[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ADVANCING NUCLEAR ENERGY:
POWERING THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-75
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-516 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana JERRY McNERNEY, California
GARY PALMER, Alabama ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona BILL FOSTER, Illinois
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas MARK TAKANO, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
GARY PALMER, Alabama JERRY McNERNEY, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina MARK TAKANO, California
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
September 27, 2018
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Marc A. Veasey, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Written Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 14
Witnesses:
Mr. Edward McGinnis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Mr. Harlan Bowers, President, X-energy
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 24
Dr. John Parsons, Co-Chair, MIT Study on the Future of Nuclear
Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Dr. John Wagner, Associate Laboratory Director, Nuclear Science &
Technology, Idaho National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Discussion....................................................... 47
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Edward McGinnis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy...................... 70
Mr. Harlan Bowers, President, X-energy........................... 74
ADVANCING NUCLEAR ENERGY: POWERING THE FUTURE
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy
Weber [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
So welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Advancing Nuclear
Energy: Powering the Future.'' I recognize myself for five
minutes for an opening statement.
Today, we're going to hear from a panel of experts on
advanced nuclear energy research in the United States and
discuss what we can do as a nation to advance this critical
area of science. We'll also discuss the implementation of my
bill, S. 97, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act.
Nuclear energy, as we all would agree I believe, is a
critical part of U.S. energy security. Currently, the 99
nuclear power plants in the United States operating fleet
generate about 20 percent of the total electrical output in the
United States. Nuclear also provides 60 percent of our
emissions-free electricity.
Unfortunately, our commercial nuclear fleet today is made
up entirely of light-water nuclear reactor designs using
traditional nuclear fuels. Coupled with a long regulatory
process, these reactors have become too big, too expensive, and
too risky for utilities to undertake. So that means our nuclear
fleet is dwindling at the exact moment when we need it to grow.
You don't need to look further than this week's news to see the
hurdles facing those attempting to build new traditional
nuclear plants in this country.
However, advanced nuclear reactors are positioned to change
the way nuclear power is sourced, produced, and managed.
Decades of early-stage nuclear research conducted at the DOE
national labs and renewed investment by private companies are
breathing new life into this industry.
As we drafted our nuclear legislation, we met with dozens
of these stakeholders working to develop unique and innovative
reactor designs. What we heard over and over again was that,
despite federal and industry investment, a significant number
of research challenges remain for these reactor technologies
before they are ready for the commercial license application
process. We believe that my bill, S. 97, will help address
these challenges. This bill directs DOE to partner with
industry to construct and operate reactor prototypes at DOE
national labs, and authorizes key research infrastructure
needed for next-generation nuclear R&D.
We know that DOE has the expertise to lead in this arena.
After all, researchers at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) have
designed and constructed 52 pioneering nuclear reactors to
date. Our national labs provide a unique environment that
safely allows for testing and development of advanced nuclear
technology without a burdensome regulatory process that can
slow progress to an absolute crawl.
While modeling and simulation can speed research, nuclear
fuels and technologies must be validated through direct
experimentation in the lab. That's why the cornerstone of this
bill is the authorization of construction of the Versatile
Neutron Source, a research reactor capable of producing the
fast neutrons needed to test so many of those advanced reactor
designs.
I look forward to hearing from the Department and from
Idaho National Lab today on what steps have been taken to
accelerate construction of this critical research facility. In
order to maintain our leadership in nuclear power, the United
States must continue developing cutting-edge technology right
here at home. We cannot afford to miss the economic opportunity
provided by the next generation of nuclear technology, and we
cannot let our best scientists and engineers go overseas.
Through the implementation of S. 97, we will also
strengthen America's ability to influence security and
proliferation standards around the world as more and more
developing nations look to nuclear energy to help grow their
economies. I believe that with their diverse size and power
capabilities, advanced nuclear reactors could also bring clean,
affordable power to the most remote areas of the world. We have
a responsibility to make sure that these reactors are safe and
reliable.
I want to thank Ranking Member Johnson and Chairman Smith
for their years of leadership in advocating for nuclear energy
R&D, and for helping to get our bill to the President's desk.
As always, I'm very grateful for the opportunity to work
alongside my Science Committee colleagues and Senate
counterparts to prioritize fundamental research that will
support nuclear innovation while keeping Americans safe,
independent, and globally competitive.
Today, we will also hear about the next steps for nuclear
R&D. Whether it's focusing on fuels research or expanding lab
capabilities, there will be more work to do to ensure we
encourage innovation and make smart investments with Americans'
tax dollars. I hope we can continue to work together on these
issues in the years ahead.
I want to thank the witnesses in advance for their
testimony, and I'm looking forward to a productive discussion
about how to best take advantage of this exciting and pivotal
moment for advanced nuclear technology in the United States.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I now recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding
this hearing, and I really want to thank the panelists, too. We
have an esteemed group of panelists that have joined us this
morning to talk about a very important subject, and that is the
future of an advanced nuclear industry, an industry that may
well be a player in realizing our goal of a less-carbon-energy
future.
Historically, nuclear energy has faced a number of
challenges, including high costs, long construction times, and
safety concerns. However, in recent years, new design concepts
and technologies have emerged with a focus on addressing these
and other common concerns with nuclear energy.
Advanced nuclear reactor designs have a number of benefits
over the current generation of nuclear reactors. They
incorporate passive safety features that prevent accidents due
to human error. They have much lower waste and use nuclear fuel
much more efficiently, and they can be manufactured in
factories instead of onsite, reducing costs and shortening
construction times.
These new designs could disrupt the U.S. energy portfolio,
but for that to happen, we need to make the right investments,
and that's why I'm pleased that Democratic and Republican
Members of Congress came together earlier this month to pass
the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act. This bipartisan
bill will provide the tools and resources that our scientists
and engineers in government, academia, and industry need for us
to be the world leader in producing the next generation of
nuclear power plant.
This bill authorizes a new user facility that researchers
and entrepreneurs will be able to use to test and develop new
fuels and materials for novel nuclear reactor designs. It also
supports investments in high-performance computing to help
accelerate R&D of advanced nuclear reactors without the need
for costly and premature investments in physical
infrastructure.
And lastly, this bill authorizes a cost-share program with
industry to help offset the substantial price of licensing
these first-of-a-kind reactors with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, which is currently considered to be a major barrier
to ultimately deploying these advanced technologies.
Beyond the implementation of this bill, I'm looking forward
to the testimony of all of our witnesses here today to discuss
other issues and ideas that Congress should consider as we aim
to accelerate the development of the advanced nuclear industry.
I'm especially interested in hearing from Dr. Parsons, who
brings a unique big-picture view of the challenges that the
industry is currently facing, as well as the potential for
advanced nuclear energy to enable our clean-energy future.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Veasey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you. I'm going to make the next
introduction for the next opening statement, but before I do, I
want to exercise a personal privilege. The gentleman from Texas
that I'm about to introduce is going to be leaving us at the
end of this session, and I want to say that he has been a
leader among leaders. He has been an absolute brilliant
Chairman on more than one committee. He's thoughtful, he's
focused, he's been good for America. Please help me in
congratulating Chairman Lamar Smith.
[Applause.]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was not
expected.
Chairman Weber. Well, I haven't recognized you yet.
Chairman Smith. And I appreciate your spreading those nice
rumors. You've set a high standard, and I just have to come
part way to achieving those, but many, many thanks.
Also, thanks to the witnesses for taking the time to be
here as well.
Today, we will hear about the implementation of Science
Committee legislation, S. 97, the Nuclear Energy Innovation
Capabilities Act, which just two weeks ago unanimously cleared
the House for the President's signature. Nuclear fission has
been a proven source of safe and emission-free energy for over
half a century. As this Committee has repeatedly heard,
advanced nuclear energy technology is the best opportunity to
make reliable, safe, and emission-free power available
throughout the modern and developing world. This new nuclear
power technology represents one of the most promising areas for
growth and innovation, increasing economic prosperity and
lowering the cost of electricity over time.
Because of technical challenges and the high regulatory
costs associated with licensing commercial reactors, the DOE
national laboratory system plays an important role in
supporting nuclear innovation. National labs can host critical
research infrastructure, while DOE researchers can investigate
the fundamental scientific questions that are key to the
development of next-generation nuclear fuels and reactor
designs. This approach maximizes the impact of federal research
dollars and facilitates the development of a wide variety of
nuclear technologies.
The Science Committee's legislation, S. 97, prioritizes
infrastructure and early-stage nuclear R&D. The bill leverages
DOE's state-of-the-art supercomputers to accelerate the
development of advanced reactors. It also creates a reliable
mechanism for the private sector to partner with DOE labs. This
allows industry to build prototype reactors at DOE sites and
creates another pathway for American nuclear entrepreneurs to
move innovative reactor technology to market. Most importantly,
the bill authorizes construction of a research reactor--or
Versatile Neutron Source--at a DOE site. The safe development
of advanced nuclear technology at DOE sites will provide access
to DOE resources and expertise and fast-track the regulatory
process.
After four years of bipartisan collaboration, I'd like to
thank my colleagues, particularly Energy Subcommittee Chairman
Randy Weber, Ranking Member Marc Veasey, and Science Committee
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, for their initiative on
this subject.
It is critical that we develop the next generation of
nuclear reactors here at home. Our witnesses today can provide
guidance on the next steps Congress should take to ensure
American innovators have the tools they need to develop this
groundbreaking technology.
I look forward to hearing about the ways in which DOE and
the national labs plan to implement this legislation, and how
we can continue to build on the history of American leadership
in nuclear power.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our first witness today is Mr. Edward McGinnis, the
Department of Energy's Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
the Office of Nuclear Energy. He's from New Orleans. Prior to
his current role, he served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for International Nuclear Energy Policy and Cooperation, which
included the role of Steering Group Chairman of the
International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation. Mr.
McGinnis has also served as a Vice Chairman and a Principal
United States Representative to the Generation IV International
Forum. Mr. McGinnis has also served as a Senior Advisor and
Special Assistant to four Assistant Secretaries and Deputy
Administrators for Nonproliferation and National Security at
the Department of Energy.
He holds a master's degree from the American University
School of International Service and is a graduate of the
Kennedy School's Senior Executive Fellows Program, as well as
the program for Senior Executives in National and International
Security at Harvard University. Welcome, Mr. McGinnis.
Our next witness is Mr. Harlan Bowers. Am I saying that
right?
Mr. Bowers. You are correct.
Chairman Weber. Okay. I didn't know how to say Harlan--the
President of X-energy, a privately held company based in
Greenbelt, Maryland. Previously, Mr. Bowers served multiple
roles, including the Senior Vice President of Business
Development, the Vice President and Program Manager at Stinger
Ghaffarian Technologies, or SGT. Much of his background has
involved aerospace systems projects with NASA and commercial
customers.
Mr. Bowers received a bachelor of science in aerospace and
ocean engineering from Virginia Tech and an MBA from the
University of Maryland College Park. Welcome, Mr. Bowers.
Our next witness is Dr. John Parsons, the Co-Chair of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, Study on the
``Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World,''
very timely. Additionally, he is the head of the MBA finance
track, Co-Director of MIT's CANES Low-Carbon Energy Center, and
an affiliate of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental
Policy Research. Previously, he worked as Vice President and
Principal at the economics consulting firm CRA International.
Dr. Parsons holds a bachelor of arts in economics from
Princeton University and a Ph.D. in economics from Northwestern
University. Welcome, Dr. Parsons.
Our final witness is Dr. John--is it Wager? This says Wager
but you have an extra N in your name.
Dr. Wagner. It's Wagner.
Chairman Weber. It is Wagner. Thank you. I apologize for
that. You're the Associate Laboratory Director of Idaho
National Lab's Nuclear Science and Technology, NS&T
Directorate. His previous roles included Director of Domestic
Programs at NS&T and Director of the Technical Integration
Office for the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy's Light Water
Reactor Sustainability Program at INL. Dr. Wagner initially
joined INL as the Chief Scientist at the materials and fuel
complex. He is a fellow of the American Nuclear Society and
recipient of the 2013 E.O. Lawrence Award. Congratulations. He
has authored or coauthored more than 170 referred--is it
referred?
Dr. Wagner. Refereed.
Chairman Weber. Refereed. Why, that's amazing that they
referee that stuff, isn't it? We probably could use some
referees up here in Congress. I'm just saying, okay? Refereed
journal and conference articles, technical reports, and
conference summaries.
Dr. Wagner received his bachelor of science in nuclear
engineering from the Missouri University of Science and
Technology and master of science and Ph.D. degrees from
Pennsylvania State University. Welcome, Dr. Wagner.
I want to say thank you to all of you all for being here,
and we're going to start with Mr. McGinnis. And, Mr. McGinnis,
you have five minutes. You're recognized to start. Thank you.
TESTIMOMY OF MR. EDWARD MCGINNIS,
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate
the opportunity to speak before this subcommittee.
Chairman Smith, Subcommittee Chairman Weber, and other
Members of the Subcommittee, it is an absolute privilege to be
here today, and we want to recognize the leadership of this
Subcommittee, of the committee for your important work,
including with this legislation.
As a major source of reliable, clean, baseload electricity,
nuclear energy is a key asset for the United States. It is in
fact an essential element of the nation's diverse energy
portfolio, helping to sustain the U.S. economy and support our
national goals. A strong domestic nuclear industry enabled by
the existing nuclear fleet and enhanced by innovative
technology developers is critical to our national security
interests as well.
Today, nuclear energy is the third-largest source of
domestic electricity generation and is the largest source of
clean energy, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman. Besides providing
reliable clean baseload electricity, nuclear power plants also
provide price stability. That is an important but rarely talked
about attribute. Nuclear power plants serve as bedrocks to
communities across the country, providing high-paying, skilled
generational jobs to almost half a million Americans.
The U.S. nuclear fleet is also a significant contributor to
the federal budget and generates $10 billion in federal taxes,
$2.2 billion in state taxes each year. These units are drivers
of local economies as well, often serving as the largest
employer and economic engine of small communities, anchors to
communities in fact.
Even with all of these benefits, however, the nuclear
energy sector is indeed undergoing a major transformative
period of time due to a variety of factors that include
changing and very challenging market conditions, an aging fleet
of reactors, and an absence of nuclear energy product choices
and innovative business/technology deployment models available
to customers. In my view, these factors are actually driving
the transformative bow wave of highly innovative technologies,
one of which is represented here today on this panel, advanced
additive manufacturing techniques, and new innovative business
models coming out of the U.S. nuclear energy sector.
So what do I mean when I say the nuclear sector lacks
product choice? Today, utility customers and communities around
the United States, who may be interested in acquiring nuclear
energy's long-term clean and reliable source of power for their
communities, are faced with a rather startling limited choice
of only large or larger reactors. These large reactors can take
five to ten years to build before generating revenue from power
production. So additionally, many international markets find
these gigawatt-class reactors as simply too large for their
electricity grids. As long as there are only large and larger
reactors, the nuclear energy reactor markets in my view will
remain substantially constrained relative to nuclear energy's
true market potential.
So what do we do--what do we see happening to respond to
this lack of product choice by those who otherwise would very
much like to have the unique energy attributes offered by
nuclear energy? We see the market response through the
emergence of 50-plus U.S. nuclear reactor technology companies,
and they are developing these highly, highly innovative small,
scalable, flexible, versatile, and financeable nuclear
reactors. These innovative concepts include small modular
reactors, microreactors, high-temperature gas reactors, molten
salt reactors, and even liquid metal fast reactors.
We are not only seeing game-changing and highly disruptive
advancements in the U.S. nuclear design space but also in the
advanced manufacturing area as well. The ultimate goal with our
early-stage advanced manufacturing research and development is
to enable the development of innovative processes, such as 3-D
printing, that can be applied to nuclear energy technologies,
and this is what I call game-changing.
Finally, the U.S. industry is leading multiple advanced
nuclear fuels development efforts with some of the design
components already in U.S. reactor fleet undergoing testing.
These designs offer real potentially substantially improved
economics and margins. The advanced fast test reactor is an
absolute key test platform that we see will be needed to
support this new class, this new bow wave of very disruptive,
very promising, and very innovative technologies that are U.S.-
developed. So we have a unique opportunity to realize a
leapfrogging effect during this inflection moment that we find
ourselves in this country with regards to nuclear energy, but
it is by no means too late, but it certainly is in the fourth
quarter, and this is the time it will be frankly in my view on
my watch, on our watch, in the next five to eight years as to
whether we do realize the true potential of these exciting new
companies, again, like one represented here today.
So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGinnis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. McGinnis.
Mr. Bowers, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. HARLAN BOWERS,
PRESIDENT, X-ENERGY
Mr. Bowers. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member
Veasey. Thank you for your leadership and that of the Members
of the Energy Subcommittee on the important nuclear industry
policy issues facing our country today. I have submitted a more
detailed written statement and respectfully request that it be
included in today's record of the hearing. And with that, I
would like to summarize my testimony and respond to any
questions that you may have.
My name is Harlan Bowers. Harlan County, Kentucky, was
where that comes from. I'm President of X-energy. Our CEO Cam
Ghaffarian started this company ten years ago with the
altruistic desire to make a difference in the world, to find
ways to deliver clean, safe, secure, and affordable energy to
the U.S. electrical industry, U.S. industrial process heat
users, and the needs of foreign countries.
The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, or NEICA,
and the other advanced nuclear energy bills that are being
considered in Congress genuinely address the obstacles that our
industry face. Again, we appreciate your support and
leadership.
Today, our company is focused on two products, a 75
megawatt electric high-temperature gas-cooled pebble-bed
reactor--we call it an HTGR--and the complementary uranium
fuel. The fuel is based on the Department of Energy's
investment of almost $300 million in something called tri-
structural isotropic or TRISO particles.
Over the last nine years, we've continuously evolved our
reactor concept, focusing on defining a design that employs
well-understood technologies, delivers electricity at rates
that are competitive with fossil fuel sources, and can be
readily licensed by the NRC. X-energy is working to complete
our first demonstration reactor by the mid- to late 2020s. To
achieve this goal, we need industry, Department of Energy, the
national labs, the NRC, the investment community, and Congress
to work together collectively if we're to meet the challenges
in front of us.
Our success at X-energy is advanced by the programs and the
entities that are supported in your legislation. Let me give
you some examples. Private-public partnerships, these are
needed for successful demonstration of advanced reactors.
Fortunately, the Office of Nuclear Energy at the DOE, with
Congressional funding, has stepped up their support of advanced
reactors, and we thank Deputy Assistant Secretary Ed McGinnis
and his team for the work that they have done and the
leadership they've provided.
Through the award of competitively selected cooperative
agreements, X-energy has been able to accelerate our progress
against a number of key objectives. Of course, investing in
nuclear is not for the faint of heart. Several hundred million
dollars will be required to complete our design and the
licensing through the NRC. That is why we're pleased to see the
cost-share portion and provision of the NEICA legislation.
These provisions are critical to the success of our industry.
National labs play a vital role in supporting nuclear
industry competitiveness and advanced reactor development as
well. X-energy has extensive partnerships with the Idaho
National Lab and the Oak Ridge National Lab. For example, at
ORNL onsite, X-energy has established a TRISO fuel fabrication
facility. This collaboration represents one of the most
important missions of the labs. The lab performs research to
identify gamechanging technologies and then partner with
industry to advance that technology into the marketplace, thus
making the United States more competitive and ensuring a
technological advantage for U.S. companies.
Another essential voice is the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The NRC recognizes at the highest levels that they
must modernize and improve the way that they historically carry
out their regulatory mandate. Initiatives such as the licensing
modernization program will enable advanced reactors to be
licensed more efficiently. We applaud the efforts undertaken to
date and look forward to engaging with the NRC in that
licensing process.
In closing, let me go back to our end goal, to build and
demonstrate an advanced reactor and create a new industry by
the mid- to late 2020s. To accomplish this, we must have high-
assay low-enriched uranium available by 2023 in order to
manufacture the fuel needed to fuel those advanced reactors by
2025. This means we need to construct and license new
fabrication facilities for fuel by the early 2020s. Therefore,
to accomplish all this, DOE action and supportive bills such as
NEICA in fiscal year 2019 is absolutely critical to make our
collective goal a reality.
X-energy is proud to join with the outstanding leadership
of this committee and executing upon the policies that will
allow the United States to reclaim our global leadership
position in this great American-born nuclear industry.
For energy security, for national security, and to ensure
the highest standards of safety throughout the world, we had X-
energy stand ready to continue to work with this committee and
with the Congress in this grand endeavor.
With that, I will conclude, and I'll support any questions
that you may have. Thanks very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Bowers.
Dr. Parsons, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN PARSONS,
CO-CHAIR, MIT STUDY ON THE FUTURE OF
NUCLEAR ENERGY IN A CARBON-CONSTRAINED WORLD
Dr. Parsons. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member
Veasey, and Members of the Committee. Thanks for inviting me
here to discuss the findings of MIT's two-year research effort
conducted by a large team, including other institutions such as
Idaho National Laboratory. I've submitted written testimony,
and I'll use this time to summarize.
The nuclear industry is faced with a great opportunity in
the coming decades. The world needs much more energy, but at
the same time, the world has to dramatically reduce its carbon
emissions. Nuclear power is a proven scalable source of low-
carbon electricity, and the industry should be well-placed for
growth. And yet the grim reality is that the outlook for the
industry is dim, especially here in the United States.
Our team has sought to understand the reasons for this
disparity between the opportunity and the current reality. We
took a fresh look at the assumption that nuclear power is
needed to decarbonize the electricity sector, we examined the
factors behind the alarming rise in the cost of new nuclear
power plants, and we explored technologies and design options
that may radically reduce that cost and the value proposition
for advanced nuclear technologies.
Our analysis demonstrates that nuclear power is indeed--
does indeed have a vital role to play in decarbonizing the
electricity sector. While a variety of low-carbon technologies
are now available, nuclear power can make a distinct
contribution to the portfolio because it is a dispatchable low-
carbon technology. In most regions of the United States,
according to our analysis, including nuclear as one element of
the portfolio dramatically reduces the cost of reducing carbon
emissions.
Nevertheless, the industry does face a fundamental problem.
While other generating technologies have become cheaper in
recent decades, new nuclear plants have only become costlier.
Our analysis shows that the major source of cost are the large
civil works surrounding the nuclear reactor in the power
system. This includes the large concrete structures that are
the foundation and the surrounding containment building, but
also many other components of the plant. It is on these civil
structures and their construction that attention must be
focused. Important advances in an array of technologies that we
highlight make it possible to reduce the cost of building these
pieces while simultaneously improving safety.
Changes to industry and practices and regulatory procedures
are necessary to bring these into use, and we discuss those.
These technologies are essential to any type of reactor,
including advanced concepts. Without them, no concept can rely
on its inherent features alone to be cost-efficient.
Looking to advanced reactor designs, we highlight that
these provide important inherent and passive safety features.
reducing the likelihood of severe accidents while also
mitigating the offsite consequences of any accident that might
occur. Our assessment is that the U.S. regulatory system is
flexible enough to accommodate licensing of advanced reactors,
but further leadership is needed to realize this possibility.
We recommend ways to accelerate licensing reviews while
simultaneously making them more effective in safeguarding the
public.
We also recommend that the United States establish sites
where the government can assist and supervise companies as they
explore new reactor concepts and demonstrate safe performance.
In the United States, sites like the Department of Energy's
Idaho National Laboratory and Savannah River National
Laboratory have many valuable assets and capabilities. They
could be useful in designing safety protocols, seeking
environmental approvals, and providing initial fuel cycle
services.
This committee has supported similar ideas in legislation,
and we thank you for that. The United States should also
further develop funding programs to support demonstration of
these new designs, as we detail in our report.
Even where all of these recommendations followed, another
important ingredient is still missing. Currently, U.S.
electricity markets do not compensate nuclear power plants for
one of the most valuable attributes: being carbon-free. Both
existing plants and investments in innovation and new builds
would benefit from a level competitive playing field that fully
rewards contributions to decarbonizing the electricity sector.
Policies that disadvantage nuclear energy vis-a-vis other clean
energy sources discourage that essential investment, raising
the cost of decarbonization and slowing progress toward climate
change mitigation goals.
Many more findings emerge in the course of that research,
and I'd be happy to discuss them with you. Thank you for your
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parsons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Parsons.
Dr. Wagner, you're now recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN WAGNER,
ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR,
NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,
IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Wagner. Chairman Smith, Subcommittee Chairman Weber,
Ranking Member Veasey, Members of the Subcommittee, it's a
pleasure and honor to be----
Chairman Weber. Dr. Wagner, would you move--there you go.
Thank you.
Dr. Wagner. Is that better?
Chairman Weber. Yes, sir.
Dr. Wagner. Sorry about that. It's a pleasure and honor to
be here with you today. I'm grateful for the opportunity to
testify on implementation of S. 97, the Nuclear Energy
Innovation Capabilities Act. I want to thank this Committee and
your colleagues in the Senate for the vision, hard work, and
persistence it took to get this important legislation to where
it is today.
The NEICA bill takes significant steps to reestablish U.S.
leadership in nuclear energy and support private-sector
development and deployment of advanced reactors. My testimony
will touch on how the Idaho National Laboratory, or INL, and
other national labs will use these expanded authorities to
support the private-sector effort to deploy advanced reactors.
First, the Versatile Reactor-based Fast Neutron Source or
what we refer to as a virtual test reactor, or VTR for short, a
fast neutron test reactor is needed to support testing of
advanced fuels, materials, instrumentation, and sensors.
Importantly, this is a capability the United States does not
currently possess. Development and construction of this test
reactor will eliminate reliance on Russia for these irradiation
tests and reposition the United States at the forefront of
developing and improving new nuclear energy systems.
The need for this capability has been well-documented, and
as the NEICA bill moved through Congress, a multidisciplinary
team of national labs, private companies, and universities have
been assembled to develop the preconceptual design. The current
schedule calls for the VTR to be operational by 2026.
Next, I'd like to discuss the establishment of a National
Reactor Innovation Center, as called for in S. 97. In many
ways, this approach harkens back to the decision in 1949 to
establish the National Reactor Testing Station at what is now
the Idaho National Laboratory. On this 890-square-mile site in
the Idaho desert, the U.S. Government, including the Nuclear
Navy and the private sector, built, tested, and demonstrated
first-of-a-kind reactors that were later deployed around the
world. As Subcommittee Chairman Weber mentioned earlier, 52
different reactors were demonstrated on that site.
The efforts in those days established U.S. nuclear
technology leadership around the world for decades, and we're
still building on that leadership today. We see the Nuclear
Reactor Innovation Center as a place where government and
private companies can come together to test and demonstrate new
reactor designs, as well as materials, fuels, and other nuclear
energy technologies.
As was done in the past for light-water reactors, such
testing will enable advanced reactor deployment by
demonstrating nuclear system operating performance and
providing data and experience for licensing and data and
experience for benchmarking of new computer modeling and
simulation tools.
Finally, NEICA calls for expanded high-performance
computing modeling and simulation capabilities to develop new
reactor technologies. The current DOE modeling and simulation
programs have made outstanding progress over the past decade
for both current operating reactors and future advanced
designs. In order to achieve the vision outlined in NEICA,
experts in modeling and simulation of the national
laboratories, along with the federal staff at the DOE Office of
Nuclear Energy, are formulating an ambitious plan for the
future of nuclear energy modeling and simulation as a single
program to start in 2020, a program I'm calling ModSim2020. The
vision for ModSim2020 is transformation through advanced
modeling and simulation of the nuclear system design and
regulatory paradigm from reliance primarily on empirical data
to reliance on predictive simulations supported with limited
experimental data.
NEICA truly arrived at just the right moment. I say that
because NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power
Systems, or UAMPS, a consortium that serves more than 40
communities in seven Western States, are looking to deploy the
first small modular nuclear reactors at INL by 2026. This
project has been strongly and consistently supported by
Congress.
Thank you.
DOE and INL are engaging with the Department of Defense, as
recently encouraged by the National Defense Authorization Act,
to develop microreactors and allow critical national security
infrastructure such as military bases to be self-sufficient for
their power needs. These microreactors could also be used for
forward-deployed U.S. military bases and remote communities in
places like Alaska. DOE and INL are working with NASA to look
at advanced reactors that could support the power needs for
manned space missions.
I appreciate the opportunity to summarize, both the private
and public sectors have a great need for advanced reactor
technologies. NEICA will help to meet those needs and ensure a
future that is prosperous, clean, secure, and resilient. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I want to thank you
again for your support and passage of the NEICA legislation. I
look forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wagner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Wagner.
I'll now recognize myself for questions for five minutes.
This is for Dr. Wagner and Mr. McGinnis. And we'll start
with you, Mr. McGinnis. We'll give Dr. Wagner a chance to wet
his whistle. What is your specific role and planned approach to
implementing my bill S. 97, the Nuclear Energy Innovation
Capabilities Act?
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you very much. First, let me say
obviously we stand ready to fully implement the law once it
is--and at the point at which time the President signs it, but
I can tell you that many of the activities that we are doing at
the Department of Energy is certainly very much in line with
the provisions. We greatly appreciate the leadership and
support, the acknowledgment of the importance of fast spectrum
test reactor, of which we do not have in this country, and just
a couple have them around the world. And it is a great
disadvantage for us, and it will absolutely inhibit us from
being able to support this new bow wave of highly innovative
nuclear reactor designs coming into the pipeline in the United
States.
Certainly, also Idaho National Lab and the other national
labs that we leverage effectively to support nuclear energy in
the mission, they are well-positioned to support the approach
for a national test center for reactors and also to work even
closer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the other key
provisions.
Chairman Weber. Yes, thank you for that.
And, Dr. Wagner, I want to come back to you. You actually
said a couple things in your remarks that kind of addressed
this. You said we want to continue to maintain leadership, and
of course this will be a critical area to maintain leadership
around the world. And I have to compliment--you said you're
calling it ModSim2020, which to coin--it's kind of to reverse-
engineer phrase. Instead of hindsight being 20/20, this is
going to be foresight is 20/20.
Dr. Wagner. I like that.
Chairman Weber. So I appreciate that. So what is going to
be your specific role in implementing this bill?
Dr. Wagner. So we have significant roles in implementing
this bill, along with the federal staff in the Department of
Energy Office of Nuclear Energy. Actually, we've made
tremendous progress already relative to the versatile test
reactor. Let me kind of make some comments on that if time
permits.
As I mentioned, the need for the versatile test reactor has
been well-defined. There's several different reports and
industry statements about the need, so we've been moving
forward even in parallel with this legislation.
So with the relevant stakeholders, we developed the
functional requirements for the VTR, the mission need document.
What we refer to in DOE 413 language as Critical Decision 0 is
being prepared now and will be submitted in January of 2019.
Last week, $3.5 million in university awards were announced
to address the various technical aspects of the VTR. Earlier
this month, we selected several initial university proposals to
participate in the VTR program with an emphasis on experimental
designs, and we're negotiating the terms of those contracts
now. In the near future, INL will award a contract to an
industry partner to complete the conceptual design and cost
estimate for the VTR. The current schedule calls for a
completed conceptual design and cost schedule estimate as input
to what they call Critical Decision 1, or CD-1, to be completed
in 2021. As I mentioned, the plan is for the reactor to be
operational in 2026.
I can go on further. We have plans for the Nuclear Reactor
Innovation Center, as well as ModSim2020 if you'd like more
details on those----
Chairman Weber. Well, and I appreciate that. And certainly
we will look to those going forward, but I'm about to run out
of time. I want to get to Mr. Bowers real quick to see how your
company--if you at all--do you think that the implementation of
NEICA will affect X-energy and its partnership with DOE
national labs? I wanted you to weigh in on that, please.
Mr. Bowers. Partnership with national labs, the example
that I had cited in regards to development of fuel, it's
important to recognize that at least 15 years if not 20 years
of research and development was performed at both Idaho
National Lab and at Oak Ridge National Lab in regards to this
particular fuel form. And this fuel form is referred to as
TRISO--we talked about that before--and specifically uranium
oxycarbide. It's not manufactured anywhere else in the world.
It is unique to the United States, and it provides a capability
within the fuel to generate more power than our competitors in
China or from other countries could.
So branching off from that understanding, from that
capability, taking what those Ph.D.'s at Oak Ridge National Lab
have learned and be able to translate that into the marketplace
is key. So our goal is, as we build our commercial fabrication
facility--and at the moment we are looking at Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, as the potential location for that facility. It's
strategic to locate the fabrication facility there because we
would have not instant but very easy access to those Ph.D.'s as
we're developing our commercial processes. If we have problems,
issues that arise, we need some additional research to be
performed to be able to go right back into the labs and use
that capability.
Chairman Weber. So I'm a little bit over my time. So
suffice it to say your company is well-positioned to make that
transition?
Mr. Bowers. We are poised and ready and funded by
Department of Energy to make that happen.
Chairman Weber. Well, that's good to hear.
Mr. McGinnis, I want to jump to you real quick with the
Committee's indulgence. You cited challenging market conditions
and the availability of innovative technology as reasons as to
why the nuclear energy sector is currently undergoing a
transformative period. With that in mind, does it make sense
for DOE to continue to provide substantial financial backing to
any nuclear project that isn't A, scalable; B, cost-effective;
or C, flexible? Is that going to be a hard corner to turn? What
do you think?
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you very much. That's a very important
point. First of all, I do want to qualify that there continues
to be a very important role for large-scale nuclear reactors.
In fact, the United States Department of Energy thanks the
Congressional leadership support. We have what is considered
the most advanced commercially available large passably safe
set of reactors available in the world, and that is with
Westinghouse's AP1000 and the ESBWR. That was hard-fought,
strong, technical partnership over the years with the United
States. We're proud to have supported that. Those reactors
remain available. Four have now just been completed in China,
the AP1000--we're looking to the two in Vogtle to get done.
Those provide 60 and 80 years----
Chairman Weber. You and a whole lot of people.
Mr. McGinnis. Yes.
Chairman Weber. Keep going.
Mr. McGinnis. Yes, sir. But the fact is they do play very
important roles. However, as I indicated, I believe that there
is a far greater percentage of market out there, customers that
want nuclear clean baseload nuclear, but these products, large
and large, are just too large. They need product choice. They
need to be able to go in and not bet the farm with the
company's balance sheet. And so that's why we think that this
is going to open up an entirely new market and give customers
finally the option to access nuclear without the choice of
betting the farm and waiting five, ten years to see any revenue
generation.
Chairman Weber. Yes, well, thank you for that. That was our
hope. Thank you. And I apologize to the Committee for being
over time.
Mr. Tonko, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of
our witnesses for joining us on what is a very important
discussion.
Dr. Parsons, thank you for sharing some details of MIT's
``Future of Nuclear Power'' study. There are many members that
want to see us make significant reductions in carbon pollution,
and it behooves us to better understand the role that
preserving existing nuclear capacity and developing new
advanced nuclear resources might play in achieving that
ultimate goal of deep decarbonization.
From the modeling done in your study, what did you find in
terms of reaching that 90 to 100 percent greenhouse gas
reduction?
Dr. Parsons. Thank you. First of all, the existing nuclear
reactors are absolutely essential for reaching even a modest
reduction. They provide the lion's share right now of low-
carbon electricity, and the cost of providing that is the
cheapest of the ways to provide low-carbon electricity. So it's
very concerning that some of those plants have recently been
closed and that a number of them are economically threatened. A
commitment to decarbonization really will require a commitment
to keeping those reactors operating.
Mr. Tonko. And if nuclear is not part of the generation mix
at those levels, what is the impact on electricity
affordability?
Dr. Parsons. Well, the major advantage of putting nuclear
into the mix is to keep the cost of decarbonization from
escalating. Nuclear keeps the costs lower and makes electricity
much more affordable and the decarbonization task much more
affordable.
Mr. Tonko. And what do you attribute to these costs? Is it
primarily from the current cost of energy storage?
Dr. Parsons. Right. Well, some of the most valuable low-
carbon electricity sources such as wind and solar are reliant
on the resource of the wind or the sun, and they're only
available in certain hours of the day and at variable amounts
during seasons of the year. In order to provide carbon-free
electricity at all hours of the year, you would need a buildout
of that capacity that's at a very, very high scale. So an
initial buildout provides you what you need, but in order to
cover all of the hours, the buildout starts escalating and the
costs start escalating.
Mr. Tonko. If we continue to invest in R&D dollars for
energy innovation, including both advanced nuclear technologies
and storage, can we expect to reduce those costs?
Dr. Parsons. Yes, nobody knows what the future holds. Each
of these different technologies may be able to provide a
critical contribution in the future. Batteries can be terribly
valuable. Advanced nuclear can be terribly valuable. And we
need to have, so to speak, many shots on goal in order to keep
the opportunities available to society.
Mr. Tonko. And while many consider nuclear to be important
in the overall efforts for a decarbonized energy future, I
think there is equal concern by the reported cost overruns at
the Vogtle plant. Dr. Parsons, can you help us understand where
these unexpected cost are coming from?
Dr. Parsons. Yes, you're certainly right that those costs
are very critical and need to be brought under control. We did
a significant amount of research on this, and we identified
that most of the large--lion's share of the cost and certainly
of the cost overruns are in the construction of the civil
structures surrounding the nuclear reactor in the power system,
and so that construction process needs to be dramatically
rationalized and new technologies need to be applied to reduce
the cost of those structures.
Mr. Tonko. And what recommendations would you offer to make
certain that advanced reactors might be able to be constructed
without those same concerns for cost overruns with the civil
infrastructure?
Dr. Parsons. Well, it's important to realize that these
kinds of civil structures are essential to any kind of nuclear
reactor, so whatever design one's developing, we need to make
an investment in the construction technologies that will make
all designs affordable. The kinds of research-and-development
funding that this committee has supported that DOE has done in
the past have created opportunities which we could utilize now
to reduce those costs.
Mr. Tonko. And we don't always connect the dots between
some of these breakthroughs in the foundation construction and
the industries that might benefit from them, but it highlights
the importance, I believe, of crosscutting research. Are there
concerns that cuts in federal research may limit the potential
of nuclear energy to reduce costs and improve safety?
Dr. Parsons. Right. To meet the future, we need future
technologies, and so the research-and-development funds that
have been granted in the past have given us opportunities, but
we're going to need many more to meet this challenge.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I appreciate your testimony and the role
that nuclear can play in a decarbonization agenda. And thank
you for the thoughtfulness behind the study.
Mr. Tonko. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Brooks of Alabama.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Secretary McGinnis, I don't know if you're in a
position where you can spread the word within the Department of
Energy, but we need some help. In the Tennessee Valley there is
a nuclear power plant called Bellefonte. TVA has spent over $6
billion on this facility. They recently sold it at public
auction for $111 million, which may very well make it the
biggest boondoggle in the history of the Federal Government,
particularly with respect to nondefense. Perhaps there are some
defense things that are competitive. And for that $6-plus
billion spent, we've had this much electricity generated, zero.
There is an effort now to get that facility completed by
the private sector. There are things that have to be done
through the Department of Energy. If there's anything you can
do sending the message back, I know that the people of Jackson
County, Alabama, would very much appreciate it because the
University of Alabama has projected that this facility, if
completed, would generate over 1,000 jobs with an average
salary of $136,000 per job. That's pretty doggone good in the
State of Alabama.
So with that as a backdrop, let me talk a little bit more
to the point of this hearing today. In 2017 there were 99
nuclear power plants in 30 States in the United States'
operating fleet, which generated approximately 805 billion
kilowatt hours of energy. This is equivalent to 20 percent of
total United States electrical output and 60 percent of its
emissions-free electricity. There's been some comment to that
already. I want to reemphasize it.
One fingertip-sized uranium fuel pellet about this big can
generate as much energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas or
149 gallons of oil or 1 ton of carbon to kind of put it into
perspective. We've got some political interest groups that
would just assume that we not have any nuclear energy in the
United States or on planet Earth for that matter. Very quickly,
can you describe what the impact on America would be if we were
to suddenly decide that we are no longer going to have nuclear
energy? Over the next year or two what would be the impact on
the power grid and the ability of America to continue to
function as we are today?
Mr. McGinnis. The impact would be incredibly negative,
substantive, and long-term not only from a resiliency
perspective, needing to have 24/7, 365-days-a-year nuclear or
electricity available, not just when the sun is shining and
when the wind is blowing. I would submit that nuclear energy
has an absolute necessary role in an all-of-the-above. And
don't get me wrong; we need all of the above, but nuclear
energy still remains utterly unique. As you indicated, sir,
density of power. There is no other power source that provides
the density of power.
There's another interesting fact. We have about 7,700 of
all shapes and sizes electricity-generating plants around the
country, wind, solar, natural gas, coal, you name it, 7,700.
Now, it's 59 of those sites is nuclear, so less than one
percent of all the generating plants in this country is
generating 60 percent of our clean, 20 percent of our
electricity. The density of power is unmatched, and the
longevity, there is no other source that can go all out full
power 24/7 for 18 to 24 months, so----
Mr. Brooks. Let me try to interject for just a moment since
I only got about a minute left and focus on things that I think
the general public can better understand. What would be the
impact on brownouts, blackouts where you have no electricity,
or electricity rates if we were to eliminate the nuclear power
production over the next year or two like a lot of these
political activists over on the left want to do?
Mr. McGinnis. I can tell you that's exactly what we're
looking at the Department of Energy, especially with the grid
modernization initiative. We are very concerned if we were to
exit nuclear. The impacts to the stability of the grid, the
availability. Like Secretary Perry said, whether it's in the
wintertime or in the summer, we want our family to be able to
know that that power is available. And it's not just from
natural-made, manmade threats, we have an evolving grid that is
increasingly reliant on intermittent that's driven by when the
sun is out and when the wind is blowing, and that is going to
truly challenge our ability to deal with not when everything's
going well but when things go wrong, and there will be times,
whether it's manmade or natural, and we need to make sure our
grid is resilient, and nuclear is an absolute fundamental
element of that.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. McGinnis.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. All right. Thank you, sir.
And, Mr. Veasey, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand that MIT published its first report on the
future of nuclear power back in 2003, and I wanted to ask, Dr.
Parsons, what are the most significant differences about the
future of nuclear energy between the publication of that first
report 15 years ago and now?
Dr. Parsons. Yes, well, the situation has dramatically
changed. On the one hand, we have some cheaper competing
sources of energy, so America's cheap natural gas provides a
cheap source of energy, unfortunately with carbon, but
nevertheless beneficial for customers. And then renewables have
become much cheaper, providing another great option for
reducing carbon emissions and providing low-cost power.
Of course, the Fukushima nuclear disaster happened in
between, and that has obviously raised public concerns, and
that's a major important thing that needs to be addressed by
the industry. And, dramatically, nuclear has not achieved the
lower-cost targets that were advertised at the time and people
hoped would be achieved. So nuclear faces significant
challenges to be an important player in achieving our goals
going forward, and that's why we did the study, to address
those challenges.
Mr. Veasey. How would you compare the merits of a
technology-neutral price on carbon emissions to the merits of
recent proposals by the Administration to subsidize nuclear and
coal plants? As you know, that was a very controversial
proposal that came out. And largely based on the arguments of
their contribution to the reliability and resilience of our
electric grid.
Dr. Parsons. Well, the cases vary one by one, and the
situations vary in different regions, but we investigated this
problem and, as I've indicated, if we let these nuclear power
plants retire, that's going to lose one of our lowest-cost
sources of low-carbon electricity. The value of these nuclear
power plants is in the low-carbon characteristics. We haven't
been able to find any unique or substantive other values above
and beyond that that would provide an economic rationale for
keeping most of these reactors open. But the value of the low-
carbon electricity is more than enough to make these units
competitive.
Mr. Veasey. In your testimony you note that the growth of
nuclear industry has been hindered by public concerns about the
consequences of severe accidents in traditional gen-2 nuclear
power plant designs. Can you talk about some of the
advancements made by gen-4 reactors that you think would maybe
help quell some of the concerns that the public has?
Dr. Parsons. Sure. Well, first of all, I think by and large
we believe that nuclear power is generally a safe form of
producing energy, and the problems that we really face are with
some of the emissions from other forms of energy that nuclear
doesn't provide. But obviously, catastrophic accidents sear the
mind of anybody who sees them. I personally remember waking up
early in the morning in 2011, March 2011, and seeing the
tsunamis in live action in Japan, and it was just very
impressive and then in the days after watching the news in live
action, seeing some of the explosions happen at that nuclear
reactor. So I'm personally very clear on how that can impact
you and make you appreciate the dangers facing things.
Many of these new reactor designs have a characteristic
that not only do events like that happen less often but they
control the operation of the plant in the event of an accident
so that you don't have any likelihood of major explosions or
disruptions of that sort. And if you went to such an event,
they contain the dangers within the plant boundary, and so
that's the hope of developing these reactor designs, that they
would make it for the public something that would be perhaps
more of a normal industrial accident, tragic whenever it
happens but something more comprehensible and less difficult to
understand.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir. Mr. Hultgren, you're
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman Weber. Thank you, each
one of you. I appreciate your work, appreciate your time being
here today. I'm going to address my first couple questions to
Mr. McGinnis if I might.
What's the mission of DOE's Gateway for Accelerated
Innovation in Nuclear, or GAIN, program? And I wonder if you
could share some examples of industry partners licensing and
commercialization processors were accelerated by this program?
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you very much. The purpose of GAIN is
to essentially support a very streamlined, efficient access to
our nation's, the Department of Energy's world-class nuclear-
related facilities, whether it's Idaho National Lab or among
the other 17 total labs in the complex. And as we've listened
as carefully as possible from industry with feedback, and one
thing we've heard was they need unfettered, efficient access to
these facilities to be able to prove out, test out their
innovative concepts. And many of these capabilities we have
great investments from the taxpayer, and they are world-class.
So it is very important to do that.
We have a multitude of companies that we provide support
through GAIN, and so we're very proud of that, literally in the
dozens, leading vendors, utilities, technology developers, fuel
developers. It's a very successful program, and we look forward
to continuing to support that program.
Mr. Hultgren. That's great, thanks.
Also, Mr. McGinnis, we understand that there are some
delays in DOE's site permitting process for privately funded
reactors. What's the status of DOE's site use permit process
for privately funded reactors, and what are some of the reasons
for the delays?
Mr. McGinnis. I'm not sure of the specific references
you're making, but I can say from the Idaho National Lab for
which my office is responsible for stewardship-wise, we are
very proud that Idaho has served essentially for, you know, the
venue for 52 different first-of-a-kind reactors built in its
history, and we have at least three agreements, site-use
agreements right now with United States and other innovators.
One is a microreactor, one is NuScale, which I think is really
in the forefront in its position to potentially be our nation's
first advanced small modular reactor.
We are working as hard as possible to make sure that these
agreements are being let out in an efficient way. From a
nuclear energy perspective, it's my understanding--and I've
been watching them very closely--they are proceeding. We have
those in place now. When we get applications through our Idaho
operations office, we prioritize that. We get it. We are in an
extremely challenging time, and time is not our friend. So we
are going to continue to get the feedback to make it as
efficient as possible and improve that process to make it as
user-friendly as possible.
Mr. Hultgren. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Bowers, X-energy's partnership with the Department of
Energy, national laboratories, how is the intellectual property
associated with your nuclear designs and concepts managed? And
is there anything about this process that you believe could be
improved?
Mr. Bowers. Intellectual property is truly, as you have
identified, a key aspect of what we're trying to accomplish. I
can also take that from the perspective of we want to ensure
that it remains a U.S. capability and protect that from an IT
security perspective. The work that we are performing at Oak
Ridge National Lab today, as I alluded to earlier, it really
enables us to take our reactor and make it a thoroughbred in
comparison to some of our competitors internationally. So it is
very important for us to retain that and protect that.
As a small business, the DOE does allow us to apply for a
patent waiver, and so we are able to claim patents associated
with the work that we are performing both at the national labs
and under contract with the DOE, and therefore, we have, you
know, ownership of that and can proceed forward with that. So I
would say to date the partnership has been good, and we
continue to find new, innovative, and novel things that will
make our designs better, and we have been able to retain the
ownership of that knowledge as we move forward.
Mr. Hultgren. Great. Quickly, Dr. Wagner, just a quick
question for you. What is INL doing to support the management
and archiving of legacy reactor test data?
Dr. Wagner. Actually, that's a great question because there
is a great deal of that legacy data out there, and it's in high
demand from the reactor developers currently. And so actually
we have a number of programs with other laboratories, including
Argonne National Laboratory, to basically assemble, process,
and make data available from past reactor experiments like
TREAT and LOFT and EBR-II. Honestly, we need to do more, but we
are working on that.
Mr. Hultgren. Good. Again, thank you all. Chairman, thank
you for hosting this Committee, and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir.
The gentlelady from Nevada is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our distinguished
panel, for joining us here today.
As we discuss the future of nuclear energy and developing
technologies, the one question I really think we have to answer
is this: Where will we store or dispose of the waste? Now, I'm
from Nevada. As my colleagues on this committee have heard me
say before, I strongly oppose our country storing nuclear waste
at Yucca Mountain for many reasons. The site continues to
present serious safety and environmental concerns, which are
detailed in hundreds of contentions filed by our state. These
alone will take years to address, but even if the site was
greenlighted, it would take up to 50 years to build the
infrastructure in Nevada and across the country and allow the
waste to be cooled and shipped by road and rail through heavily
populated communities like all of us represent.
So I have a two-part question for anybody who would like to
jump in first. So to what extent are researchers and industry
proposing solutions to the nuclear waste, the long-term storage
problem that may not involve Yucca Mountain, and then what
technologies are on the horizon that you believe could
significantly reduce or even eliminate the need for large-scale
long-term geologic repository for nuclear waste, for example,
reducing waste in place?
Mr. Bowers. Thank you. I'd like to start by talking about
fuel cycle in that regard. We are moving forward right now with
uranium-based fuel. I mentioned uranium oxycarbide, which does
have--you know, we do have spent fuel at the end of our
reactor's 60-year life, and there is a storage requirement and
there are certainly measured in thousands of years of
radioactivity of that material.
The high-temperature gas-cooler reactor does offer the
opportunity to do a different fuel cycle, which is thorium-
based. There is more thorium in the Earth than there is
uranium. The way that the fuel would perform within the reactor
is absolutely identical to how it would be worked using the
uranium approach, and the half-life is measured on the order of
a couple hundred years. So while there still is a storage
requirement, the concern of millennium-long storage--long-term
storage facilities becomes mitigated as we move forward and we
can advance the technology for thorium-based fuel. Thank you.
Ms. Rosen. Anyone else want to comment? Thank you.
Dr. Parsons. So, first of all, I think any of the reactor
technologies that we'd be discussing will all require some sort
of short-term storage in some sort of long-term repository of
one sort or another. So that's an inescapable choice that we
have to make.
Secondly, we did not provide any new results scientifically
about waste in our report, but we did highlight that there have
been several studies done. Previously, we had done a study back
in 2011. There's been a Blue Ribbon Commission. There are
others that have provided sensible solutions and options for
the United States. In particular, we highlight that it's very
important to get consensus and consensus-based siting precisely
because we do need to move forward. And there has been the
demonstration of successful consensus-based siting in both
Finland and Sweden, and it could be a very valuable thing.
Investors in new technologies are very concerned if a piece of
the arrangement has not been settled, and so settling a piece
of the arrangement would help facilitate investments.
Ms. Rosen. You just answered my next question on consent-
based siting, so I'm going to move onto another question.
Something that we talk a lot about in this committee is early-
stage research and late-stage research. It's used in a very
cavalier fashion sometimes in this 2019 budget as a rationale
to cut one program, maybe fund another. We haven't really
defined those terms I don't think adequately.
So is it your belief--Mr. McGinnis, I'll ask you this--that
policymakers can and should draw a bright red line between
basic and applied research or between early-stage and late-
stage research or should we be realistic and identify where the
government can play that valuable role in de-risking
technologies to partner with industry?
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you very much. Those are very important
points. I'm in an office that is an applied energy office, and
I have the great fortune to be working with innovative first-
of-a-kind designers such as here today. And the first-of-a-kind
designs I think are dramatically different from a known
technology that's in the market.
With regards to early-stage R&D, therefore, I would say
that the idea of where early-stage R&D starts and stops, it's
much greater down the pathway of deployment of a first-of-a-
kind technology because it is so intensively technically
driven, modeling and simulation, the materials, going through
the entire stage of the NRC process. For example, of a first-
of-a-kind, one might find themselves having to go back to what
is called TRL-2 or 3 issues where they have to go back to the
basic science.
So you have a flow of early-stage in a broader breadth for
first-of-a-kind if that makes sense, but it is a very important
point. I would say ultimately the sweet spot for the Federal
Government in partnering with companies is when they have very
challenging technical issues that they have not been able to
dispatch, and that we the Federal Government are uniquely in a
position using our advanced test reactors, our other sites to
bring them to bear. So that's where we are proud to do that,
and in my view it is consistent with the early-stage R&D is the
focus with what we're doing here today with our technical
partners.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you very much.
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, ma'am.
And now, the Chair recognizes one of the newer members, the
gentleman from Texas. Is it Victoria?
Mr. Cloud. Victoria.
Chairman Weber. Victoria, you're recognized for five
minutes, Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you for being here. Thank you for hosting this
Committee on advancing nuclear technology.
This is an important topic for me because we have a nuclear
plant in our district in Matagorda County, so it's important of
course to the nation. But, Mr. McGinnis, you mentioned in your
testimony that nuclear power plants serve as bedrocks to
communities across the country, providing high-paid, skilled
jobs to almost half a million Americans. Of course, this is
true in Matagorda County and in our district.
What I hear from the folks at the nuclear power plant in
our district is that regulatory oversight by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is heavy with low-value inspections and
regulations that do little for the safety of public but drive
up the cost in an industry that's among the safest in the
country. In 2016 the Nuclear Energy Institute testified that
since 2011 the NRC has on average nearly doubled the time it
takes to review license renewal and power uprate applications.
A study by the American Action Forum discovered that the
average nuclear power plant must comply with regulatory burden
of at least $8.6 million annually, and regulatory costs imposed
on nuclear power plants by the NRC since 2006 have totaled $440
million. So, Mr. McGinnis, could you share with the Committee
the Administration's view on the current regulatory
environment?
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you very much. And I do want to also
give a huge shout out for Matagorda County with a south Texas
nuclear power plant. It is just an absolute example of
resilient power, having gone through extreme weather events and
been there with some amazing stories of the commitment of the
employees at that nuclear power plant and the leadership of the
county. So I want to thank Matagorda County for the leadership
for really the country. We appreciate that.
With regards to the regulatory environment, I think, first
of all, first principles is I believe that one can have an
absolute top, top level of safety while seeking maximum
efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and speed. I believe it is
possible to continue to realize greater efficiency in the
regulatory process. I believe that the leadership that is now
at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission understands that. We see a
lot of examples of them working hard to be as efficient as
possible because time is money for these companies, and it is
incredibly challenging to get these technologies, especially
new innovative technologies, through a regulatory environment.
And we want to do everything we can to support and not
discourage these great innovators to come in and change the
future of our nuclear energy landscape.
A couple of examples, we're working with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to bring to bear our modeling and
simulation capabilities. We have now the fastest supercomputer
in the world now, and that's Summit in Oak Ridge. We have
tremendous capabilities. NRC uses our assets. We're proud that
we developed a draft set of guidelines for advanced reactors,
submitted them, and they were largely accepted. We continue to
partner with them, but I think everybody would agree, they
included, that we want to continue to try and reduce the time
and cost for these applications.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. Would you say that the current
regulatory environment then matches or what would be your
opinion on the regulatory environment versus the successful
track record of existing nuclear plants?
Mr. McGinnis. Well, I think that for many understandable
reasons, the regulatory environment is set up for the current
reactors, large light-water reactors. That's what we've had for
decades and decades. So what we're attempting to do is support
in any way we can, recognizing the important independence of
the NRC, to be ready with the expertise and the regulatory
processes for these new disruptive technologies, some of which
have very different attributes, some mentioned here today,
passive safe systems that are designed to literally shut down
on their own without any human intervention, any electric-
driven pumps or motors in the event of a loss of offsite power
or coolant.
That is revolutionary. Not only is it huge for public
confidence to be able to look a citizen in the eye and say the
next generation--while the reactors are safe here today, the
next ones are gamechangers. These are reactors that will shut
down on their own, and then you have market opportunity and
distributed opportunity.
We see the NRC. They just exempted the electric pumps and
motor requirement for NuScale, the first reactor going through
this process. And the second thing they're looking at now is
whether now do you need a 10-mile emergency planning zone? And
if you don't, we have a distributed opportunity with safety
built in that we never had, market opportunity. So I think
there is strong significant progress being made, but certainly,
they are working hard at the NRC to get ready for an entirely
new class of reactors. That's the challenge.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. You may not know, Mr. Cloud, but when I was
a state rep, those were the days before I got demoted--I had
STP in my district. I had Matagorda County. In 2010 we went
through, my staff and I, and watched them change out their fuel
rods. That was pretty cool. And by the way, they have a 7,000--
if I remember right, 7,000-acre water pond, cooling water pond
and got great alligator hunting. I'm just saying.
The gentleman from California is now recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank Chairman Weber for your
personal anecdotes there. They're always useful and
interesting.
I thank the panel this morning for coming in to testify.
Mr. McGinnis, I was going to ask the failsafe question because
I've always been nervous after the Fukushima disaster, but it
sounds like you're on that one. I mean, if it's failsafe and it
fails badly, then something's wrong with the system. So you're
giving us assurance that these new designs are real failsafe,
that they're passive, that they can shut down without human
intervention, and if there's a disaster like a flood, they
still won't cause problems?
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you very much. And I think the best
person to answer that is a person leading one of those designs
here today.
Mr. Bowers. I was really hoping you would hand that one off
to me.
Mr. McNerney. Okay.
Mr. Bowers. If you'll allow me.
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
Mr. Bowers. So the pebble bed or just in general the high-
temperature gas-cooled reactors do have this capability to
self-moderate themselves, so as the temperature rises and gets,
you know, quote unquote, too hot, the reactivity stops. And so
then as reactivity slows down, the temperature drops again and
then this cycle continues to take place over several hours to
several days.
So then the question is really has this ever been
demonstrated? So for high-temperature gas-cooled reactors there
have been a half a dozen built around the world over the last
40 years, and there have been three tests that were performed,
one in Germany, one in Japan, and one in China where the
coolant, which was helium in those cases, was evacuated from
the reactor and then they watched the temperatures and the
reactivity within the reactor to see what happens.
And as predicted by the physicists, the temperatures rose
and then self-moderation took over. The temperatures dropped
back down again, and the reactivity subsided. So it has been
test-demonstrated passive safety that there was no need for any
active systems to ensure that the reactivity was maintained
under control.
Mr. McNerney. So now that you've brought up the
physicists----
Mr. Bowers. I'm an engineer----
Mr. McNerney. Okay.
Mr. Bowers. --by the way.
Mr. McNerney. I'm a mathematician, so we both have a thing
with physics. But how about using artificial intelligence in
designing reactors like the small modular reactors? Are we
going to be able to use big data and artificial intelligence to
come up with really highly effective designs? Dr. Parsons,
would that be your bailiwick? No?
Dr. Parsons. I will venture out a little bit on that one
and maybe hit it on the side, which is to note that for the
previous decades we have various modeling and simulation codes
that have been developed, and the question is always how do you
ensure that your code is accurate, that the numbers that you
get out of it are correct? And that's always been performed via
test, so you would set up a large-scale test of some kind, run
that test, get results, test results, measurements,
temperatures, et cetera, and you would compare that to the
results that you're getting from your software codes.
The capabilities of software, the capabilities of computing
power such as the cluster that's available at Oak Ridge
National Lab really offers us an opportunity to reduce the cost
of development and use modeling and simulation almost
exclusively rather than relying on these very large complex
test systems for verification, so I think there's a lot of
opportunity in advanced modeling and simulation going forward.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I'm sorry I came in late. I was
going to ask Dr. Parsons about his MIT report and using nuclear
power to balance renewable energy and the cost that renewable
energy might have without nuclear power. Could you expand on
that a little bit, Dr. Parsons?
Dr. Parsons. Sure. Well, I'll just say quickly that it's
great that we've seen enormous cost reductions in renewable
energy, and they've provided us a great opportunity to make
some good steps forward in reducing carbon emissions. The
problem is that the farther and farther you go in making
reductions in carbon emissions, you start needing eventually to
multiply your investments in the renewables. So the cost isn't
linear. It becomes nonlinear as you go to really deep carbon
reductions. And that's the role that we point out nuclear can
play to cap that escalation of costs at--by balancing--
providing the balance of power when renewables have a modest
amount of resource available. And keeping that cap on I think
would be important for accomplishing our goals.
Mr. McNerney. Is nuclear technology ready for that?
Dr. Parsons. Certainly, nuclear technology is ready for
that, but we do need to make it--if we can make some of the
cost reduction targets we describe, it makes a big impact on
how low that cap can be.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are you going to do
another round of questions or is this it?
Chairman Weber. Well, do I get to do my anecdotes?
Mr. McNerney. Please don't.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right, Mr. Chairman. Were those
alligators, did they glow in the dark?
Chairman Weber. I've not gotten close enough to find out.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Let me just say thank you. I'm
sorry I was late. When you're here, you've got three or four
different things to do, and I've really appreciated the
testimony I've heard so far, and I will be reading your
submitted testimony in the meantime.
Are any of you advocating building new light-water
reactors? Okay.
Mr. McGinnis. Absolutely.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. We have a light-water reactor in my
area, San Onofre, and they are now storing the rods that are
left over, this nuclear waste, at a cost of $70 million a year,
and no electricity is being produced for hundreds of years. Are
you sure that it's worthwhile building light-water reactors?
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you very much. First, I want to say
that the new class of advanced reactors coming down the pike
include both light-water and non-light-water. These designs in
non-light-water are frankly I think in my view very exciting.
They include these passive safe--some would call walkaway safe
designs----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. McGinnis. And certainly ultimately beyond that the
class of reactors non-light-water, they're in a position to
consume and reduce the amount of waste ultimately. But we
certainly support also the full life of these reactors. I just
got back from Pennsylvania at the State House where they have
three reactors in Pennsylvania that are slated to shut down
early. If they shut down early, they would wipe out all of the
wind and solar contribution in the PJM market in all 13 states
where PJM is in one fell swoop because you will lose that much
emissions-free generation.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. And how much of a danger do you
think would be put upon the people of the area if they had a
Fukushima-type incident because I imagine the Fukushima
alternative was sold to the Japanese that nothing can ever go
wrong. And then we end up with a catastrophe in Japan. And
again, we've sold them on the light-water reactor.
Mr. McGinnis. I have great faith in the NRC. We realized a
lot of lessons learned from Fukushima and put them into the
light-water reactor plans that are being operated today, but
ultimately, I also believe it is absolutely necessary. We need
to find a pathway to take the spent fuel that is on these sites
and put them in a disposal in a repository and stop kicking the
can.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, is it possible that the leftover
waste--it's already been mentioned by Dr. Bowers--that some of
that waste actually can be used as fuel for the next generation
of nuclear power that would not be light water?
Mr. Bowers. I will comment that there are advanced reactor
concepts and designs that have been put forward that do take
reprocessed fuel or spent fuel and can use that as fuel for
their reactors. I will comment that that is not the design that
we are moving forward with, but I know that Ed is very familiar
with----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think that we should----
Mr. Bowers. --some of those processes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. When you consider we're saying that in my
area in the middle of a residential area that we are going to
be storing nuclear power rods for 1,000 years is unacceptable
to anybody. And who knows what type of dangers will come up?
Who knows if we'll have a California earthquake that then we're
putting hundreds of thousands of people's--maybe millions of
people's lives at stake with that type of reasoning. And I
would hope that we would proceed, you know, and say light-water
reactors had their day. What can we do now to improve nuclear
energy and its ability to provide for the needs of the people
of the country?
And, Mr. Bowers, you're mentioned on the high-temperature
gas-cooled reactors. I think that there are a number of those
alternatives that seem to make more sense that you're going to
have far less waste and waste that perhaps can be used--we can
use up the waste from the reactors before. Let me ask you this.
Is any of this based on fusion energy? No? Okay. Well, how much
money are we spending on fusion energy? We've spent billions of
dollars developing fusion energy. Again, I believe that's a
total waste. And the fact is we should use that money that
we're spending on developing fusion and let's spend it on some
of the ideas that you have for the next generation of fission
that we know that we are capable of achieving. They say fusion
energy is the fuel of the future, and it always will be. Well,
the fact is we need something that we're going to invest in
that actually is foreseeable that we are going to be able to
achieve and not a dream.
And so, number one, I will read your report. I'm anxious. I
think nuclear energy has a vital role to play. We are going to
eventually run out--humankind will run out of fossil fuel
eventually. It may not make sense right now, but even the
things we're talking about are 10 to 20 years down the road,
and if we're doing that, what's the price of gas and oil going
to be like then? Well, I think it will be--it will totally
justify the expenditure of developing a new generation of
nuclear power. We need a new generation. We need to deal with
the waste from the last generation.
And we should not--again, Mr. Chairman, one of the things
I'm really worried about is that we do have profitmaking as
part of the equation as to what direction we go. But the people
that are thinking about profitmaking are not thinking at all
about long-term effects on safety 100 years from now. They
could care less about that. So it's up to our scientists, our
engineers, and yes, elected representatives to take these
things into consideration. We appreciate the guidance you've
given us.
Chairman Weber. Well, we've had a request for round two
from my good friend from California, and since apparently I
need to recompense with him over my comments, we're going to do
that. And it helps me, too, Jerry. I've got some questions,
too, so with your indulgence, this is for Dr. Wagner, Mr.
Bowers, and Mr. McGinnis. In you all's prepared testimony, you
all emphasized the need for DOE to support research that will
make high-assay low-enriched uranium. Are you calling that
HALEU? What are you----
Mr. McGinnis. HALEU or----
Chairman Weber. HALEU? Okay.
Mr. McGinnis. High-assay LEU----
Chairman Weber. Okay. Perfect.
Mr. McGinnis. --different terms of art.
Chairman Weber. Fuel available for advanced reactor
technologies. So what is HALEU fuel, and why is it needed to
advance the next generation of reactor technologies? And, Mr.
Bowers, we'll start with you.
Mr. Bowers. Thank you very much. So we start with a
definition, right? So all existing light-water reactors operate
on fuel, enriched uranium that has enrichment of less than 5
percent, 4.8, 5.1, and down from there. The military needs for
uranium start as well as some test reactors within the United
States start at 20 percent and go up, so there is this no man's
land, this range between 5 percent and 20 percent enrichment
that's called high-assay low-enriched uranium. Several of the
advanced reactors are looking to use high-assay LEU for their
reactors that enables higher burnups, improved efficiencies,
longer periods of time between outages, so there are a lot of
benefits to using it.
Chairman Weber. So why hasn't that been done heretofore?
Mr. Bowers. Uranium demand for product has been driven by
what the market currently requires, which is light-water
reactors at five percent, so no one's going to build a factory
to make something that makes eight percent if no one's going to
buy it. And the needs for the test reactors is relatively
small, and so that's been able to be supported by DOE, Y-12,
and other sources within the United States. I'll stop there.
Chairman Weber. Mr. McGinnis?
Mr. McGinnis. Well, I don't want to add more to his
technically sound description, so let me just describe briefly
the demand. There is no high-assay LEU commercially available
on the planet right now. We--the majority of the new----
Chairman Weber. Not even for testing?
Mr. McGinnis. There was----
Chairman Weber. Oh, you're saying commercially available?
Mr. McGinnis. Commercially available.
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Mr. McGinnis. So no U.S. company that is looking to bring
in their reactor, right now, they have no high-assay LEU fuel.
They have no fuel for their design. And that creates a great
risk. The closer they get to trying to deploy, they can't
sustain that risk not knowing there is none. That doesn't mean
that enrichment facilities can't move forward when they see
enough of a market, a custard demand, but we have a chicken and
the egg here.
Chairman Weber. Is that a short startup time?
Mr. McGinnis. Not that short. To be able to get this
established with the high-assay LEU, you're talking a couple
years at least, so it's not going to be immediate. However,
that's where I think the Department of Energy is in a unique
position to help spur and support at least the laboratory scale
if not a little bit larger scale for the demonstration of high-
assay LEU for these new reactors to provide the confidence. We
have microreactors. Many people may not realize this. They may
be coming in as early as 2021, 2022. These are reactors that
will need high-assay LEU so----
Chairman Weber. Are you calling SMRs microreactors?
Mr. McGinnis. Microreactors are smaller than SMRs, so
microreactors, depending on the definition--in general it's 1
to 5 megawatts electric. Some define it up to 50 megawatt, but
in truth, most of the microreactors are about 1 to 5 megawatt
electric. But 1 megawatt electric, that supplies power to 1,000
homes, so it's not insignificant. So we have a very near-term
need for the ability to provide confidence to these new
innovators in markets that high-assay LEU will be available
when needed.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Wagner?
Dr. Wagner. I would just add that some of the accident-
tolerant fuel concepts for the existing light-water reactor
fleet are also looking at enrichment above 5 percent, more in
the lower range, 5 to 8 percent, so some of those concepts also
have a need here for this fuel as well, whereas the advanced
reactors are primarily looking at right close to 28 percent.
With the support from the Department, we are actually taking
several steps, but we need to do more. Some of that is
initially recovering high-enriched uranium from spent fuel such
as our EBR-II fuel and----
Chairman Weber. And that's what France does?
Dr. Wagner. No, France reprocesses commercial light-water
reactor fuel, so five weight percent and below. So what we're
doing is we're recovering the uranium from our old EBR-II spent
fuel and down-blending it to 20 percent, so there are some
sources there for the very near term that might support one of
the microreactors, for example, but we've got to get a longer
supply out. There's other opportunities to increase that in
terms of recovery from other spent fuel sources, but long-term,
we'll need an enrichment capability in this range.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. With your indulgence, Mr.
McNerney, I'm going to ask Mr. Bowers one more technical
question.
You talked about systems that can shut themselves down. You
evacuate the helium, you remove off the coolant, and then you
watch the system as it basically self-regulates. How in the
world does it do that?
Mr. Bowers. I did start out by saying I'm an engineer, not
a physicist, but I can take a stab at it.
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Mr. Bowers. Which is that within the uranium there are
what's called resonances, and in these resonances at certain
temperatures, rather than emitting neutrons, the uranium
absorbs the neutron. So when you get to a particular
temperature, you've got neutrons being absorbed instead of
being expended, and that's basically what fuels the reaction.
Chairman Weber. So that's not an implosion on itself.
Mr. Bowers. Yes.
Chairman Weber. What happens when they absorb those
neutrons?
Mr. Bowers. It returns to a more stable state, and the
temperature goes down within the----
Chairman Weber. Do you have a temperature----
Mr. Bowers. --core.
Chairman Weber. --range for us? Do you know what that
temperature range is?
Mr. Bowers. Is between 1,000 and 1,100 degrees centigrade.
Our reactor operates around 900 degrees C----
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Mr. Bowers. --and the outlet temperature on the helium is
approximately 750 degrees C.
Chairman Weber. And time frame, is that 15 minutes, 15
hours? What's the time frame?
Mr. Bowers. You know, a cycle like that is predicted to be
on the order of 25 to 35 hours, and so each day or two days
you'd see it cycle up and cycle back down again, and it would
continue in this kind of state for weeks if necessary until
powers was returned and you could----
Chairman Weber. So you restore it to arrest that cycle for
lack of a better term or to restore it to its original----
Mr. Bowers. To arrest the cycle, insert the control rods is
the way that we would accomplish that----
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Mr. Bowers. --and we actually have in our particular
design, two separate banks of control rods, one for operation
and trimming performance and the other for shutdown.
Chairman Weber. Well, I want to ask you why that is, but I
won't, so the gentleman from California----
Mr. Bowers. Defense in depth.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman from California is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman. And the Chairman
will be interested to learn perhaps that our colleague Mr.
Flores and I introduced a bill called the Advanced High-Assay
Low-Enriched Uranium Act, H.R. 6140, in the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and it was passed out of committee to enhance the
cycle of producing high----
Chairman Weber. This session?
Mr. McNerney. Yes, this session, so that's--it was going to
be taken up on the Floor this week, but for some reason it was
pulled. And so I want to talk a little bit more about that.
Thank you for carrying the water on that for me.
Mr. Bowers, you said, in your testimony, that by 2023 we'd
have to have fuel ready for these reactors. What role do you
see the private industry can play in establishing this supply
chain?
Mr. Bowers. Supply chain of the high-assay LEU?
Mr. McNerney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bowers. So to recognize that where X-energy intends to
play is fuel fabrication, which means high-assay low-enriched
uranium comes into our facility in the form of an oxide and
then we use that to create kernels and particles, et cetera,
that are then pressed into the form that we require. So it's
like a raw material to us. And while--if we were--the people
today that have the capability of generating low-enriched
uranium is URENCO in New Mexico, and they are the only producer
today or what's referred to as an enricher in the United
States.
In terms of where else I could--if the question is where
could I in terms of executing my business plan--get high-assay
low-enriched uranium----
Mr. McNerney. Well, the question really is what role do you
think that private industry can play in establishing that
supply chain?
Mr. Bowers. So I'll say this. There are companies in the
United States--Centrus Energy is one that once upon a time had
significant enrichment capability. They still have the
engineering and knowledge and understanding of what it takes to
construct and operate an enrichment facility. And so private
industry is prepared to do that. I think this again falls into
that chicken-or-the-egg element, which is what is the demand
for low-enriched uranium between 5 and 20 percent, and if that
demand is evident and orders are ready to be placed, a company
will step forward and make that investment. But somehow, we
have to kickstart or jumpstart that industry.
Mr. McNerney. And the Federal Government can be helpful in
that?
Mr. Bowers. Very helpful.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Bowers. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Bowers, I was going to read this question
because it's a little complicated, but regarding Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licensing, the Committee has repeatedly
received testimony over the past several years that the current
licensing framework is not suited to efficiently assess new
generation of nuclear reactors. As you mentioned, the NRC and
the DOE and the industry have taken some steps to modernize the
licensing process and help alleviate some of the licensing
cost. What specific regulatory changes would you like to see,
and what steps can the NRC and other agencies make that would
help this process become more efficient and quicker?
Mr. Bowers. I think there's broad agreement on the changes
that the NRC intends to put in place and recognition from
industry of what those benefits would be. During my testimony,
I mentioned the licensing modernization program, and the goal
of that program is to establish a different way of looking at
reactors and how we license them. I like to use the example of
a volume control, and so there's a requirement of--I've got my
car, right? I want to listen to the radio. I need a volume
control, and so the requirement is I need to be able to control
the volume. The way the NRC would look at that requirement is
that it would say the knob needs to be 1 inch in diameter and
needs to be painted black and it needs to have white numbering
on it, so very prescriptive in terms of how the requirement is
met. And that works when every reactor is based upon the same
technology, i.e., light-water reactors.
As we move forward and we have different technologies,
molten salt, high-temperature gas, fast reactors that the NRC
will need to regulate, they have to come up with a different
paradigm as to how they will ensure safety of those systems.
And so moving to something called risk-informed performance-
based assessment or analysis is the framework that they're
looking to move to. And they're in the process of doing that.
We have just started our pre-application engagement with
the NRC, and so it's a little early on in the process. We've
had a couple meetings with them, very anxious to move forward,
kick the tires with the NRC and help them understand our
technology and help them with that new framework.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back to
you.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir.
The gentleman from California is recognized for his
questions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
And, Dr. Parsons, in your prepared testimony you discussed
creating a site where companies can deploy prototype reactors.
And let me just note that we have--with your leadership--
provided legislation, H.R. 431, which is Chairman Weber's bill,
and that's about to be signed into law. And we appreciate your
leadership, Mr. Chairman, and your guidance on this, so that--I
think we've done--we've taken a step in the right direction. I
would imagine that's part of your testimony today.
Dr. Parsons. Indeed, we thank you for that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Let's look at this. Again, I don't
want to dwell on the fact that nuclear energy I believe is
inherently dangerous, but we have to do certain things that are
dangerous in order to succeed in achieving certain goals for
civilization. The Chairman was asking about how these things
could be determined in case of an emergency, it would shut down
that, and, Mr. Chairman, I think HAL will make all those
decisions for us. You remember HAL?
Chairman Weber. That was quite some odyssey, wasn't it?
Mr. Rohrabacher. HAL in the Space Odyssey 2001 was the
computer got out of control. And we have already had, some
people suggest--Elon Musk for one of them--that if we go too
far down the road of everything robotic and letting them make
decisions, perhaps wrong decisions will be made that are beyond
our comprehension today. So as we move down that direction,
obviously whatever system we put in place will have to have a
computer systems that will deal with the new challenges that
are brought up.
Again, I would just suggest--and I don't have the
engineering background, but from what I have heard today and
from what I have gleaned from other hearings that we've had is
that light-water reactors are inherently more dangerous than
what we are capable of building in terms of the non-light-water
reactors. Mr. Bowers, is that correct?
Mr. Bowers. I would phrase it a different way, which is
that the light-water reactors require active safety systems to
maintain safety, and the advantage that the--and these are
generation 2 and generation 3 reactors. The advantage that the
generation 4 reactors bring is that rather than having active
safety systems that require human intervention, you have
passive safety systems that do not require a human to ensure
safety of the system. And I'll let Mr. McGinnis----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, inherently, do we not have more
leftover waste from light-water reactors than we would from the
high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, for example?
Mr. Bowers. I'm going to say that no free lunch. You know,
we create nuclear spent fuel the same way that a light-water
reactor does. Ours is packaged a little different. Rather than
it being in control rods, we're in pebbles.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, the question isn't length of time.
The question is amount of waste that we have to deal with. I am
under the impression that light-water reactors will produce
more nuclear waste stuff that we deal with as compared to high-
temperature gas-cooled reactors, for example. Is that correct?
Mr. Bowers. I'm going to pass on that if I may and get back
to you with an answer. I'm not a spent-fuel expert, so forgive
me.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But go right ahead.
Mr. McGinnis. Thank you very much. I would just love to
have had some of our great innovators in NuScale and Holtec and
frankly some of the other companies here that are working on
game-changing both non-light-water and light-water reactors.
Literally the one that is progressing with partnership with
Idaho National Lab, UAMPS, municipal utility in the Utah region
with a number of States, this design is going through the NRC
now. They're very conservative at the NRC, and it's a light-
water design.
And so I would ask that if we could at least open the
spectra a bit and give this design an opportunity to see
whether NRC validates that this light-water small modular
reactor design can safely shut down on its own. And they've
already validated that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I'm more concerned about----
Mr. McGinnis. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --also the amount of nuclear waste. We
have a storage facility that's being put at San Onofre right in
the middle of a huge residential--I'm talking about millions of
people live around San Onofre, including my family I might add.
And if there is a system that will produce less nuclear waste
at the end of the process, we should go in that direction, and
especially if we can build a system that eats some of the waste
that's already been given to us and eats some of that as fuel.
So I would hope that we go and get really serious in terms of
not just planning how to produce electricity but how to deal
with that waste as part of the equation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir. I want to thank the
witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for
their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and written questions from the Members. The
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Edward McGinnis
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Harlan Bowers
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]