, incorporate
closed and open fuel cycles, and envision reactor sizes from very small
to very large. The GIF defines technology goals for advanced nuclear
as: ``Sustainability, economics, safety and reliability, and
proliferation resistance and physical protection.'' Within the GIF, the
United States has expressed commitment to two of these advanced nuclear
designs: the sodium-cooled fast reactor (with a closed nuclear fuel
cycle) and the very high temperature reactor (with an open or closed
fuel cycle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GEN IV International Forum: https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/
c_9260/public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January of this year DOE announced \9\ a selection of two
companies for a multi-year cost share of up to $80 million in total to
further develop advanced nuclear designs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Http://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-
investments-advanced-nuclear-power-reactors-help-meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--X-energy \10\--partnering with BWX Technology, Oregon State
University, Teledyne-Brown Engineering, SGL Group, Idaho
National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory to solve
design and fuel development challenges of the Xe-100 Pebble Bed
Advanced Reactor; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Http://www.x-energy.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Southern Company Services \11\--partnering with TerraPower,
Electric Power Research Institute, Vanderbilt University, and
Oak Ridge National Laboratory to perform integrated effects
tests and materials suitability studies to support development
of the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Http://www.southerncompany.com/news/2016-01-15-so-nuclear-
technology.cshtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The X-energy advanced reactor concept is for a high temperature
gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) design utilizing the thermal neutron spectrum
and consisting of a ``four-pack'' of 50MWe units together generating
200MWe. HTGRs can operate with an open or closed fuel cycle.\12\ A
review \13\ of the history of this technology has highlighted severe
hurdles this technology must overcome: ``HTGRs are prone to a wide
variety of small failures, including graphite dust accumulation,
ingress of water or oil, and fuel failures. Some of these could be the
trigger for larger failures or accidents, with more severe
consequences.'' The economic outlook for the Xe-100 advanced nuclear
design would also face challenges in high capital cost for power plant
construction, lower capacity factors and a reduced operating lifetime.
The DOE Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program tried to
commercialize the HTGR \14\ but failed because no industrial entity was
willing to cost-share with the U.S. Government on an annual 50-50 cost
sharing basis. In other words, the DOE has already tried to develop
this option once without success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Piet, Steven J., Samuel E. Bays, and Nick R. Soelberg. ``HTGR
Technology Family Assessment for a Range of Fuel Cycle Missions.''
Idaho National Laboratory: Idaho Falls, ID (2010).
\13\ Ramana, M. V. ``The checkered operational history of high-
temperature gas-cooled reactors.'' Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
72.3 (2016): 171-179.
\14\ Kadak, Andrew C. ``The Status of the US High-Temperature Gas
Reactors.'' Engineering 2.1 (2016): 119-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company-led advanced reactor concept is for a molten
salt design utilizing the fast neutron spectrum. The molten salt
reactor concept was developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the
1960s, but it has not been developed commercially. The Molten Chloride
Fast Reactor has many technical challenges in materials and
construction. The program managed by Southern is focused on
benchmarking calculations with data from testing in a non-nuclear
environment, for example: material corrosion rates, synthesis methods
for fuel salts, salt properties, thermal hydraulics, heat capacities,
and viscosities. Fundamental questions remain before costing and
construction estimates can provide a sense of the possibility for
licensing and commercialization of the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor.
NRDC recommends scrutiny of this program with respect to several key
questions: Have the corrosion problems for molten salt been
sufficiently addressed with respect to the requirements of a commercial
plant? Will the associated nuclear fuel cycle separate fissile material
from the bulk of the salt? How will nuclear weapons materials be
accounted for in proliferation safeguards?
The practical nuclear engineering and economic hurdles inherent in
these technologies are such that NRDC questions whether advanced
nuclear will ever be commercialized and therefore even shoulder a small
fraction of energy demand in fast evolving energy markets that address
the pressing needs of mitigating climate change. Furthermore, as an
environmental advocacy organization, NRDC has concerns that advanced
nuclear may serve as a distraction to the rapid, continued scale-up of
existing, economically viable and proven solutions to the threat of
climate change from wind, solar energy efficiency, and other clean
sustainable energy technologies. Moreover, some advanced nuclear fuel
cycles, if adopted by the United States and imitated aboard, present
new safety, environmental and proliferation challenges that the world
in its present state is ill-equipped to handle.
recommendations about nuclear energy research and development at the
u.s. department of energy
The DOE's May 2016 draft ``Vision and Strategy for the Development
and Deployment of Advanced Reactors'' correctly prioritizes addressing
the problem of climate change; \15\ however in reality advanced non-
light water reactor technology is today only remotely relevant to
carbon mitigation due to cost, safety and design uncertainties and the
very extended roll-out times that would be required. NRDC disagrees
with DOE's assessment that ``sustaining a substantial nuclear presence
in the U.S. power mix beyond 2050 will almost certainly require the
development and deployment of a new generation of advanced reactors''
given current uncertainties with advanced nuclear and that performance
data for the first AP1000 reactors and potentially for the first SMR is
still forthcoming and central to this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/draft-vision-and-strategy-
development-and-deployment-advanced-reactors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this draft vision and strategy document, DOE has stated a goal
of: ``By the early 2030s, at least two non-light water advanced reactor
concepts would have reached technical maturity, demonstrated safety and
economic benefits, and completed licensing reviews by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) sufficient to allow construction to go
forward.'' From NRDC's perspective this is not a reasonable goal, as it
presumes the technical need for and economic competitiveness of
advanced nuclear which are far from being demonstrated. Instead, DOE's
role for advanced nuclear should be small investments in research and
development in areas such as computer modeling and materials science
that also have applications for nuclear safety, for nuclear non-
proliferation and for non-nuclear energy technologies, such as the use
of molten salt for energy storage in renewable generation.
Advanced nuclear reactor designs with their associated nuclear fuel
cycles require vigilant attention to nuclear weapons proliferation.
NRDC recommends that DOE commission a ``red team'' study that would
seek to exploit the proliferation potential of advanced nuclear energy
options, looking at different scenarios --proliferation intent at time
of adoption of the advanced nuclear technology, sudden breakout to
nuclear weapons capability from a civilian nuclear power program that
uses advanced nuclear reactors, or a gradual accumulation of nuclear
weapons materials and infrastructure over decades of advanced nuclear
power generation leading to establishment of a nuclear arsenal. The
nuclear weapons design capacities at the U.S. National Laboratories
would be a resource to draw on for such a red team study.
Nuclear energy research and development at the DOE is the spending
of taxpayers' money. Given this fact, it is important to consider these
DOE programs in the context of substantial existing Federal subsidies
for nuclear energy. A 2011 study published by the Union of Concerned
Scientists \16\ found that: ``subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have
often exceeded the value of the power produced. This means that buying
power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been
less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of nuclear
power plants.'' Thus, government support for nuclear energy is very
broad, and not limited to research and development. NRDC recommends
this history should invoke caution from the Subcommittee, as approval
of funding advanced nuclear research and development for uneconomical
designs can mean taxpayers are then responsible for far greater sums in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Koplow, Douglas N. Nuclear power: Still not viable without
subsidies. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011. http://www.ucsusa.org/
sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_
power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
The future of nuclear energy in the United States is uncertain and
challenged. In addition to economic challenges for nuclear power,
difficulties arise from economics, safety, security, proliferation and
nuclear waste, and the value of nuclear power as a low-carbon energy
resource is being superseded by advances in energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies.
In consideration of DOE research and development support for
advanced nuclear, NRDC respectfully offers five recommendations to the
Subcommittee: prioritize solving the nuclear waste problem; assess the
prototype AP1000 and SMR before considering further Federal investment
in advanced nuclear; consistently apply a nuclear weapons proliferation
test to advanced nuclear designs; consider the full impacts of severe
accidents and the nuclear fuel cycle associated with advanced nuclear
reactors; and require greater clarity on the likely economic
competitiveness of advanced nuclear designs early in the research and
development cycle.
If a public policy goal for Subcommittee members is to preserve the
nuclear power option for the United States in the future, NRDC
recommends maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism regarding the
putative benefits promised by the numerous advanced nuclear technology
concepts seeking taxpayer support for their development.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Dr. McKinzie.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
Mr. McKinzie, you know, it's interesting because we have no
nuclear waste policy in this country. And as such, we pile up
fines, I think it's $20 million a year, which are in the
hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet still fail to act.
You've looked at this. Why does that happen? I mean, why
wouldn't the industry want a nuclear waste policy? Why wouldn't
they want a nuclear policy, a process by which this--we've
debated it, we've discussed it, and come to the conclusion, you
know, that it has to be practical, it has to be voluntary,
States have to want it.
We have one in New Mexico, WIPP, the people of WIPP and
around it want it, they take great pride in it. A stupid
accident for even the most sophisticated agency, Los Alamos,
who contracts out the kitty litter, and they use the wrong
kitty litter, and it explodes.
So it's very hard for some of us to conceive of a future
that's properly carried out. And now that these SMRs are being
proposed, I am told that the only way they're cost--they're
economically cost efficient is if they're grouped together. So
if you're going to put four 300- or 400-megawatt reactors in
one place, you still have to deal with the waste. How do you do
that?
So I guess I've really developed a very jaundiced view
about the practicality in this country and the ability--I mean
I was alerted by what Senator Shaheen said about the concrete.
And without going into it, John Deutch said, well, that's a
serious problem. Now I'll go and look and find out exactly what
it is.
So if either of you have some comments to make, because I
think our first responsibility is safety to the public, is to
see that these things are secure, that the waste is secure,
that they are as functional and efficient and well built as
they possibly can be, sited appropriately, run scrupulously,
and that's difficult to have happen.
And so it doesn't surprise me that people coming up or
companies coming up for relicensing may opt not to go ahead.
Dr. McKinzie. I would--if I could be very candid on why I
think industry hasn't supported a nuclear waste solution in a
vigorous way, I think it would be because the current waste
situation is consistent with the industry's business model,
storage of spent nuclear fuel, mostly in wet pools, some in dry
cask, at reactor site. That's fine with the business model.
NRDC objects to the NRC finding that long-term storage of
spent nuclear fuel in wet pools, in densely packed wet pools,
doesn't represent an incredible danger, an incredible risk, but
yet that is tolerated by the regulator. And so there just is
inertia in the industry.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I think, and somebody correct me
if I'm wrong, but I believe you store them for 5 to 7 years,
and then they should be removed from the spent fuel pool, and
they should be put in dry casks, hopefully transportation dry
casks, so that they can be moved then to a permanent waste
facility, which we don't have.
And so I can only speak for California, which I know these
things are just stacking up. And, yes, there's a very real
danger in spent fuel pools. If the water disappears, if the
pool is fragmented by an earthquake, and you have all these hot
rods, 3,300, piled up, it's a big problem.
So--but no one seems to care. That's what really bothers
me. Nobody seems to care.
Dr. McKinzie. It's a very difficult problem. The NRDC
advocates for a consent-based and science-based approach on
deep geologic repositories. That also includes authority at the
State level for regulating radioactive materials. That's not
there. That is a component of WIPP, and we believe why WIPP was
able to go forward in the first place, but we believe that
State authority in regulating radioactive materials with
respect to repository is a key element to include.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SAFETY RECORD OF NUCLEAR POWER
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Thanks to both of you. I'll have just a couple of comments.
I would not want people to leave this hearing without a
different view being expressed about the safety of nuclear
power. There has never been a death in connection with the
commercial operation of nuclear reactors in the United States
since they began. There's never been a death attributable to
reactors in the Navy since the 1950s, when they began. The only
most celebrated accident we had in the United States was Three
Mile Island in 1979, and despite years of testing of everybody
in the area, no one was hurt.
So based on the safety record, no other form of energy has
a better safety record. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
which has extensive careful regulation, has determined that the
used fuel is safely stored for many years in the places where
it is, which is onsite.
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
And I agree that we need to move it, and I would like to
get it out of California, too, but we have a place to put it,
and the place is Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and the law says
that's where it should go, and the courts say that's what the
law says, and the scientists have said that it's safe there for
a million years. And Yucca Mountain is large enough to accept
all of the used nuclear fuel that we have stored onsite in the
United States today. So we have a stalemate in the Congress.
The reason we haven't passed the legislation Senator
Feinstein and I would like to pass is because we take the
position that we should move ahead on all tracks at once, and
if we get stuck on one, we should still--namely, Yucca--we
should continue to move on the others. Some of those who
strongly support Yucca Mountain say, well, if you don't move on
Yucca, you're not going to move on anything.
Well, we've got to solve that. That's our responsibility
really. The help of others would support our position, that's
true, but that's our responsibility to work out, and we're
going to continue to try to do that.
ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS
Dr. Icenhour, I just have maybe one or two questions. You
heard the testimony about the proposal for two advanced
reactors to be licensed and ready for construction in the 2030s
from Dr. Deutch's report. Do you think the goal is achievable?
And if so, what do you think it will take to accomplish it?
Dr. Icenhour. Yes, Senator, I do believe that is
achievable. And one of the things I reflect on, I like history
also, as Senator Feinstein said, and when I drive into Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, I drive past the graphite reactor,
and that's a lesson in history of what this country can do, a
reactor that was built in 9 months, went critical in November
1943. And that just reminds me of what we can do when we decide
to do something. And so the question is, how do we get there?
We have to, first of all, decide to do it and move forward,
much like Mr. Deutch was saying. We have to decide we're going
to do this. We have to set clear goals. We have to have focused
effort, focused R&D, that will help move us along the way. And
it will take a public-private partnership to do this.
And then the final element I would add is along the way we
have to continue to work with NRC to have the appropriate
regulatory framework in place.
ADVANCED MODELING AND SIMULATION
Senator Alexander. All right. Dr. Icenhour, you talked
about the big computers at Oak Ridge and the work you're doing
on modeling and simulation. As we talk about relicensing,
taking, say, Seabrook maybe from 40 years to 60 years, or
taking some of the existing reactors from 60 years to 80 years,
which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering, how can
the supercomputers you work with help with determining whether
it's safe and appropriate to do that or not?
Dr. Icenhour. Well, one example of that, Senator, is, of
course, the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water
Reactors, or CASL, which has developed a very high-fidelity
model of a nuclear reactor, and so we're able to understand
that very clearly what's happening with the reactor and as
changes occur.
And so it's the use of advanced modeling and simulation
coupled with experimental data that can help enable the
understanding and help inform the basis for moving forward for
life extensions.
NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Senator Alexander. Dr. McKinzie, you work for a well-
recognized group, the Natural Resources Defense Council. I
would assume you and the Council are concerned about climate
change?
Dr. McKinzie. Yes, we are.
Senator Alexander. Dr. Deutch said his committee was
unanimous that if we didn't take some action, that by 2030, we
wouldn't have nuclear power option going forward in the United
States, so we would lose 20 percent of our electricity and 60
percent of our carbon-free electricity. Do you think that helps
us deal with climate change?
Dr. McKinzie. I would--I question the 2030 as a cliff where
all of that power suddenly turns off. It will be more like a
ramp down in power as different units reach different ages
and----
Senator Alexander. Well, this testimony, unanimous by a
widely divergent committee, was that if we hadn't acted by
2030, the option would be gone, which I guess means that by
then, we wouldn't have a way to continue it as, over the next
20 years, the rest of the reactors closed.
Dr. McKinzie. Addressing climate change is a critical
problem that requires a transformation in how our country, how
the world, generates and consumes energy. In the United States
right now, we have a mix----
Senator Alexander. Well, wait a minute. My question is, do
you think that we--that it helps dealing with climate change to
lose the nuclear option by 2030, as his Task Force unanimously
said would happen?
Dr. McKinzie. I'm a skeptic that nuclear will be able to
deliver the energy, the low-carbon energy that we need to
address climate change----
Senator Alexander. Well, but today it produces 60 percent
of our carbon-free electricity.
Dr. McKinzie. But it has an uncertain future.
Senator Alexander. Well, but how much of our carbon-free
electricity does wind power produce today?
Dr. McKinzie. Oh, wind power produces less carbon-free
energy than nuclear, but renewable energy, energy efficiency,
it has really made incredible advances recently and showing
itself as a lower cost option than nuclear for addressing
climate change, and I believe that progress will continue.
Senator Alexander. So you would be comfortable with losing
the nuclear option in terms of our country's ability to deal
with climate change.
Dr. McKinzie. I am uncomfortable with unresolved problems
for nuclear energy, unsolved problems. I believe that
pragmatically nuclear will continue at a lower level into the
future. I don't imagine it vanishing. We have the four AP1000
reactors under construction.
So I think that a scenario in which everything is gone by
2030 is perhaps too negative for nuclear energy, but I'm a
skeptic that nuclear can continue to contribute at its current
level.
Senator Alexander. What would replace it?
Dr. McKinzie. Well, the Department of Energy's own national
laboratories have seen a scenario where renewable energy can be
the dominant source of clean energy in the future.
Senator Alexander. Meaning windmills.
Dr. McKinzie. Solar, wind----
Senator Alexander. Solar is today less than 1 percent of
our electricity, right?
Dr. McKinzie. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Alexander. And wind is about 3 or 4 percent of our
electricity.
Dr. McKinzie. But the recent growth has been extraordinary,
and that trend we believe will continue.
Senator Alexander. And the wind is available when the wind
blows, and the solar is available when the sun shines.
Dr. McKinzie. There is an issue of base load versus non-
base-load generation to contend with. I would say that our--the
transmission grid is evolving in time and changing in time and
adapting to a variable generation as well as there will
probably be advances in storage.
I think that nuclear will probably play a role in the
future. I'm not sure how large. And I do know there are
longstanding problems to solve first.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Senator Alexander. So you do agree that finding a way to
store used nuclear fuel, I believe it was your testimony, is an
urgent----
Dr. McKinzie. Absolutely.
Senator Alexander. So you support opening Yucca Mountain?
Dr. McKinzie. No, NRDC does not support opening----
Senator Alexander. Why not? The law says it should, the
court says the law says that, and the scientists say it's safe
for a million years there.
Dr. McKinzie. Well, the process of restarting the Yucca
Mountain project would begin with the license application, and
resolving over 200 contentions, new and significant information
that may actually necessitate starting from scratch in terms of
the license----
Senator Alexander. So you think we can open another
repository more rapidly than we could complete Yucca Mountain?
Dr. McKinzie. We believe that Yucca Mountain will likely
fail, and so we do need to go back to basics in----
Senator Alexander. But do you believe we can open--so you--
it would fail because groups like yours don't support doing it
even though the science says it's safe there for a million
years, and the law says we should do it.
Dr. McKinzie. We don't believe it would be able to get
through the licensing process. NRDC is not party to the
licensing process.
Senator Alexander. Yucca Mountain would be large enough to
hold all the stored nuclear fuel in the country that we have
today, correct?
Dr. McKinzie. Modifications to Yucca Mountain are
envisioned that would enable it to store more fuel and require
it to include things like titanium drip shields to prevent
migration of the waste.
Senator Alexander. Wait just a minute. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has testified here that Yucca Mountain is
large enough to hold all of the stored--all of the nuclear fuel
that's currently stored at the approximately 100 reactors in
the country. You disagree with that?
Dr. McKinzie. No, I don't disagree with that, if you're
talking about the 77,000 tons that are stored currently. But
the United States will generate again as much between now and
mid-century.
Senator Alexander. Right. And so my view is that we should
open Yucca Mountain, put the fuel we have there, move it out of
California, other places where it is, and open new
repositories, maybe a private repository, and solve our
stalemate.
Well, in any event, we've had a terrific wide range of
views here today, both from the Senators and from expert
witnesses.
Dr. McKinzie, Dr. Icenhour, thank you both so much for
being a part of our discussion.
The hearing record will remain open for 5 days. All
statements submitted by witnesses and Senators will be included
in the record. The subcommittee requests all responses for the
record be provided within 30 days of receipt.
If either of you have something you would like for us to
consider that you didn't have a chance to say today or when you
go home you wish you had said, if you'll send it to us, we'll
distribute it to the other Senators.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Alexander. We thank you very much for taking your
time to be here.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., Wednesday, November 16, the
hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]