[Senate Hearing 117-120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                 


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-120
 
                     THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
                     NUCLEAR ENERGY SECTOR, WITH A
                     FOCUS ON WAYS TO MAINTAIN AND
                    EXPAND THE USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
                    IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 25, 2021

                               __________
                               
                               
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                            


                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        
        
        
 
                       ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 00-000          WASHINGTON : 2023
        
        
        
        
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                Rory Stanley, Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
      Justin Memmott, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Energy
                 Brad Williams, Republican INL Detailee
                 
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  Wyoming........................................................     2

                               WITNESSES

Lyash, Jeffrey J., President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Tennessee Valley Authority.....................................     4
Levesque, Chris, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  TerraPower.....................................................    23
Melbye, Scott, President, Uranium Producers of America, and 
  Executive Vice President, Uranium Energy Corp..................    33
Roma, Amy C., Founding Member, Nuclear Energy and National 
  Security Coalition, Atlantic Council, and Partner, Hogan 
  Lovells US LLP.................................................    41
Sell, J. Clay, Chief Executive Officer, X-energy.................    59

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     2
Central Washington Building and Construction Trades Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................    72
Grand Canyon Trust:
    Briefing for the Record......................................   150
Industrial Energy Consumers of America:
    Comments for the Record......................................   153
Levesque, Chris:
    Opening Statement............................................    23
    Written Testimony............................................    25
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   104
Lyash, Jeffrey J.:
    Opening Statement............................................     4
    Written Testimony............................................     6
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   100
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Melbye, Scott:
    Opening Statement............................................    33
    Written Testimony............................................    35
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   114
NuScale Power:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   156
Roma, Amy C.:
    Opening Statement with attachments...........................    41
    Written Testimony............................................    43
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   121
Sell, J. Clay:
    Opening Statement............................................    59
    Written Testimony............................................    61
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   139
Tri-City Development Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................   163
Vieira, Paul and Peter Landers:
    Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Canada Embraces 
      Nuclear Energy Expansion To Lower Carbon Emissions'' dated 
      March 3, 2021..............................................   165


                     THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE



                     NUCLEAR ENERGY SECTOR, WITH A



                     FOCUS ON WAYS TO MAINTAIN AND



                    EXPAND THE USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY



                    IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in Room 
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin III, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
    First of all, thanks to all of you. I will do it more 
formally when I do this, but I want to thank you all for being 
here. It is going to be a very important meeting that we have 
today.
    I am pleased to focus our conversation today on nuclear 
technology and how we can maintain and expand the use of 
nuclear energy both domestically and abroad. I want to thank 
our witnesses, who will provide us with a vision of our nuclear 
energy future. A lot happened in the last year on the nuclear 
front. First and foremost, we passed the Energy Act with the 
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP), which was 
spearheaded by Senator Murkowski. We also were successful in 
lifting the Development Finance Corporation's ban on civil 
nuclear financing, allowing the U.S. to offer more competitive 
deals to the international community. Two of our witnesses, 
TerraPower and X-energy were selected as winners of the 
Department of Energy Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program--
congratulations. And $75 million was appropriated to initiate a 
uranium reserve while we also authorized the Russian suspension 
agreement to prevent manipulation of our energy markets.
    With those accomplishments behind us, we still have a lot 
of work ahead of us. The public remains cautious about nuclear 
energy. Congress must pass legislation that allows states to 
have buy-in when it comes to the nuclear repository site 
selection and construction and we must ensure that the National 
Nuclear Security Administration has the proper resources to 
operate their non-proliferation and safeguards program in 
coordination with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I 
look forward to working with members of this Committee to 
accomplish these objectives.
    But today, I want to focus on our efforts to build advanced 
reactors. The Department of Energy and our national 
laboratories play a central role in leading this effort in 
concert with private advanced nuclear energy companies. This 
public-private relationship is incredibly important, especially 
in delivering financing to commercialize these reactors. 
Already, private investments have surpassed $1.3 billion. This 
is largely because of their enormous market potential for 
electricity, process heat for manufacturing, electrolysis for 
hydrogen production, and desalinization.
    We include important provisions with the Energy Act, 
directing the continued research on how to develop hybrid and 
integrated energy systems to operate seamlessly together. Idaho 
National Lab (INL), the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), 
and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in 
Morgantown, West Virginia, are leaders in this effort. Nuclear 
power provides about ten percent of the world's electricity and 
prevents approximately two gigatons of carbon from reaching our 
atmosphere every year. But about 789 million people around the 
world still live without any electricity. Nuclear energy can be 
part of delivering that electricity to lift people out of 
poverty and provide the opportunities that many have become 
accustomed to. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was created 
to do that very thing during the Great Depression. This is a 
model that can inform our efforts, both domestically and 
abroad. Russia and China have made a strategic effort to 
supplant our nuclear leadership over recent years and we must 
push back. With the necessary policy and funding, we can 
maintain our nuclear supply chain, create high-paying 
manufacturing jobs, and reassert U.S. leaderships.
    We also need to discuss the role of our existing fleet, 
where we are seeing more closures. This year alone, five 
reactors at three locations with 5.1-gigawatt capacity are 
slated to close. The International Energy Agency (IEA) found 
that across the advanced economies, if countries continue to 
allow nuclear reactors to be prematurely shut down, it will be 
$80 billion a year more costly to meet emission goals--that is 
$80 billion more each year. Lifetime extensions are cheaper 
than new builds and are generally cost-competitive with other 
generation technologies. We cannot afford to let this carbon-
free energy resource fade out.
    So with that I will turn it over to the Ranking Member, 
Senator Barrasso, for his opening statement.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Thanks for holding this very important hearing today.
    Now more than ever, Washington must advance policies to 
preserve and expand the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear 
technology is fundamental to meeting our energy, environmental, 
and national security goals. Nuclear power is our nation's 
largest source of carbon-free energy. In turn, it is critical 
to reliable, resilient, and affordable electric service. During 
last month's cold snap, nuclear power plants, by one key 
metric, outperformed all other energy sources. For the last 75 
years, America's nuclear energy industry has been the world's 
leader in safety, as well as performance. We need to ensure our 
leadership endures.
    As we speak, America's adversaries, Russia and China, seek 
to undermine our nuclear industry. Russia and its satellites 
have intentionally dumped uranium into our market. They 
undercut American uranium producers and processors. They drive 
our companies out of business. America's uranium production is 
so low, it is now at a level not seen since the 1940s. We are 
on the brink of finding ourselves completely reliant on foreign 
uranium to power our nuclear power plants. This is 
unacceptable. The Biden Administration must take decisive 
action to prevent this from happening. Last year, Congress 
appropriated $75 million to establish a national uranium 
reserve. This year, Secretary [of Energy] Granholm should 
complete the establishment of the reserve, begin a purchasing 
program, and buy American-produced uranium. We must maintain 
our ability to produce and process our own uranium.
    In addition to losing our uranium producers, we are also 
losing our nuclear reactors. Currently, we have 94 operating 
nuclear reactors. These reactors provide 20 percent of our 
nation's electricity. Since 2013, 11 reactors have shut down. 
Even more are scheduled to retire by 2025, including five this 
year. Many of these plants could safely remain online for 
decades. While the reasons for these closures may be complex, 
too often they result in carbon emissions going up nationally 
and electricity reliability going down. That is why Senators 
Whitehouse, Crapo, Booker, and I introduced the American 
Nuclear Infrastructure Act. We did that last Congress. Among 
other things, the bill would keep reactors online that are at 
risk of closing prematurely. Last December, the Environment and 
Public Works Committee reported this bill with broad bipartisan 
support.
    Innovation will also be key to re-establishing America's 
leadership in nuclear energy. Two years ago, President Trump 
signed into law the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization 
Act. It is a bill I introduced along with Chairman Manchin and 
Senator Risch and others. This bill established a network for 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to approve advanced 
nuclear reactor designs. Over the next decade, we expect 
advanced nuclear technologies to be deployed. New reactors will 
be safer, smaller, and more efficient. Advanced nuclear 
reactors will generate less nuclear waste, some may even run on 
previously used nuclear fuel. Advanced nuclear technologies 
will enable new market opportunities beyond the electricity 
sector. The heat from advanced nuclear reactors can drive a 
variety of industrial processes. It can improve the efficiency 
of chemical and hydrogen production. This heat can clean up 
wastewater and make salt water from our oceans usable. Advanced 
nuclear reactors will also improve access to materials used to 
diagnose and to treat diseases. They will even power missions 
to space.
    The world is looking to nuclear power to meet its energy 
and environmental goals. We must ensure American technologies 
are leading in this global expansion of nuclear energy. 
American leadership in this sector is critical. It is critical 
to ensure nuclear energy is used safely for our peaceful 
purposes. Today, we will hear directly from the industry 
executives working to maintain our historic leadership in 
nuclear energy. I look forward to the testimony.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
    And now, let me welcome our highly qualified panel of 
witnesses for their opening statements.
    Starting with Mr. Jeffrey Lyash, who is President and CEO 
of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Mr. Lyash, thank you for 
being here.

 STATEMENT OF JEFFREY J. LYASH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
              OFFICER, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

    Mr. Lyash. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and members of the Committee, and thank you for the 
opportunity to appear today and to represent one of the 
nation's largest and most innovative utilities and a corporate 
agency of the Federal Government, the Tennessee Valley 
Authority. My career began in the energy industry 40 years ago 
and it included service at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and in both public and investor-owned utilities. I 
spent a significant portion of my career building, maintaining, 
and operating nuclear facilities and I believe that nuclear 
energy plays an important role in our nation's current and 
future energy supply. I appreciate the Committee's interest in 
this important resource.
    TVA has a clear mission to serve the nation and the people 
of the Tennessee Valley. Our employees deliver on this mission 
by focusing on three mission-related areas: first, energy--low-
cost and reliable; second, environmental stewardship--
protecting and managing natural resources; and third, economic 
development--attracting and retaining jobs and capital 
investment. It's as powerful a mission as I have seen in my 
career and TVA funds this mission entirely from energy sales--
no federal appropriations. As I look to the future, the 
alignment and interdependency of these three mission elements 
only grows stronger. Energy, environment, and the economy must 
move together and forward in balanced lockstep. A core TVA 
strength is our diverse and clean generating portfolio, one of 
the most diverse in the industry, including hydroelectric 
power, renewable energy, natural gas, a lessening contribution 
from coal, and the nation's third largest nuclear fleet. Our 
power system is one of the most reliable in the industry. We 
serve many rural communities over a seven-state region that is 
economically disadvantaged. So the price of electricity in our 
region matters. We have kept energy costs low and stable for 
most of the last decade and we intend to keep them flat.
    Our system is also one of the nation's cleanest, with 60 
percent coming from carbon-free sources last year. The 
aggregate of this supports quality economic growth in a region 
that is home to ten million people. In the past five years, TVA 
has helped deliver 341,000 jobs and over $45 billion in capital 
investment to the region. Consistent with our environmental 
stewardship mission, we are a leader in carbon reduction, 
having already lowered our greenhouse gas emissions by 60 
percent when compared to the 2005 benchmark. We accomplished 
this by incorporating renewable energy assets, replacing aging 
plants with new, high-efficiency natural gas and, importantly, 
expanding our nuclear program. We are committed to continuing 
this effort by executing our plan to reduce emissions 70 
percent by 2030 and building a path using existing technology, 
including nuclear power to an 80 percent reduction. Of course, 
our aspiration is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions and to 
support broader, national efforts to decarbonize the economy. 
If we continue to lower greenhouse gas emissions without 
sacrificing cost and reliability, efficient electrification 
could be a key to decarbonizing other sectors of the economy. 
We already see this in the rapid development of electric 
transportation technology.
    Electricity as a percentage of final energy has risen from 
three percent in 1950 to 21 percent in 2020, and studies 
project that this could be 40 percent by 2050. As electricity 
grows, so will customers' need for affordability and 
reliability, and our challenge is to lower existing fleet 
carbon emissions while adding reliable and affordable low-
carbon resources to support electrification. Maintaining 
balance between price, reliability, electrical generation-
sector CO2 reduction, and efficient electrification 
will help deliver a sustainable economic advantage. Now, this 
will require investment in technologies such as energy storage, 
carbon capture, low-carbon fuels, and advanced nuclear design. 
Currently, 42 percent of TVA's total power supply comes from 
nuclear, and I believe that nuclear energy will play a critical 
role in our collective path to a net-zero carbon future. This 
large-scale energy source delivers reliability, cost 
effectiveness, and carbon-free energy, and its dispatchability, 
fuel stability and security, diversity, and its regional, 
positive economic impact is unmatched and, frankly, it's 
unrecognized in the organized market.
    Optimizing and extending the operating lifetime of our 
nuclear fleet has to be a primary focus. We've already extended 
the lives from 40 to 60 years and we will shortly extend to 80, 
perhaps 100. But while extending the lives [of these reactors] 
is critical, it's not sufficient. TVA is actively engaged in 
developing new nuclear technology for tomorrow. Enabling new 
nuclear here will take innovation and creativity, but it also 
takes old school discipline and hard work. The momentum for new 
reactors is growing and that momentum can lead us to a diverse 
portfolio of advanced reactors to meet new needs. At TVA, we 
received an early site permit from the NRC for our Clinch River 
site. We're currently executing the environmental assessment 
process as the next step to establish this as a future option 
and our team is engaged with technology developers, including 
those that are here today to understand cost and risk 
associated with various reactor designs. When we begin site-
specific engineering, it will be after an extensive and careful 
series of preparations. Our current schedule is to have a small 
modular reactor, perhaps in service, at Clinch River by 2032.
    In summary, TVA has long been a leader in technology 
innovation. Nearly 90 years after our founding, pursuing new 
ideas and innovative solutions is an important part of 
everything we do. We believe nuclear technology plays a 
critical role in maintaining the necessary balance between 
price, reliability, generation-sector carbon dioxide reduction, 
and efficient electrification that will help deliver on our 
environmental goals and build sustainable economic advantage 
for the country.
    Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lyash follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lyash.
    Next we have Mr. Levesque, President and CEO of TerraPower.
    Mr. Levesque.

  STATEMENT OF CHRIS LEVESQUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
                      OFFICER, TERRAPOWER

    Mr. Levesque. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and members of the Committee. My name is Chris 
Levesque and I'm the Chief Executive Officer of TerraPower.
    TerraPower was founded by Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold in 
2006 to solve the dual challenges of the growing global demand 
for energy and the rising threat of climate change. Our mission 
is to improve nuclear energy delivery using 21st century 
technologies to increase safety, reduce costs, reduce the risks 
of weapons proliferation, minimize waste, and more efficiently 
use fuel. America is well-positioned to lead on advanced 
nuclear. TerraPower's goal is to provide a commercial product 
that provides reliable, zero-carbon, cost-effective energy 
solutions.
    This is a critical period for nuclear power. Nuclear 
provides a majority of the clean energy in the United States. 
It is now America's second largest single source of 
electricity. But more nuclear plants are slated for closure 
than are currently being built. As the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change has noted, meeting aggressive climate goals 
requires expanding global nuclear capacity in the coming 
decades. This presents an opportunity for our industry both 
here and, importantly, globally, to meet this growing demand. 
Thankfully, the Committee recognizes it is time to demonstrate 
and deploy American advanced nuclear technology.
    Last year, TerraPower was grateful to win a competitive 
award for the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, a program 
authorized by this Committee, to demonstrate our Natrium 
technology. Natrium is designed to meet the energy needs of the 
21st century electrical grid, which is facing growing 
resiliency challenges as fossil plants are retired, and clean 
but intermittent sources like wind and solar are deployed in 
mass. Natrium not only generates clean energy at 345 megawatts 
rated electrical output, it could also store heat from our 
reactor in a molten salt storage system, allowing it to deliver 
500 megawatts of power for five and a half hours. Such storage 
capability is four times greater than the largest lithium 
battery storage system in the world. It allows Natrium to work 
well with renewables, like wind and solar. This is a benefit 
because as more utilities plan to dramatically reduce or even 
eliminate emissions and pollution from their power systems, 
they need firm, dispatchable power and hours-long storage 
capability that batteries cannot economically provide.
    We are confident that Natrium's cost and safety profiles 
will make it an attractive option for utilities around the 
world. Natrium's novel architecture provides significant 
improvements in safety. Instead of water, Natrium uses sodium 
as our coolant, which has a boiling point of 882 degrees 
Celsius. Unlike conventional reactors, Natrium operates at 
atmospheric pressure and its operating temperature is hundreds 
of degrees below the boiling point of the coolant. This greatly 
reduces the likelihood and, importantly, the severity of any 
accident. Our design relies on natural forces, like convection 
to cool the reactor after an unexpected shutdown. Because 
inherent safety is built into the reactor design, we are able 
to reduce the number of man-made systems needed to ensure 
safety, which results in cost savings. In addition, the Natrium 
architecture separates the energy storage and electricity 
production systems from the nuclear island, allowing us to 
further decrease costs.
    The Committee has also recognized the role the Federal 
Government can play in developing advanced nuclear technology, 
like it has for civil nuclear advances over the past half 
century. Companies like TerraPower and X-energy have spent many 
years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop our 
technologies. The Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program 
(ARDP), which establishes a 50/50 cost share program to build 
the first commercial-scale units to demonstrate the technology, 
comes at a critical moment. If Congress continues to fully fund 
the ARDP, we will have multiple advanced reactors, fully 
demonstrated and commercially available in the late 2020s--
reactors that will help the United States decarbonize, create 
good, high-paying jobs, and allow our country to re-establish 
leadership, strengthening our nation's security. We urge 
Congress to continue funding the ARDP at the levels required to 
demonstrate both of these reactors under the timeframe Congress 
mandated.
    TerraPower appreciates the Committee's bipartisan support 
for nuclear. Do recognize that the country that owns the 
advanced nuclear transition will be a leader in the global 
nuclear market. As countries around the world turn to nuclear 
energy for reliable, clean, and abundant energy, we will have 
American technology options to offer them. I look forward to 
taking your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Levesque follows:]
    
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Levesque.
    And next we have Mr. Scott Melbye, President of the Uranium 
Producers of America.
    Mr. Melbye.

  STATEMENT OF SCOTT MELBYE, PRESIDENT, URANIUM PRODUCERS OF 
   AMERICA, AND EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, URANIUM ENERGY CORP

    Mr. Melbye. Thank you, Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member 
Barrasso. It is an honor to testify before the Senate Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee. I am a second-generation 
American uranium miner and currently President of the Uranium 
Producers of America and Executive Vice President of Uranium 
Energy Corp, with operations in Texas and Wyoming. I have 36 
years of experience in every facet of the international nuclear 
fuel cycle, from the production and global marketing of uranium 
to its use as clean energy fuel in the Palo Verde Nuclear 
Station near Phoenix, Arizona.
    This is an exciting time for nuclear, which is already 
providing electricity in one in five American homes and over 
half of our nation's carbon-free power. Nuclear power can work 
hand-in-hand with other green technologies, like wind and solar 
to help advance the American clean energy revolution. But the 
United States must establish its global nuclear leadership, 
including a robust nuclear fuel cycle that has been eroded by 
Russia, China, and state-owned entities in recent years. 
America is dangerously close to losing our uranium fuel 
industrial base. We lack a domestic enrichment capacity, free 
of control by foreign powers. The sole U.S. conversion facility 
in Illinois has been idle since 2017 and will restart 
operations in 2023. We are nearly completely dependent on 
foreign uranium imports, state-owned entities in Russia, 
Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, for supplying almost half the fuel 
used by America's reactor fleet. And Chinese state-owned 
entities are capturing large portions of global uranium mining 
capacity, taking supply out of the free market and putting it 
under Beijing's control.
    Uranium is also required for naval propulsion and nuclear 
deterrents, the pure essence of what it means to be a critical 
mineral. The 93 small modular reactors in our fleet of 82 
aircraft carriers and submarines have defended our interests 
safely and reliably since the 1950s. These reactors must rely 
on U.S.-origin uranium, which is unobligated to the controls of 
foreign nations, and we need to retain our ability to 
independently refuel them. TVA's tritium production and 
Department of Defense microreactors have similar domestic 
uranium requirements. Absent a renewed commitment to America's 
nuclear fuel cycle, we are jeopardizing our defense 
capabilities and our clean energy goals. Russia and China fully 
leverage energy dominance to their geopolitical advantage. 
They're playing a long game in a way America is not, using 
their nuclear energy clout to strengthen geopolitical ties with 
energy-starved countries around the world. America is also 
risking its seat at the global non-proliferation table.
    The similarities to our rare earth mineral dependence on 
China are startling, but it doesn't have to be this way and it 
isn't too late. We have over one billion pounds of uranium in 
known and likely deposits in the United States. With 21st 
century conventional mining practices and environmentally 
friendly in situ uranium recovery technology, the modern 
uranium mining industry is very different than was the case 
back in the 1950s. We are highly regulated and have embraced, 
for many reasons, the world's highest health, safety, and 
environmental protection standards, and we are cost-competitive 
globally, but for the price undercutting tactics of state-owned 
companies. With swift action to implement the strategic uranium 
reserve, the Department of Energy can take advantage of the 
licensed infrastructure and human resources we still have on 
standby. Congress recently appropriated $75 million for the 
uranium reserve on a bipartisan basis, and with the support of 
nuclear utilities, it is crucial the Department move quickly to 
begin purchasing uranium this year. This will preserve the 
industrial base, guard against global supply disruptions, and 
create a source of U.S.-origin uranium for defense needs. We 
urge Congress to grant the full funding recommended over the 
next ten years by the interagency Nuclear Fuel Working Group 
led by the Department of Energy. One hundred fifty million 
dollars a year is a modest investment, considering it will 
preserve the nuclear fuel cycle in the U.S. instead of ceding 
it to China, Russia, and their allies.
    In closing, I applaud this Committee for exploring ways to 
advance America's nuclear leadership and capabilities in 
support of clean energy goals, national security, and our 
global competitive presence. I look forward to taking any 
questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Melbye follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Melbye.
    And next, we have Ms. Amy Roma, Founding Member of the 
Atlantic Council's Nuclear Energy and National Security 
Coalition and a Partner in the law firm, Hogan Lovells.
    Ms. Roma.

 STATEMENT OF AMY C. ROMA, FOUNDING MEMBER, NUCLEAR ENERGY AND 
  NATIONAL SECURITY COALITION, ATLANTIC COUNCIL, AND PARTNER, 
                      HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

    Ms. Roma. Good morning. My name is Amy Roma and I am a 
member of the Atlantic Council's Nuclear Energy and National 
Security Coalition and a lawyer at Hogan Lovells. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify today.
    Commercial nuclear power has always served as an important 
tool to achieve U.S. national security objectives and U.S. 
economic interests. In 1954, at the dawn of nuclear power, 
President Eisenhower delivered his famous ``Atoms for Peace'' 
speech, offering to share U.S. nuclear energy technology with 
other nations who committed not to develop nuclear weapons. 
This program resulted in three important economic and national 
security objectives. First, it prevented the spread of nuclear 
weapons. Second, it made the United States the leader in 
nuclear power, ensuring the U.S. maintained dominance in 
nuclear safety, security, innovation, and nuclear trade. And 
third, it ensured the U.S. benefited from the geopolitical 
relationship that goes with such significant assistance with a 
foreign country's power supply. President Eisenhower's historic 
move has paid dividends for decades, and the U.S. was long 
positioned as the global leader in commercial nuclear power 
and, remarkably, the same arguments used to support nuclear 
trade after World War II are still just as relevant today. That 
is that the United States should lead in nuclear trade because 
if we do not, another country will. And while the U.S. still 
has the largest nuclear fleet and best-run plants in the world, 
we have seen our international role as a global leader in 
nuclear power sharply decline, replaced largely by Russia, with 
China close behind.
    Russia and China have identified building nuclear power 
plants and nuclear trade as national priorities promoted by the 
highest level of government and backed by state financing and 
state-owned enterprises. Their focus has paid off. Nuclear 
power plants are being built all around the world. But Russia 
is building them. Russia uses nuclear exports as a tool to 
exert foreign influence and reaps significant economic gains 
with a claimed $133 billion in orders for foreign reactors. 
Nuclear energy is also a component of China's ``Belt and Road'' 
initiative, with China estimating it could have $145 billion in 
orders for foreign reactors and create five million Chinese 
jobs. The U.S. nuclear power industry, competing against state 
governments for new projects, has quickly been sidelined on the 
foreign stage with no new orders for nuclear reactors abroad.
    The global market opportunity is huge and growing and the 
impact of the lack of U.S. leadership is widely felt. The 
current market for new nuclear is already in the hundreds of 
billions of dollars. If carbon mitigation measures are 
deployed, the global nuclear market would be in the trillions 
of dollars. Sitting by the wayside and letting Russia and China 
continue to capture this market hurts not only our country's 
economic interests, but also undermines U.S. national security, 
technical innovation, and geopolitical interest. Russian energy 
policy, in particular, expressly recognizes the export of 
energy technologies as a geostrategic tool to promote Russian 
national security. As one example, Egypt and Russia recently 
finalized a $21 billion contract for the Russians to supply 
four reactors in Egypt. A few months later, Egypt and Russia 
announced a preliminary agreement to allow Russian military 
jets to use its air space and bases. This agreement will give 
Russia its deepest presence in Egypt since 1973.
    While China appears to generally view nuclear power exports 
as an important economic opportunity, its expansion in 
developing new nuclear technologies also has defense 
implications. For example, China plans to build a number of 
floating nuclear reactors to provide power to the artificial 
islands that it is currently building in the South China Sea, a 
hotly contested area. These same weapons can support not only 
power for these islands, but also provide power for advanced 
weaponry.
    While the U.S. has ceded the current mantle, we have a 
chance to regain it when it comes to the next generation of 
advanced reactors, where we hold a significant innovation edge. 
In particular, the U.S. leads the world in the development of 
advanced fission reactors as well as the nation's fusion 
industry. These advanced technologies are diverse, but share 
common design features, such as they are simple, scalable, and 
safe and can be used for both power and non-power applications 
such as hydrogen production, water desalinization, and process 
heat for industrial uses. U.S. innovation, when properly 
supported, can stand up to state-backed competitors. We saw 
this recently in the aerospace market. In 2013, Russia 
controlled about half of the launch industry. Due in large part 
to the success of SpaceX, shepherded by NASA's Commercial 
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, Russia is now 
estimated to capture only ten percent of the market. We came 
back with a one-two punch. First, the punch of U.S. innovation, 
and second, the punch of the U.S. Government providing 
commercialization support.
    So we can emerge here as a global leader in nuclear power 
with U.S. Government support. The opportunity is there. We have 
the innovation and the stakes are worth it. Thank you and I'm 
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Roma follows:]
    
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Roma.
    And now we have Mr. Sell. He is our final presenter and he 
is CEO of X-energy.
    Mr. Sell.

                  STATEMENT OF J. CLAY SELL, 
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, X-ENERGY

    Mr. Sell. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 
members of the Committee, thank you again for the opportunity 
to provide testimony today on current developments in the U.S. 
nuclear energy sector. I respectfully request that my full 
written testimony be submitted for the record and I will 
briefly summarize my remarks.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Sell. My name, again, is Clay Sell and I'm the Chief 
Executive of X-energy, a clean energy technology company 
founded by Dr. Kam Ghaffarian. We are developing Generation IV, 
high-temperature, gas-cooled, nuclear reactors and we are also 
a manufacturer of special TRISO-X fuel used in our reactors and 
other advanced reactors emerging on the market. Our commercial 
plant has four 80-megawatt electric modules and totals 320 
megawatt electric. It's in an optimized configuration sharing a 
single control center and other plant infrastructure. Our plant 
is intrinsically safe, benefits from a simplified and flexible 
design, and is economically attractive for a variety of 
electricity and process heat applications. This is the plant 
that we will build with our utility partner, Energy Northwest, 
as part of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, 
authorized by this Committee and signed into law last year. Our 
DOE award will deliver a project requiring approximately $2.5 
billion in expenditures between now and 2027 to achieve three 
major scopes of work. We will complete the final design and 
licensing of the plant at the U.S. NRC. We will license and 
construct the first phase of our commercial fuel plant in this 
program, and we will construct, fuel, and commission the 
commercial-scale plant in Richland, Washington.
    I came back to the nuclear industry with X-energy two years 
ago after ten years in the oil and gas and renewable 
development business. I do have a passion for nuclear energy 
and I've had it for 
20-plus years, but that is not the reason I came back to 
nuclear energy. I came back because of the immensity of the 
business opportunity before us. With global energy demand 
increasing by 50 percent by 2050 and the need to dramatically 
reduce carbon emissions, the business opportunity for nuclear 
power is simply massive. And we at X-energy see a different 
future for nuclear power than what has gone on before and we 
are creating it with the help of visionary leaders in the 
Congress and the Department of Energy. I believe the 
revitalization of the U.S. nuclear industry is a strategic 
imperative for our country.
    Now, as I testify along Mr. Levesque from TerraPower--they 
are the other U.S. company that was awarded a demonstration 
contract. I just want to make something clear--TerraPower, as a 
company, is a respected competitor and a company that we hold 
in the highest regard. But they are not the real competition. 
The real competition, as you've heard in other testimony today, 
is state-owned, Chinese and Russian companies. And today, those 
companies have replaced the United States as the dominant 
sellers of new nuclear power plants in the world. The Chinese 
and Russian enterprises know that nuclear power plant sales in 
foreign markets create 80- to 100-year relationships that 
become tightly woven into the fabric and destiny of a country's 
energy and critical industrial infrastructure. If the U.S. will 
not, or if the U.S. cannot compete in these export markets, the 
resulting global realignment of nuclear commerce will 
negatively impact our national security interests and our 
international influence for decades to come. In this 
geopolitical light, the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program 
takes on even greater importance and value. I know that 
Congress recognizes this and sees the ARDP as a necessary and 
powerful tool that will reinvigorate our domestic and export 
industries, including uranium production and domestic 
enrichment capabilities, thereby allowing the U.S. to reclaim 
its position of global leadership and influence now.
    I would like to highlight three challenges that require 
continued vigilance. First, availability of sufficient 
quantities of high-assay low-enriched uranium, known as HALEU, 
to fuel both the X-energy and TerraPower reactors. We will need 
that beginning in 2024 and it remains a critical concern. The 
Committee has provided strong leadership, but I have outlined 
additional policies in my written testimony that I respectfully 
urge the Committee to pursue. Second, continued reform and 
evolution of the NRC licensing framework, appropriate to the 
reduced risk and improved safety cases of advanced reactors, 
will require continued vigilance. And finally, predictable and 
consistent appropriations to match the billions of dollars of 
private capital committed to these demonstrations will be 
essential to delivering the projects on schedule by 2027.
    I hope I have provided you some insight into the value of 
this program and the exciting market opportunities. At X-
energy, we are proud to join with the leadership of the 
Committee to reclaim our global leadership position in this 
great American-born industry to create thousands of new, high-
paying American jobs, to enhance our energy and national 
security, and to ensure the high standards for safety and 
security around the world.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sell follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
    
    
    The Chairman. I want to thank all of you experts for your 
presentations. We appreciate it very much.
    I am going to turn it over now to Senator Barrasso. I have 
to go to a quick meeting. I will be right back. He will start 
with the questioning and we will continue with questions.
    Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Melbye, could you please explain why it is so important 
that the United States maintain our ability to produce and 
process our own uranium?
    Mr. Melbye. Well, Senator Barrasso, uranium, as you know, 
is a critical mineral in every sense of the definition, not 
only supplying 20 percent of our electricity in the United 
States, it is over half of our carbon-free energy, and the use 
in The Nuclear Navy and other defense programs cannot be 
understated where we definitely have to have the domestic 
infrastructure available to support those programs. It's also 
about nuclear leadership around the world as well, as we're 
going to be competitive against China and Russia in competing 
in markets for these advanced reactors, including small modular 
reactors. We need to have the whole package, and fuel cycle is 
part of that. It's something our competitors--our government 
competitors are offering. We need to be competitive in that as 
well.
    Senator Barrasso. So last year Congress appropriated $75 
million to establish the Strategic Uranium Reserve through the 
Department of Energy. Why is it so urgent that the Department 
establish that reserve, begin a pre-purchasing program, and buy 
American-produced uranium this year?
    Mr. Melbye. Well, Senator Barrasso, as you know, the 
uranium market conditions have really been crushed by, I would 
call it, predatory pricing by these state-owned entities, but 
we still have the infrastructure in place. We still have the 
companies and expertise hanging on to recover and grow and not 
just survive, but thrive in the uranium industry, but we do 
need that support, urgently. We've gone through quite a period 
of low uranium prices, but the promise of the uranium reserve 
has already resulted in significant serious measures being 
taken at a number of our member companies to advance their 
operations, to be ready to supply into that uranium reserve 
very quickly.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Mr. Levesque, I appreciate you joining us from the other 
side of the country and I appreciate the work that you have 
been doing. In your testimony, you discuss how TerraPower's 
Natrium advanced nuclear reactor is safer to operate, produces 
lower volumes of waste, and is cheaper to build than 
conventional light-water reactors. You also discuss how the 
Natrium reactor will power a molten salt energy storage system, 
which can store much more energy than a typical battery storage 
facility could do.
    Could you elaborate on the benefits of the Natrium reactor?
    Mr. Levesque. Yes, Senator, I would be happy to.
    You know, and I should begin by referencing the great safe 
operating record of light-water reactors that are operated by 
TVA, for example, that Mr. Lyash discussed. I have, in fact, 
operated light-water reactors earlier in my career as a 
submarine officer. Those reactors are very safe and TerraPower 
totally agrees that light-water reactors, like the ones at TVA, 
should have license extensions to 60, 80 years, possibly more.
    So beginning with that great safety record, there are, in 
fact, technologies that have been developed in the national 
labs for literally decades, and by companies like TerraPower 
and X-energy, that are now ready for demonstration. To focus on 
TerraPower's Natrium technology, as I mentioned, Natrium is a 
sodium-cooled reactor. So where past reactor designs--the ones 
that have been demonstrated by the U.S. in the late '50s at the 
Shippingport Station, for example--past reactor designs are 
water-cooled, high-pressure systems. Natrium is a low-pressure 
system that operates hundreds of degrees Centigrade from the 
boiling point of the coolant, which is sodium. That offers 
great safety benefits. Also, sodium naturally retains 
radioactive materials like iodine and cesium so you don't have 
to worry about those radioactive isotopes getting out into the 
containment and into the environment. So it offers an order-of-
magnitude lower accident and severity rate on an already great 
record in the light-water reactors today. Also, the fact that 
it's a low-pressure system is really important for reducing 
cost. Light-water reactors today are high-pressure systems that 
not only need very heavy components, but need heavy piping 
systems and heavy civil structures, heavy buildings and steel 
to support them. If you start with a lower pressure system, 
your components can then be lighter and your civil structures 
can then be lighter and cheaper as well.
    TerraPower also has a really novel architecture. Instead of 
boiling water with our reactor heat directly--the way reactors 
have done for over 50 years--we looked really closely at what's 
going on with the grids today and the growing expansion of wind 
and solar, which is good for clean energy and good for 
decarbonization. But that's creating grid resiliency issues and 
energy storage needs. So with Natrium, what we're doing with 
the heat, before we boil the water to run turbines the 
conventional way, we first store the heat in large molten salt 
storage tanks--the same technology that concentrated solar 
plants have today because they have to deal with the sun going 
in and out--but their customer demand is there all the time. So 
what Natrium does on top of having these safety and cost 
benefits, it's really the first American nuclear reactor--first 
nuclear reactor anywhere--that offers energy storage. And 
instead of being a baseload supply of electricity, as nuclear 
has been for 50 years, Natrium now provides a peaking 
capability that can ramp up and down as intermittent sources 
like wind and solar come and go.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thanks so very much.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to 
you and Senator Manchin for holding this important hearing. 
Obviously, the State of Washington has had a long history in 
nuclear power and I think that continues today. We are here to 
talk about the impacts of the next generation of nuclear 
energy. And I would say that the workforce in the Tri-Cities is 
especially excited about that. They have had a long history 
there, today over 12,000 
nuclear-skilled scientists, engineers, and craft workers are 
working there in 100 different companies. So it certainly is a 
home to a lot. Columbia Basin and Washington State University 
campuses offer bachelor's, master's and Ph.D.s in nuclear-
related fields, and the region hosts a strong apprentice 
program. In fact, I would like to enter, if I could, Mr. 
Chairman, into the record, a letter from Nick Bumpaous, 
President of 16 affiliated unions of Central Washington, in 
support of DOE's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.
    Senator Barrasso. Without objection, so ordered.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
    [Letter from Nick Bumpaous, President of CWB&CTC follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Senator Cantwell. Obviously, PNNL [Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory] gets a lot of money, $400 million, I 
think, a year to do R&D in nuclear-related fields. So we are 
very excited overall about this next generation of clean power.
    Mr. Sell and Mr. Levesque, you both testified to the 
benefits, particularly in comparison to light-water reactors, 
but how integral is the federal support for the advanced 
nuclear energy technology as a continuation to meeting our 
goals? And how important is Washington State's Clean Energy 
Transformation Act, you know, requiring sources be carbon-free 
by 2030, as a motivation to keep going? Also, I wanted to, you 
know, I should just mention, I certainly appreciate Bill Gates' 
and Nathan Myhrvold's efforts on TerraPower over a long period 
of time and recognition that the company is there.
    And Mr. Sell, you and I just had a conversation about X-
energy's larger footprint in the Tri-Cities, so anyway, we're 
all good. So maybe just tell the rest of us about the state's 
initiative and the federal support and what we need to keep 
doing.
    Mr. Sell. The first thing I will say is the federal support 
through the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is critical 
to seeing first-of-a-kind reactors built.
    Senator Cantwell. You mean commercialization?
    Mr. Sell. Yes, I mean, we are demonstrating a full-scale 
commercial plant, just like the plant that we will sell in 
Canada, that we hope to sell to TVA, that we hope to sell 
around the world. But the first plant is always the most 
challenging one to get built because all of the inherent risks 
associated with the first-of-a-kind plant. And so the federal 
support, in our case, is putting $1.2 billion into the project, 
but the private sector is matching that with $1.2 billion. So 
it's a critical accelerator to investment.
    We wanted to be in Washington State for our first-of-a-kind 
project. We wanted to partner with Energy Northwest. We have 
great regard for their CEO, Brad Sawatzke, and the way he has 
dramatically improved the operations of their single nuclear 
reactor over the last ten years. But the critical thing was the 
way the market has been shaped by the Clean Energy 
Transformation Act in Washington, that was passed in 2019. That 
is the most transformative thing that has happened in nuclear 
energy markets in the United States because it has created the 
commercial framework for nuclear to succeed and to succeed 
wildly. And as Washington State phases out coal by 2027 and 
then natural gas by 2045, that's going to generate an eight-
gigawatt gap of baseload, emissions-free power that needs to be 
filled. And the opportunity to do that with nuclear power, to 
continue the great nuclear tradition in Washington State, to 
continue the great tradition of emissions-free generation, is 
something that we really look forward to doing in Washington 
State by 2027 and we anticipate that we'll break ground on the 
initial non-nuclear construction there by the middle of 2023.
    Senator Cantwell. Mr. Levesque, hard to top that, but you 
can try.
    Mr. Levesque. Yes, nice to see you again, Senator Cantwell, 
and thanks for all your support in Washington. TerraPower is 
based in Bellevue, Washington, near Seattle. I completely agree 
with Mr. Sell's points on the kind of federal and state support 
that has really been positive in the last couple of years. I'll 
elaborate a little bit on the design of the Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program. It's really an excellent program for 
many reasons. I think the chief reason being the public and 
private cost share.
    These technologies that we're talking about, Generation IV 
advanced nuclear technologies, they've been worked on in the 
national labs for up to 20 years. TerraPower is a 14-year-old 
company. We have been working on the Natrium design with 
private investment, funding work at national labs, but all that 
work is really for naught if we don't demonstrate the reactor. 
These will just be power points and technical papers if we 
don't demonstrate the new technology, the way the U.S. did in 
the late 1950s. We demonstrated light-water technology at the 
Shippingport Station in Pennsylvania, which led to 400 reactors 
around the world based on U.S.-origin technology. If we don't 
demonstrate now, all of this technology investment that's been 
made by companies like TerraPower, X-energy, and government 
investment at the national labs, it will be for naught.
    So the ARDP is coming at the perfect time. You heard about 
the growing demand for electricity that's going to come with 
electrification of transportation and the industrial sectors. 
Well, at the same time, we're shutting off coal. That's going 
to create a great demand for clean energy generation like 
TerraPower's Natrium reactor. So the ARDP is really well-
designed in that it requires significant private cost share. If 
we think about the investment that TerraPower will be making 
during the construction of the demonstration reactor, you know, 
that investment and X-energy's will certainly be the largest 
private investments in nuclear energy in history, and the ARDP 
enabled this.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
    Mr. Levesque. Now, why is--yes?
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I am sorry. I am way over my 
time.
    Mr. Levesque. Okay.
    Senator Cantwell. I appreciate your fine points. I am going 
to ask, Mr. Chairman, a question for the record that we can get 
the witness on because it begs the question, if what Washington 
did in setting this market or in encouraging this kind of 
development, obviously again, in coordination with the Federal 
Government, what else could we be doing on setting a more 
predictable price that would signal to the rest of the United 
States and otherwise stop reactors from being shut down?
    So I do think it is an interesting question. We will get 
the witnesses on that, but thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this 
important hearing.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you so much. I 
appreciate the hearing today. Let me just say to the Chairman 
very quickly because, as everybody knows--I am from Nevada. I 
am for consent-based siting for nuclear waste. I think it is 
something that needs to be done and I think, particularly, as 
we look to nuclear power this is an issue we have to address as 
a country. And I think every state should be treated equally.
    So let me just thank the Chairman for his opening remarks. 
I also want to just recognize, again, that S. 541, the Nuclear 
Waste Informed Consent Act, that Senator Rosen and I 
introduced, I think is so important. I hope that my colleagues, 
we can all, along with the industry, address this issue, but 
treat every state equally, every state should be part of the 
solution and be treated equally.
    So I appreciate the opportunity just to make that 
statement.
    Mr. Melbye, let me start with you. In your written 
testimony, you raise some concerns about our domestic 
workforce, noting that the nuclear industry, and I quote, 
``requires trained, experienced, and skilled engineers, 
geologists, scientists, technicians, and operators.'' I am 
curious to hear more about the current overall status of our 
workforce and whether or not the panel thinks that the U.S. has 
enough nuclear engineering professionals to fully ramp up 
development and deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.
    Mr. Melbye. Well, thank you, Senator, and I can speak from 
the experience of our company, Uranium Energy Corp. You know, 
as I sit around our operational staff meetings and I look 
around at the folks around the table, a lot of them are in 
their 60s and even into their 70s and providing consulting, 
even after they leave our company. We've tried, as a company, 
to really provide mentoring for younger people and 
professionals and we've been able to do that, but it's 
difficult in a low uranium price environment to have that kind 
of bench strength, but I'm totally confident that schools like 
Texas A&M, Colorado School of Mines, and the University of 
Wyoming are ready to take on those next generation. The 
knowledge transfer hasn't been lost yet. So if we ramp up when 
we can and I know on the reactor side, our university and 
laboratory programs around the country are putting out young 
people that are very eager to get into small modular and 
advanced reactors as a way to really advance their interests in 
science and technology and do something to improve the planet 
through cleaner energy technologies.
    So I think we have a young next generation of willing 
employees, both in the fuel cycle, but also in reactor 
development.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
    And I want to hear from the rest of the panel. I only have 
so much time, so I--this is an issue that is important for, I 
think, for all of us to understand and make sure we are 
investing in our workforce, as well, as we move forward. But 
there is one thing I want to touch on and it goes back to my 
concerns about the nuclear waste, and this is for the panel 
members.
    How do--or how should--advanced nuclear reactor 
technologies compare to current in-use technology when it comes 
to the production of nuclear waste? Can you address that and 
can we talk a little bit about that and the difference between, 
and how we would address, the nuclear waste situation we are 
in?
    Mr. Sell. Senator----
    Mr. Levesque. Go ahead, Clay.
    Mr. Sell. Thank you, Chris.
    Senator, my name is Clay Sell, with X-energy, and our waste 
profile is a material improvement over the light-water waste 
situation in four chief respects. Number one, we're a much more 
efficient user of uranium and so, from an efficiency 
standpoint, we produce less waste per megawatt generated. 
Number two, our fuel form is a ceramic-encased material and it 
is a tremendous fuel form, but it is an even better waste form. 
And so, when you think about this waste being stored in a 
geologic repository, you don't have to consider the kinds of 
degradation that you face with metal-clad fuels.
    The third thing is we never have to cool this waste in 
water. It's just air-cooled, and our plant has the ability to 
store all of the waste that we will produce in the 60-year life 
of the plant onsite. So we're confident that with your 
legislation and other similar efforts, that a consent-based 
system will lead to a nuclear waste solution, a geologic 
repository, at some point in the next 60 years, but we have got 
the issue covered in a safe, responsible way that will be fully 
appreciated by our stakeholders and we do not anticipate that 
as a significant issue holding up the advanced reactors.
    Thank you.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you.
    And I know my time is up. I will submit the rest of my 
questions for the record. Thank you so much.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Next, we have Senator 
Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you all for your 
excellent testimony and I want to kind of take up where Senator 
Cortez Masto left off. Just to come back to that, you know, one 
of the great challenges of developing new nuclear energy assets 
beyond the cost is the fear, and that there is still this 
residual concern and fear about, you know, is this new facility 
going to be built in my community and what are those risks? And 
can advanced nuclear technologies offer a solution to this and 
in that process, how do we address some of those issues of 
fear?
    Mr. Lyash. Yes, Senator, this is Jeff Lyash, from the 
Tennessee Valley Authority. I think this is an issue that is 
trending in a very positive direction. Actually, the largest 
support for the operating fleet in nuclear reactors around the 
plants comes from the local communities and governments where 
those facilities exist and serve because they have the deepest 
understanding of the technology.
    The second comment I would make is that there is a growing 
sense, I believe, across the country and around the world and 
certainly reflected in this dialogue today, that confronting 
the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas reduction will 
require all the tools in the toolbox--nuclear, prime among 
them--and the technology is one of the safest ways to address 
what is a significant issue. I see that particularly in the 
younger generations and in the professional workforce that 
we're growing and engaging in this today.
    So the direct answer to your question is that I think 
recognition that nuclear is one of the central ways we can 
cost-effectively, reliably, and resiliently reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions and create an economic development for the 
country at a policy level and then continued communication that 
the existing fleet of reactors we operate in this country are 
some of the safest generating facilities on the planet and the 
U.S. nuclear program is the strongest nuclear program in the 
world.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great.
    Mr. Levesque. If I could add, Senator Hickenlooper, I'll 
just agree with Mr. Sell that these advanced nuclear plants, 
like X-energy and TerraPower's, offer a significant reduction 
in waste volume. That was one of TerraPower's goals at the 
start of our company, and that's really been enabled through 
advanced computer modeling and advanced materials. We have less 
waste at the end of the day. We also have much lower accident 
frequency.
    So as we go to the public, which we will inevitably do as 
we license these plants, there will be public meetings as we go 
through this seven-year project. We will be talking to 
communities about the waste reduction, about the safety 
improvements.
    And one other important thing: some of our messengers will 
be young people. There are many young people entering nuclear 
energy. We have young Ph.D.s at TerraPower who just committed 
their careers to nuclear energy because they want to fight 
climate change with nuclear energy. So we have technology 
improvements and we also have some great new voices that, I 
think, are going to help address these concerns.
    Senator Hickenlooper. I could not agree more and I do 
appreciate--I am not sure which one of you mentioned the 
Colorado School of Mines, but I know a couple of the kids out 
there that are really engaged in studying the future of nuclear 
power.
    But the fear does lead us into my one last question. Time 
always goes by so quickly in these. I thought I would ask Ms. 
Roma. You highlight the dominance of Russia and China in the 
new-build reactor market. How can we take advantage of the 
increasing export opportunities for nuclear energy and in a 
real way, I think, push back on both China and Russia trying to 
market autocratic government as being the better way around the 
world? I think this is an opportunity where we can really push 
back on that.
    Ms. Roma. Yes, I completely agree, thank you.
    First, to your earlier statement about fear and consent-
based siting, I have been doing licensing of new nuclear 
facilities for 17 years, and I can tell you that it's really 
hard to build any facility in a state and local community that 
don't want it. And so, engagement and making sure you're 
building it where people want it and that they support it and 
that everybody is brought to the table to be informed in that 
discussion is critical to deploying successful projects.
    Turning to how the U.S. can become competitive overseas, 
other countries want a U.S. option. They don't have one. I was 
recently looking at a map of Africa that kind of laid out every 
country that is looking at deploying nuclear and what their 
plans are for doing that and who they're talking to. Every 
single country has either an agreement for nuclear cooperation 
in place with Russia or with China or both, none of them have 
any in place with the United States. The same is true--I was on 
a presentation where people from Southeast Asia, from Indonesia 
and Vietnam, were talking about the considerations that they 
have when they're looking at what technologies they're going to 
select and they said Russia and China are already coming and 
talking to us and you guys aren't. And so, it's the industry 
going out, but the industry can't do it by themselves. 
TerraPower and X-energy can't go to a foreign country by 
ourselves and say, oh, can you build my reactor? It needs to be 
in coordination with the U.S. Government and creating this 
real, genuine kind of ``team USA,'' using U.S. innovators and 
teaming them with the other tools that the U.S. Government has 
in its arsenal to go and become competitive.
    Senator Hickenlooper. We agree and thank you all. I am out 
of time, but I will submit my other questions so they will be 
in the record. Thank you so much.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    I am going to take the privilege, if I can, to ask a 
question before I go to Senator Daines because I had to step 
out for a minute.
    Mr. Lyash, you and I had a good conversation. I really 
enjoyed it very much. I was just fascinated by the mix, your 
portfolio mix, for TVA. But also, we know that nuclear is 
emissions-free and plants have baseload attributes and proven 
track records of complementing variable energies, like 
renewables--I think you all do it all. But without new 
construction and the preservation of the existing nuclear fleet 
in the U.S., achieving a sustainable energy system will be more 
challenging and expensive as more renewables come online. Every 
year in the U.S., nuclear-generated electricity prevents more 
than 506 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering 
our atmosphere.
    So if we are serious about using all-of-the-above and doing 
it right and reducing our emissions, what actions should 
Congress take to ensure that additional nuclear power plants do 
not suffer premature shutdowns? And you can give me the age of 
your fleet and how you have been able to maintain and operate 
at the capacity you have?
    Mr. Lyash. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the question.
    You know, I believe that incorporation of renewables is 
important. We're building a thousand megawatts of solar a year, 
but nuclear makes that possible. That diverse fuel supply, that 
reliable resource, that high amount of carbon-free energy, 
backstands the renewables that we're adding. Your question 
about the existing fleet, we have the best performing nuclear 
fleet in the country, or in the world, and these plants are at 
the peak of their performance over the 50-year life of the 
industry.
    The Chairman. What is the age of your plants, average age 
of your nuclear?
    Mr. Lyash. Our plants are on average about 40 years old. 
We've extended the life----
    The Chairman. How much life do you have left in them?
    Mr. Lyash. I believe these plants can operate to 100 years. 
We are----
    The Chairman. Unbelievable.
    Mr. Lyash. We are extending the lives currently from 40 to 
60 and we will move 60 to 80 and I believe, ultimately, we'll 
be able to extend past that. We can do that because we 
recognize the full value of these plants. One of the issues the 
fleet is facing----
    The Chairman. Let me ask you--I hate to interrupt you, but 
why is the U.S. fleet then, why are we decreasing? Why are we 
taking them offline?
    Mr. Lyash. Yes, because in my view, in the organized 
markets, we don't recognize the full value that a nuclear plant 
brings. We have short-term focused energy markets and very 
short-term, three-year focused capacity markets that don't 
recognize that nuclear plants can operate for decades at 98 
percent reliability. As was mentioned earlier, they have a 
captive and secure----
    The Chairman. You are saying the power generating companies 
themselves today, as we have them, you know, different 
companies I have in my state, my area, and everybody--but they 
are just not, basically, utilizing fully their nuclear fleet 
or--?
    Mr. Lyash. That's correct. They don't--the markets don't 
recognize the full value. In order to correct that in the 
organized market, it's going to take action.
    The Chairman. Because all we hear about is, well, as the 
fossil plants decrease, then we have to come on with 
renewables. Well, we know renewables do not have storage, so 
they are not baseload, but then the only baseloads I have ever 
known to be totally baseload were nuclear and coal, both fuels 
are right there.
    Now gas has replaced an awful lot of the coal fleets and it 
seems like it has been more competitive, cost-wise, against 
nuclear. So it is replacing nuclear and coal--gas is. That is 
what we are seeing in the national market.
    Mr. Lyash. Gas is certainly an important resource and I 
agree it is displacing coal. We should be aware though that 
gas, although it's valuable and it's an important bridge fuel, 
it still emits carbon dioxide as an effluent. Nuclear does not. 
Nuclear adds tremendous economic impact to the communities 
where those exist. A nuclear unit, on average, probably 
produces about a billion dollars----
    The Chairman. And the cost of your nuclear? You are selling 
your nuclear power at what price?
    Mr. Lyash. Our nuclear power is the second lowest-cost 
resource on the system. Our hydroelectric is the lowest. 
Nuclear is the second lowest.
    The Chairman. Lower than gas and lower than renewables?
    Mr. Lyash. It is.
    Gas has approached nuclear power prices for us, but not 
surpassed them and----
    The Chairman. Wind and solar?
    Mr. Lyash. Both higher than nuclear.
    The Chairman. I'll be darned.
    Mr. Sell, do you have anything on this since you are right 
in the throw with things?
    Mr. Sell. No, it's a great question that I know the 
Congress and the states have struggled with. Fundamentally----
    The Chairman. We never hear--we don't talk, you understand, 
all of us here--we don't hear about nuclear. We don't talk 
about nuclear and it has been around. We have been running our 
whole military for what, 50-plus years?
    Mr. Sell. Yes.
    The Chairman. But yet, we don't even talk about it. All we 
are talking about--and I like renewables, we have renewables in 
my state. Every state has renewables. But nuclear really does 
the job, 24/7.
    Mr. Sell. The issue has become, in the United States, as we 
have deregulated the markets--and appropriately deregulated 
them--we have a market design failure. In each of the 
individual states that regulate their electric market----
    The Chairman. You are talking about merchant, right? 
Merchant plants?
    Mr. Sell. Well, it's not just merchant plants. It's a 
market design that does not value the number-one attribute that 
nuclear power gives, which is 24/7 baseload, emissions-free 
generation. That has a tremendous value, which nuclear 
operators are not compensated for in the marketplace. And as a 
result, you've seen good, operating plants, producing power at 
very low cost, shut down--not in the TVA region, but in the 
Midwest region--when they were in a perfect condition to 
continue to operate. And it's really an issue that the 
Congress, I hope, can work with the states to resolve.
    The Chairman. Thank you. My time is up.
    Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Chairman Manchin, I appreciate your 
curiosity on nuclear. I think you made some really great 
points. And this is a nuclear option both sides might agree on, 
actually.
    [Laughter.]
    Well, speaking of nuclear, currently Montana does not have 
any nuclear generation sites. However, the Montana state 
legislature, which is in session as we speak, is working on a 
few bills that would make it easier for Montana to build a 
nuclear energy site, and a study replacing some old coal-fired 
boilers with new advanced nuclear reactors. In bringing nuclear 
energy to Montana, it would help create more high-paying jobs, 
as we know. It would further diversify and balance our energy 
portfolio, and with Montana losing important baseload power--as 
the Chairman just talked about the importance of baseload and 
affordable, reliable power--we are losing the power. We are 
losing these high-paying jobs, and as we are adding new, clean, 
carbon-free energy like nuclear, it could help keep Montana 
powered for decades and help sustain rural communities and jobs 
that depend on it.
    Ms. Roma, there have been very few new nuclear energy 
projects built in recent decades and many of our laws and 
regulations are very outdated. What state and federal hurdles, 
like the ones in Montana, should we re-examine to help spur 
more nuclear power production?
    Ms. Roma. There's a whole host of things to consider. One, 
for states, it depends on what the states' laws are. Some 
states have laws in place that outright ban nuclear and so 
those states either won't build nuclear or need to revisit 
those laws. Other states have in place renewable energy 
portfolios that recognize the carbon-free benefits that 
renewable energy brings. Some expand the definition of power 
generation that can fit into that window to include nuclear, 
others do not.
    I suspect that as states actually look at how they're going 
to decarbonize their grid and have a diverse energy portfolio--
because you have to realize that even if you have tons of great 
wind in your state, you don't want to get 100 percent of your 
power from solely wind. That's putting all your eggs in one 
basket and it's a pretty dangerous strategy for power 
generation sources. We need to focus on diverse energy 
portfolios. So keeping in mind, how do you get that diversity 
while still meeting your climate goals is probably--and then 
how do you, kind of, work down from there--is probably a pretty 
strong objective.
    From the federal level, there's a whole host of things to 
be done. I think for advanced reactors, really continuing to 
support the demonstration projects with TerraPower and with X-
energy and then the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is 
also supporting a number of other advanced reactor companies. I 
think the most important thing to remember is, in the United 
States we can build a demonstration facility that can also 
serve as the first commercialized facility. It makes it a lot 
easier to sell something to other states and across, you know, 
into other countries, if we have a demonstrated technology so 
that people know what they're buying, know what the costs are 
associated with it, and know what the benefits are. So doing 
things to support research and development, doing things to 
support the advanced reactor companies, support innovation and 
then any kind of incentives to help take the sting off of 
deploying first-of-a-kind type facilities, such as loan 
guarantees or cost sharing would be very helpful.
    Senator Daines. Ms. Roma, thank you.
    Now, let's assume we solve the nuclear issue here. We start 
building plants. I have another question though, that relates 
to what do we do about the uranium supply because we import 90 
percent of our uranium from places like Russia, Kazakhstan, and 
Uzbekistan. This is despite the fact that we have ample 
reserves of recoverable deposits throughout the western United 
States and even in my home State of Montana. In fact, back in 
the '80s, the U.S. was a leading global producer of uranium and 
produced almost all the fuel that we needed to power a nuclear 
fleet, but now our production capabilities are at risk and we 
have ceded global leadership to foreign countries. This has 
caused the U.S. Commerce Department, in fact, in 2019, to 
determine that uranium imports threaten the national security 
of the United States.
    Mr. Melbye, uranium can be found with other critical 
minerals. How can we better coordinate domestic mining to 
increase both uranium as well as other critical mineral 
production?
    Mr. Melbye. Senator Daines, you're exactly right. Many rare 
earth elements and minerals, they occur geologically with 
radionuclides, like uranium. So the uranium industry actually 
possesses the facilities and expertise to actually handle and 
process these rare earth minerals alongside of uranium 
operations. In fact, the licensed uranium facility in Utah is 
doing just that, and being part of the rare earth element story 
and trying to reduce our reliance on those elements, those 
critical minerals, from trying to pull that away from China and 
Russia, so----
    Senator Daines. And when we think about that, as being 
global stewards of the environment, we have some of the most 
stringent mining environmental laws in the world. We should be 
mining more here in the U.S. instead of depending on foreign 
countries that have less stringent standards.
    Mr. Melbye, could you briefly describe how 21st century 
mining practices are beneficial to the environment, for jobs 
and our national security?
    Mr. Melbye. Well, Senator, you know very well in your state 
with such a mining tradition, the 21st century mining companies 
today have not only embraced the highest standards of health, 
safety, environment--we're setting the bar for around the 
world. So if we push mineral production offshore to other 
countries, we can't guarantee that those are going to be mined 
as responsibly as they are here.
    I also know that the investment community, through ESG 
practices, is continually measuring us on our attention to our 
local communities, the health of our workers, our social 
responsibility in the places where we operate. So I think today 
we're a global standard for responsible mining in the United 
States and we should do more of it right here.
    Senator Daines. Thanks, Mr. Melbye.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator 
Daines.
    Senator King.
    Senator King. I have been listening to this discussion. I 
came late. I was in another hearing. But the problem I have 
always understood with nuclear power is it is prohibitively 
expensive to build. Plants that are 40 years old that are fully 
amortized can compete with other forms, but a new plant--of the 
figures I remember and I may be somewhat out of date, about $5 
million a megawatt for a new nuclear plant, $500,000 a megawatt 
for a gas plant, about $1.5 million for a wind project. Nuclear 
power just is not remotely competitive economically in terms of 
new plants. Now the key, it seems to me, is innovation and 
development of these new alternatives that can bring that cost 
down but, I mean, I do not see how we can be having this 
discussion, at least about new conventional nuclear plants 
because the cost just is not even in the ballpark.
    Am I wrong, Mr. Lyash? What is the cost per megawatt of a 
new nuclear power plant today in the United States?
    Mr. Lyash. Well, Senator, the initial capital cost of new 
nuclear power is certainly higher, that initial capital 
investment, than a number of other generating sources.
    Senator King. It is not only higher, it is massively 
higher.
    Mr. Lyash. But taken over----
    Senator King. Prohibitively higher.
    Mr. Lyash. But taken over the lifetime of the facility, 
which extends 40, 50, 60 years, and levelizing that cost of 
energy, it's quite competitive. If we focus on nuclear power 
with a three-year time horizon like many organized markets do, 
it can't compete. But if you think of the total value of a 
nuclear plant and its lifetime, much like any other capital-
intensive asset, and levelize that cost, it's actually quite 
competitive.
    New nuclear designs are lower capital cost per kilowatt 
installed, shorter construction durations, and smaller sizes to 
reduce that initial capital investment, and like the existing 
nuclear plants, when thought of over their lifetime, are quite 
competitive.
    Senator King. And I appreciate that, and that is why I 
emphasized that I think demonstration projects, R&D, additional 
support for the new technologies that can bring that cost down, 
and also the construction period.
    A question about ratemaking. Your point is well taken of 
the lengthy life cycle of 40 or 50 years. Do our current 
regulatory structures allow for that kind of spread-out of the 
cost because the problem is the bankers or the people that 
finance, they want their money back, maybe not in three years, 
but they want it back in sooner than 40 years. So is there a 
way to levelize the cost in terms of impact on the ratepayers?
    Mr. Lyash. Yes, we have various regulatory structures in 
the U.S., which is part of the complication. For integrated 
investor-owned utilities, Southern Company, for example, that's 
building the Vogtle site, the regulator is providing oversight 
and working with them to do exactly that. For the Tennessee 
Valley Authority, we're public power. We continue to operate 
our plants quite successfully and could build new nuclear 
because, once again, we have the regulatory construct to 
amortize that over the life of the plant and levelize that cost 
and make it competitive. When you move to organized markets 
who, by their design, have short-term focus--day-ahead, week-
ahead energy markets, three-year capacity markets--that 
regulatory structure makes it very difficult to build any 
investment that takes a high upfront capital cost----
    Senator King. Yes.
    Mr. Lyash [continuing]. But delivers significant benefits 
in the long term. And I think if we're going to----
    Senator King. I understand that. I have done business in 
those markets and the problem is, they essentially discriminate 
against any capital-intensive energy farm. They make natural 
gas pretty much the only alternative.
    Mr. Lyash. Yes. And to Senator Manchin's earlier question, 
that's why the nuclear fleet struggles in those markets and 
it's an issue that we really need to correct to preserve that 
fleet.
    Senator King. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator King.
    Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all 
for the testimony. It is extremely important to be able to have 
this dialogue.
    Let me follow up with a basic question that I think we have 
talked about a little bit on the edge, but it has been 
interesting to do some reading on it. Mr. Lyash, is nuclear 
power determined to be base power or is it flexible power? Is 
it intermittent power or is it determined to be consistent?
    Mr. Lyash. Senator, I think you could characterize nuclear 
power as either baseload or flexible depending on the plant 
design and its operating regimen. We have historically thought 
about nuclear plants as baseload and that's the way we tend to 
run them in this system. But the technology can fill any one of 
those roles if designed and located properly.
    Senator Lankford. So, why would it be flexible? Why 
wouldn't it be baseload? What would be the design and the 
reason to be able to use it as flexible?
    Mr. Lyash. I thought Mr. Levesque pointed out a good 
example where using thermal salt storage to store the power so 
it can operate as a baseload or you can use that storage 
capability as a peaking resource. That's a good example of the 
flexibility in nuclear technology.
    Senator Lankford. Okay.
    Mr. Levesque. That's correct, Senator, and that's one of 
the design goals of Natrium. And you know, when we talk about 
the economics of nuclear energy, better economics involve lower 
cost, that's enabled by new technology, but better economics 
for utilities is also related to the rate at which the power 
can be sold. In a plant like Natrium, being able to flex is 
going to be able to participate in capacity markets where the 
electricity will be at a higher cost. So in the past, nuclear 
has been baseload. New plants, like Natrium, will allow nuclear 
to participate in entirely new and more economically attractive 
markets.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Levesque, you talked a lot about 
having the power that is more of a smaller modular unit and not 
trying to create as large of a reactor. Tell me the advantage 
of that and how many facilities would have to be built to be 
able to make a difference on our power grid across the country.
    Mr. Levesque. So, to be clear, Senator, if we think about 
2050, TerraPower envisions many small and large nuclear plants. 
Today, most nuclear plants are gigawatt-scale. And yes, we're 
talking about building smaller plants on the order of 300 
megawatts per station now. That's what customers are looking 
for as they retire coal units, as we work nuclear into an 
established grid in countries like the U.S. and Europe, where 
there are developed grids. But certainly, as we prove out these 
first units as 300 megawatts, we anticipate growing the Natrium 
output back up to gigawatt-scale.
    And again, if we think about 2050, we imagine many, many 
nuclear plants around the world. New 300-megawatt units and 
also new gigawatt-scale units as well, providing both 
electricity and process heat.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Levesque, let me ask you, when you 
say about many, many--give me a number. How many are you 
talking about? To be able to cover the United States by 2050, 
how many facilities would have to be built that are nuclear to 
be able to cover our energy needs?
    Mr. Levesque. Yes, it would be scores of plants. It all 
depends on----
    Senator Lankford. More than ten?
    Mr. Levesque. Certainly, certainly scores of plants----
    Senator Lankford. More than 100?
    Mr. Levesque. Yes, the opportunity for these advanced 
reactors is in the hundreds. I mean----
    Senator Lankford. So are we talking a thousand? Are we 
talking a thousand that would have to be built by then?
    Mr. Levesque. Certainly hundreds between now and 2050 and 
that's why companies like TerraPower and X-energy are bringing 
so much private investment because we plan to sell and deliver 
hundreds of plants. That's how we'll get the return on 
investment.
    Senator Lankford. To get to zero emissions by 2050, does 
anyone have a good idea how many facilities we would have to 
build by 2050 because we have talked a lot about wind power and 
solar power and how many acres that would cover, and actually, 
how many entire states that that would have to cover to be able 
to do that.
    How many nuclear facilities would we have to build to be 
able to get to that point by 2050? Does anyone have a good 
number for that?
    Mr. Sell. I do not have a good number, but when you're 
talking about zero emission, that's increasing the entirety--
eliminating the entire coal fleet, eliminating the entire 
natural gas fleet, and eliminating the industrial--or 
converting the industrial heat use, which is 90-plus percent 
fossil fuel, all to non-emitting baseload technologies. And 
that's going to require hundreds of plants, hundreds of 
gigawatts of plants over the next 50 years. Far greater than we 
operate, basically 100 gigawatts of plants now in the United 
States that were built between 1960 and 1995. We're talking 
about doing a multiple of that between now and 2050 in order to 
get close to achieving the kinds of decarbonization goals that 
you've outlined in your question.
    Senator Lankford. And each one would cost about how much 
each?
    Mr. Sell. For the X-energy plant, we're going to be 
competitive with the price of natural gas. So we have a price 
at less than $50 per megawatt-hour on a go-forward basis.
    Senator Lankford. Okay, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy, are you available? He may have had to go 
to vote because we are in the middle of a series of votes.
    While we are waiting for the Chairman to come back--we have 
four votes going on and the Chairman was going to do the end of 
the first vote and the beginning of the second vote. I voted 
already in the first vote. So I am going to go with additional 
questions and we will then await the Chairman.
    Ms. Roma, the world is looking to expand the use of nuclear 
energy to meet our environmental as well as our energy goals. 
Why is the United States' leadership in the nuclear energy 
sector critically important? And can you also talk about what 
the consequences would be of losing nuclear deals to, say, 
Russia and China?
    Ms. Roma. Sure. It's critically important for the United 
States to be a global leader because that's where we've been 
and we've had huge dividends. It's prevented the spread of 
nuclear weapons. It's ensured that U.S. safety standards that 
come out of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are widely 
adopted around the world, setting the gold standard for how you 
should regulate nuclear power plants to make sure they're run 
safely. It gives the United States a voice on nuclear safety 
and security purposes and allows us to strengthen and further 
develop relationships with countries that are building nuclear 
power plants that aren't just necessarily longtime U.S. allies, 
but allies that we're trying to establish further relationships 
with and that happened more recently with the UAE, where they 
didn't build a U.S. reactor design, but a number of U.S. 
companies helped support standing up that program. And that 
significantly influenced the safety standards, the 
implementation of the nuclear safety culture.
    I think that's something that we don't talk about very 
often when we talk about how important it is in running a 
nuclear power plant, but that's the idea that anybody within an 
organization can raise the safety issue, no matter what tribe 
you belong to, no matter what position you have within the 
plant. And in some of the places where we're building nuclear 
power plants, that entire concept is a foreign concept to them. 
And so, kind of embedding that at the beginning of a program, 
making sure that when countries that are new to nuclear and 
developing nuclear, that they do it safely and in a way that 
makes sense.
    From a geopolitical standpoint, when we look at Russia and 
China, we have to look at not what are they just doing with 
nuclear, but what are they doing generally. Russia, 
historically, has treated its work in foreign countries as a 
geostrategic objective, where it can go and exert its 
influence, and by building, owning, operating, and controlling 
the major source of someone's power supply. I mean, one of the 
things that we talked about a little bit here when we think 
about nuclear is yes, it's expensive, but it's also immense. 
It's huge amounts of electricity for plants that can operate 
for 100 years. And so, when you look at building that much 
electricity in a country, if you have Russia who builds, owns, 
operates it and can shut it off, they now have a leverage over 
a foreign country that they didn't have before. That's probably 
a more aggressive tactic but it also allows them to establish a 
further, deeper relationship with that country as well.
    For China, you know, they see an economic opportunity, but 
one of the things that I think is a concern is when China also 
builds, owns, and operates a nuclear power plant in a foreign 
country that it's financing--you know, the Egyptian reactors 
that Russia is building, it's financing for a 30-year finance 
period for a two percent annual rate of return, to the tune of 
like, I don't know, $20 billion. When China offers the same 
thing and all of a sudden, a country in Africa can't make due 
on its payment, China has the ability to kind of foreclose on 
that and then exert its economic interests further in the 
country by taking over their power supply.
    The United States doesn't do that. That's not how we 
operate. And we need to be able to offer other countries an 
option that isn't as predatory and that is more benign, while 
at the same time also hugely economically beneficial to the 
United States.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks so very much.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate it.
    My first question is for Mr. Melbye, and that is, in your 
testimony you mention the national defense requirements for 
U.S. uranium, including nuclear deterrents--and in North Dakota 
that is certainly the mission of the Minot Air Force Base. We 
have both the B-52s with the nuclear capacity as well as the 
ICBMs. And so, my first question is, we need an industrial 
base, obviously, to support military uranium requirements, but 
are the defense needs by themselves enough to create enough 
demand to sustain the required industrial base?
    Mr. Melbye. Actually, the easy answer is ``no.'' I think, 
you know, the combination of commercial nuclear power and 
defense needs can be complementary to each other. We've seen 
our defense needs met by stockpiles of uranium and fissile 
materials that were built up all the way back to the 1950s and 
'60s. And so, we haven't worried much about availability of 
future supplies, but we do know that these are finite and 
diminishing inventories, and those within the Defense 
Department that are looking out not only at our existing fleet 
of aircraft carriers and submarines, but new future 
deployments, are concerned that we could lose that domestic 
ability to produce not only uranium, but conversion and 
enriched uranium in support of our defense needs.
    So fortunately, with robust commercial nuclear fuel markets 
at home and abroad, you know, this doesn't have to be solely on 
the back of our defense budgets, but can come out of the 
commercial nuclear fuel cycle.
    Senator Hoeven. Do we have enough industrial demand--
commercial demand--to maintain a source here or are we reliant 
on other countries?
    Mr. Melbye. Well, we have the demand, if you look at 
nuclear generation globally, I think we're back to pre-
Fukushima levels of nuclear generation and hence, uranium 
demand, so that's certainly not a problem. It's just the period 
of low prices, which we're now only beginning to come out of. 
We need to maintain that domestic capability. We're coming 
awfully close to losing it, but the infrastructure and the 
natural resources and the people are still in place and can 
ramp up quite quickly. I think the uranium reserve, if DOE can 
stand that up quickly and get it going this year, it was a 
bipartisan support of the budget for this year, and we get it 
funded in future years, that's an excellent stimulus to get 
this industry back going, not only for commercial nuclear 
power, but defense needs as well.
    Senator Hoeven. Mr. Levesque, I would like to ask you the 
same questions. Where are we in terms of the supply and our 
ability to produce the uranium that we need and do you have 
recommendations on steps that should be taken?
    Mr. Levesque. Yes, certainly, Senator.
    You know, TerraPower's designed Natrium will require high-
assay low-enriched uranium, which is the same uranium that 
we're hearing about from, you know, mines in states like 
Wyoming. But I wanted to point out that these new technologies, 
like Mr. Sell was mentioning as well, require a higher level of 
enrichment. So not only do we need to, you know, reinvigorate 
things like the mining infrastructure, but we do not have 
enrichment capability in the U.S. today to produce HALEU, high-
assay low-enriched uranium. So TerraPower and X-energy are 
working with the Department of Energy to identify a source of 
HALEU for our demo units, but again, we plan to sell many, 
many, hundreds of these X-energy and TerraPower reactors. And 
for that, we're going to need not just uranium supply, but 
we're going to need enrichment capability, U.S. enrichment 
capability, for high-assay low-enriched uranium. Our partner, 
Centrus Energy, has a small pilot project going on today to 
demonstrate that HALEU production, but we definitely need to 
ramp up that capability in the U.S. if we're going to be ready 
to provide hundreds of plants in the U.S. and worldwide that 
are fueled by high-assay low-enriched uranium.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
    Ms. Roma, your thoughts as well in the time I have 
remaining here.
    Ms. Roma. So it's critically important when we think about 
our energy needs that we also think about energy security and 
independence. Anytime you build a power source you need to be 
able to make sure you have your fuel nearby. The entire front 
end of the fuel cycle has been degraded when we saw the decline 
in the domestic nuclear power industry in the United States, 
the mining industry, the milling industry, the conversion 
industry, and the fuel fabrication--we need to be able to have 
these capabilities. The great news is, it's not a supply 
problem. We have immense amounts of uranium in the United 
States and we need to make sure we keep these capabilities on 
hand and fresh and sometimes, I think, as we saw most recently 
with the N95 mask shortage, sometimes you don't know you need 
something until you can't get it, and we just don't need to be 
in that situation with uranium.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Ms. Roma. Thanks to all three of 
you and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
this hearing. I so appreciate the opportunity to focus again on 
the benefits of nuclear and, particularly, advanced nuclear 
reactors. I think we were able to accomplish some good things 
in this Committee last year and we want to be able to continue 
to build on those efforts.
    I want to focus my questions this morning on some of the 
regulatory matters related to microgrids. So, I don't know, 
perhaps this is a question best asked for Ms. Roma. We have 
several microreactors that are in pre-application review with 
the NRC. One company, Oklo, has an application accepted for 
review under the combined license (COL) approach. The issue is 
the regulatory structure equates an operating permit with a 
specific site there.
    So what should we do with this? Should Congress act to 
create new exemptions for microreactors so that a single design 
can be permitted for multiple sites? How can we, again, allow 
for an approach that will ensure greater commercialization 
opportunities for microreactors? And I pose that to Ms. Roma, 
but if there are others that wish to respond to that, I would 
appreciate it.
    Ms. Roma. I could start off and then maybe the others can 
hop in.
    So the NRC does have a design certification process, but 
the NRC regulations that they stood up were for large-scale, 
light-water reactors and they envisioned a very slow and long 
process where a company applied for a design certification. 
Once the NRC reviewed and issued the design certification, 
which can be a five- or six-year process, then a company could 
apply for a site-specific combined construction and operating 
license application. It could also apply for an early site 
permit where the NRC would do early environmental review of a 
site and then it could apply for the COL and then get the COL. 
That whole process combined, which is probably what the NRC's 
preference would be for anybody doing licensing, can take 
decades.
    Senator Murkowski. Right.
    Ms. Roma. And it is cost prohibitive and doesn't make any 
sense, particularly for designs like microreactors, which have 
very, very small footprints, both from a public safety 
standpoint and from an environmental standpoint. And the NRC 
has been really looking at its regulations to figure out how we 
can right-size these for these types of facilities, but they're 
bringing their large, light-water reactor mindset, which is 
really a round peg in a square hole.
    And so, what Congress can do is support the streamlining or 
even help check certain boxes so that the NRC can do a more 
efficient--not a less robust--a more efficient review, 
commensurate with the size and impact of these facilities. That 
would be very, very helpful.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that. I have tried to 
outline the potential that we would have in a place like 
Alaska, where, I think, we have some interesting applications 
for microreactors and what we might be able to deploy. But when 
you look at the structure within the regulatory commission, it 
is just not set up to help facilitate deployment in a state 
like Alaska, where you have some pretty remote communities, 
some pretty remote sites that would benefit from exactly this 
type. So you are suggesting we need legislation. NRC says that 
they are dealing with what they are going to deal with.
    Did one of you--Mr. Sell, nice to see you.
    Mr. Sell. Senator Murkowski, there is something interesting 
going on that I think is relevant and that, as you may know, 
the Department of Defense has a program to design mobile 
microreactors for four operating bases.
    Senator Murkowski. Right.
    Mr. Sell. Our company, X-energy, is one of the companies 
involved in that design effort. That reactor will be deployed 
on a prototype basis by 2024. And although it will be licensed 
by the Department of Energy, the NRC regulators are embedded 
into the program. And so, there is an opportunity for the NRC 
to observe--to learn and to take lessons out of that and apply 
those to the commercial applications like Oklo and others. It 
is a rapid technology development program and the licensing 
process to go along with that is having to evolve to go with 
it, to move at the appropriate level of speed. And I think real 
lessons will come out of that effort.
    Senator Murkowski. My observation is that we are at that 
point where we are building out the prototypes--we know what it 
is that we need to do. The thing that is slowing us down is the 
regulator, who has not caught up to the fact that this is not, 
you know, ``your father's Oldsmobile'' in the sense of what we 
have been building in this country in terms of nuclear 
facilities for so many decades.
    Mr. Sell. I think that's true. I will acknowledge that the 
last number of years at the NRC and now, with Chairman Hanson, 
there is a strong commitment at the leadership level to be 
responsive to the laws that this Committee originated and 
passed, and reformed the process. And they want to do the right 
thing, but you know, sometimes changed management in a large 
organization is challenging and we're going to continue to push 
on.
    Mr. Levesque. I would agree. I would agree, Senator. The 
leadership has been very progressive and I think legislation 
that empowers the NRC to consider new approaches toward 
regulation, that's really helpful. And finally, I'll add that, 
you know, I've worked around the world in nuclear energy and 
been asked many times in other countries, what does the NRC 
think? The NRC is the worldwide standard for nuclear safety and 
if we think about a ``team USA'' approach, if we have advanced 
reactors that are licensed by the NRC, the U.S. is going to be 
so competitive worldwide offering these reactors as options to 
Russian or Chinese technology.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have additional questions that I 
am probably going to submit for the record, where as you know, 
we are bouncing in between votes, but this is such an important 
hearing and I really appreciate that.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Hey, thank you all and, again, it is a 
great hearing. I, too, have been bouncing between committee 
hearings and votes, so I apologize if there is redundancy in 
what I ask.
    Mr. Sell and Mr. Levesque, what will be the cost per 
megawatt-hour both--first, how much is it going to cost to 
build one of these? What is their capacity? After you have the 
flow down and you have built four or five, what can we expect 
the cost to be then and how much will it cost to operate per 
megawatt-hour compared to other forms of energy?
    Mr. Levesque. Okay, Senator.
    The first units, these demonstration units that TerraPower 
and X-energy are working on, they will cost several billion 
dollars each because they have all of those first-of-a-kind 
costs that Mr. Sell was mentioning, the first-time licensing, 
the first-time design and also, frankly, you know, the U.S. 
supply chain and the U.S. infrastructure is out of practice. So 
those first demonstration plants will cost somewhat more 
because of those first-of-a-kind and learning curve things. And 
that's what makes it ideal for us to have the ARDP, which is 
public and private funding--kind of, you know, overcoming this 
speed bump to get us into the next technology.
    But after the demonstration, we see plants that are going 
to be, because of the technology differences, again, because of 
things like lower pressure, we're going to have plants that are 
totally competitive with natural gas. They're going to be safer 
and, again, in the case of Natrium, it's going to be able to 
flex its power and participate in electricity markets that are 
more lucrative than what plants can----
    Senator Cassidy. But Mr. Levesque, I mean, just to put a 
point on it, do you have--okay, you've built your first five. 
So then do you have a projected cost of what it would cost then 
because I think Mr. Lyash was involved with CB&I. They 
attempted to do something for Southern Company and initially 
had to rebuild all the training of the workforce, but it still 
ended up being incredibly expensive and it never got over that 
initial bump.
    By the way, I am supportive of it. I want this to happen. I 
am just trying to figure out what the landscape looks like.
    Mr. Levesque. Yes, Senator. The landscape is this: the U.S. 
is rusty, Russia and China are building many units.
    Senator Cassidy. No, I get that.
    Mr. Levesque. Yes.
    Senator Cassidy. But do you have a projected cost after you 
have done your first three or four and you have kind of worked 
out the kinks?
    Mr. Levesque. You know, plants that are of this 300-
megawatt size should certainly cost less than $1 billion. It'll 
be competitive. I also want to point out, by going to some of 
these new plants, the number of U.S. jobs and the invigoration 
of the supply chain should increase. Light-water reactors 
today, you have to go to Japan to get super-heavy forging for 
the pressurized water reactors.
    Senator Cassidy. Let me just ask, because I only have a 
couple minutes left.
    Mr. Lyash, I apologize if I am mispronouncing your name, 
but when I was listening earlier you seemed to be talking about 
some challenges. I didn't hear the whole conversation, but you 
were talking about why we are decommissioning some of our 
existing nuclear. To what degree do production tax credits and 
other incentives to allow renewable energies to sell below 
market--to actually pay people to take their energy--to what 
degree has that played into the demise of the decommissioning 
of some of these plants?
    Mr. Lyash. Senator, I think it plays significantly into it. 
You know, as Mr. Levesque was saying, these plants are high 
capital cost, but when you levelize the cost over the life of 
the facility, 20, 30, 40, 50 years, they produce quite 
competitive levelized costs of power, but they deliver more 
than that. They deliver reliability, fuel diversity, fuel 
security, huge amounts of zero carbon electricity. These don't 
have----
    Senator Cassidy. I am totally getting that, Mr. Lyash, 
again, but just back to the point.
    Mr. Lyash. Yes.
    Senator Cassidy. We are going to be making decisions 
regarding tax breaks for renewables, some of which are quite 
mature, but nonetheless, advocates are still advocating for 
continuation of the tax breaks. So to what degree are these tax 
breaks playing a role in the decommissioning of a nuclear power 
plant in Illinois, for example?
    Mr. Lyash. Directly, because these attributes of nuclear 
power aren't rewarded by the market, and wind and solar have 
tax credits. Production tax credits or investment tax credits, 
they artificially depress the price of that energy below the 
nuclear plant 
and lead directly--contribute directly, I should say--to a non-
cost-competitive position of those plants, not because----
    Senator Cassidy. I once heard somebody say that, 
paradoxically, renewables in the current environment, by 
forcing the construction of baseload facilities, but 
simultaneously forcing the decommissioning of nuclear power 
plants, which would be the natural baseload, are actually 
paradoxically increasing global greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe 
too strong of a statement, but is there some rationale to that?
    Mr. Lyash. There is. The intermittent renewables with the 
depressed prices due to production tax credits and investment 
tax credits are forcing high energy baseload units into a non-
competitive position. The retirement of those baseload units 
makes the addition of renewables not possible, or at least not 
possible without significant adverse effects on reliability. 
These things have to move together in balance to have a system 
that is both economic and reliable in the long term.
    Senator Cassidy. One more question, because I am over my 
time. Mr. Levesque, Mr. Lyash points out that yes, initially 
your cost is high, but if you levelize it over 60 years--I 
think there is a nuclear power plant in Louisiana that may go 
for at least 60 years. What is the actual cost, once you have 
done your construction cost, what is going to be the cost of 
operating and maintaining one of these plants, because it does 
sound like your initial construction plant is still going to be 
more expensive than a natural gas, but what was just implied in 
that, is that your operation and maintenance could be less than 
another form of energy?
    Mr. Levesque. Yes, Senator, certainly cheaper than natural 
gas on that levelized cost and, you know, with automation and 
technologies, the required staffing at the plant to operate the 
plant should be much lower. And again, if we secure these U.S. 
fuel and enrichment sources, that'll give us greater control 
over the life cycle fuel cost.
    Senator Cassidy. Got it. Okay, I yield back. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
    Mr. Sell, you know, I appreciate your support for the 
establishment of a uranium reserve. You talked about that. Your 
written testimony highlighted the need for a specific type of 
uranium, a high-assay low-enriched uranium. You state that the 
timelines set in the Energy Act of 2020 are not aggressive 
enough to meet your needs. I think you stated you need this 
material by 2024.
    So will the Department of Energy be able to supply the 
necessary material to meet your needs, and if not, how are you 
going to secure the material?
    Mr. Sell. Well, Senator, it's really not the Department of 
Energy's total responsibility. There is a commercial market for 
HALEU, and Centrus is a private company, and they have a pilot 
project that is funded by the Department of Energy to begin the 
production process. But I'm going to need about three tons of 
high-assay LEU in the 2024 timeframe in order to start the 
fuel-making process for our first plant at Energy Northwest. 
And so, I think there's going to be a number of initiatives 
that will have to be pursued in order to increase the 
availability of HALEU for that first plant.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much for that answer.
    Mr. Levesque, is there anything that you would like to add 
to that?
    Mr. Levesque. No, Senator. We have a very similar need with 
TerraPower's Natrium reactor.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Senator Manchin.
    The Chairman [presiding]. I am so sorry, Senator Barrasso. 
They are still on the first vote, if you can believe it. I 
thought it would have wrapped up when I went down, I could have 
voted twice and come back, but this is the Senate. Welcome to 
the most deliberate body in the world.
    If I am repeating a question, you know, please forgive me 
and then let me know what you are thinking. I just thank all of 
you. I really believe we are missing a golden opportunity if we 
do not get back in action. And I think Mr. Lyash and I had a, 
like you said before, we had a good conversation and realizing 
how strong TVA is, but it is a whole different ballgame--the 
way it was created, who it is, how it operates--but they do it 
and do it so well. If it can work in that type of environment, 
it can work in the market environment too. But what I am 
understanding from what you all have told me is that starting 
with FERC, starting with regulatory, basically, in Washington, 
demanding that we have that type of dependable, reliable, and 
affordable power which is, basically, baseload. And you know, 
because we have had other things kind of freeze up and we have 
had other things kind of shut down, stop, and I think Texas is 
a wake-up call.
    I am more concerned also too about the security. And I 
think nuclear can scare the daylights out of some people, 
thinking of the catastrophe. I remember Three Mile and how this 
happened. So they are saying, oh boy, if we have a 
cyberattack--I am going to let all of you comment on it--if we 
have a cyberattack, then we are really in a problem there 
because they can really melt this thing down and cause 
catastrophic--okay?
    So Mr. Sell, if you want to start on that and then we will 
go right down.
    Mr. Sell. Thank you for the opportunity.
    The X-energy plant is intrinsically safe. So what does that 
mean? What it means, Senator Manchin--Chairman Manchin--is that 
our plant cannot melt down. What happened at Three Mile Island 
is physically impossible to happen in an Xe-100 plant.
    The Chairman. Got it.
    Mr. Sell. So is the plant safer? Yes, it's safer. But the 
more important thing is, we do not have to build all of the 
safety-related systems that a typical light-water reactor plant 
has to make. So we result in a much simpler plant that is more 
economic to build and more economic to operate. And that is why 
our plant can be built quicker, to be operated more cheaply, 
and therefore, it's much more attractive from an economic 
standpoint than traditional large, light-water reactor plants.
    The Chairman. Mr. Melbye, do you have any comments on this? 
This is my last question.
    Mr. Melbye. Yes.
    The Chairman. I just need to know how we can make sure that 
nuclear is allowed to do the job we know it can do. And right 
now, we are not in that mindset, is what you are telling me? It 
is aspirational. Everybody wants to stop this, stop that, and 
let's do everything with renewables and this and that and I 
understand. But we know it is not going to carry the load. It 
will not afford us 24/7, rain or shine, and to be the number 
one and be the superpower of the world in having the demand for 
power that we have taken for granted all these years. We have 
to continue in that mindset of energy independence. So 
anything, just a quick comment from all of you on that.
    Mr. Melbye. I'll just reiterate what you said about how 
Texas was a wake-up call for all of us. We have operations down 
there, so we saw what happened firsthand and, you know, the 
resiliency, the 24/7 aspects of nuclear energy, the 
predictability of fuel cost. Gas is a great way to make 
electricity when gas is cheap, but we found out with $18,000 
electricity bills that when the price of gas goes up, it hurts 
that form of energy.
    So nuclear can really be the complement in--and as you have 
all----
    The Chairman. Did any nuclear go down in Texas?
    Mr. Melbye. We have four units in Texas. One did go down 
for a day, but was----
    The Chairman. I thought the supply, the water supply line 
froze up, is what I understand.
    Mr. Melbye. So we were 75 percent up, but back to 100 
percent after a day.
    The Chairman. But if there would have been weatherization 
precautions taken, that should have never gone down.
    Mr. Melbye. They are already taking them.
    The Chairman. Got it.
    Mr. Lyash.
    Mr. Lyash. Yes, Senator, I would just stress that nuclear, 
non-light-water and light-water reactors are going to be 
critical to maintaining reliability, economic development 
advantage, and hitting our environmental objectives. And I 
would suggest four things. First, action needs to be taken to 
preserve the existing nuclear fleet and to address this value 
that's not recognized by the organized markets that needs to be 
recognized. If we don't preserve that fleet, we cannot maintain 
or develop a leadership position in the world on nuclear power.
    The Chairman. What do you know about the fleet, sir, 
because you have a tremendous amount of experience in this 
operation? What do you know, any of you all know, about the 
fleets that have been shut down or those that are being 
targeted to be shut down? Is there any other reason except 
market decisions that people are making right now that those 
should ever be shut down?
    Mr. Lyash. No, the primary reason here is market decisions 
and it's a short-sighted view of the value of the plants.
    The Chairman. Got it.
    Mr. Lyash. And you must address that----
    The Chairman. We will get on that. We can get into that 
real quick.
    Mr. Lyash. The second step I suggest--you are already 
taking it--and that is to recognize the role of nuclear at a 
policy level in addressing long-term climate change objectives. 
The third is to support the development and deployment of 
advanced reactors, light-water and non-light-water reactors and 
I think the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is a step to 
doing that. I think more is going to be necessary to create 
this advanced reactor industry for the U.S. and to make it an 
export for the U.S. around the world. And the last is just to 
make sure that the regulatory and federal agencies that have to 
support extension of the existing fleet and licensing of new 
are properly focused and resourced to do just that.
    The Chairman. Ms. Roma, do you have any comments you would 
like to share with us?
    Ms. Roma. Actually, Senator, I thought it was great that 
you started off with your cyber fear for nuclear because when 
you look at any critical infrastructure, nuclear power has the 
most advanced cybersecurity protections, and that is you can't 
hack it. Right? You can't cause any kind of harm in a nuclear 
power plant from a cyberattack, which is fantastic and just 
shows you how robust this technology is. When you look at 
advanced reactors, most of----
    The Chairman. I hope you share that with the Federal 
Government and our Department of Defense because we get hacked 
every second of every minute of every day.
    Ms. Roma. They actually know that, yes.
    Yes, well, and they try to hack nuclear power plants. It 
just doesn't work.
    The Chairman. Good.
    Ms. Roma. There are just too many layers of defense and 
they're not attached to the grid.
    The Chairman. Got it, yes.
    Ms. Roma. So any of the security systems aren't attached to 
the grid, which makes it really, really robust.
    But from a safety and security standpoint, with advanced 
reactors, you know, a lot of them, they're small, they're 
buried underground, you know, you could do whole lots of bad 
things to them and nothing is going to happen because they're 
underground so they're not going to hurt anybody or harm 
anybody. But I think to your underlying point, right?--this is 
an important discussion and it needs to be based on facts, not 
fear.
    And so we need to have this conversation. The American 
public needs to be engaged and make decisions that they feel 
fit what they need--carbon-free, safe power. And we can do 
that. We just have to keep----
    The Chairman. Mr. Levesque.
    Mr. Levesque. Yes, Mr. Chairman, advanced nuclear is going 
to give you that reliability and resiliency that the current 
fleet has, you know, to sustain multiday tropical storms in 
Florida or the polar vortex in Illinois. Advanced nuclear is 
going to give you that kind of reliability, but it's also going 
to give you those safety and cost improvements that Mr. Sell 
and I have been describing.
    The Chairman. Let me just say this and then I am going to 
go to Senator Marshall to finish up our meeting.
    Just a lack of knowledge, a lack of education to the 
people. I have always believed because everyone, the life 
cycles of anything--so coal-fired plants, we knew what their 
life cycles were and they started ending the end-of-life cycle 
and it was time to deploy them out and cycle them out. So we 
think in the same terms. Well, it is not--what you are telling 
me--that is not the case. If they are properly maintained, they 
can go on and on and on with some technology changes, I guess 
is what I am understanding.
    So if you are going from a normal plant, probably at TVA or 
any of you all, when those first came online, maybe you had a 
40- or 50-year life to them. But you found out that you can 
extend those lives very, very safely in this environment. We 
have to now find out every nuclear plant that is on the 
chopping block right now and get to the CEOs of those companies 
and make them come here and tell us why they are taking offline 
something that should never have been taken offline, should not 
even be considered to be taken offline and why we cannot build 
the rate in to make sure they are able to operate at that 
level. We can do that. That is our job here, for the sake of 
our country. That is what we are looking for.
    You all have been invaluable today, and with that, I want 
to thank each and every one of you, but I want to turn to my 
friend, Senator Marshall, for his final round.
    Senator Marshall. Yes, thank you so much, Chairman. It is 
great to be here with you all this morning. I was on my path to 
become a nuclear engineer when medical school interrupted it. 
So it is certainly a field that has been near and dear to my 
heart growing up. Watching Wolf Creek nuclear power plant in 
Kansas being built, I think, was an inspiration for a lot of 
young men and women to go into engineering and study math a 
little bit harder.
    I think my first question will probably be to Ms. Roma. I 
am just shocked to see these nuclear plants being retired, in 
my opinion, prematurely. Everything that we are talking about, 
you know, what is an economical way to get to lower carbon, 
would say to keep the existing plants operating. What is 
leading to these being shut down prematurely? Who is making 
that decision? Who is driving that decision to shut these down 
ahead of time?
    Ms. Roma.
    Ms. Roma. Yes, well, the nuclear power plants are 
businesses and, you know, they recover rates and get paid for 
the electricity that they generate and that's based on the 
existing market structure we have in the United States that 
just says how much does it cost to produce electricity over the 
next few years and they go with the cheapest and then they go 
to the next cheapest, the next cheapest until they're done. And 
so when you look at the price of natural gas, until about the 
2008 timeframe, new nuclear was very competitive and actually 
dozens of nuclear power plants were planned because the price 
of natural gas was higher. Around 2008, the price of natural 
gas took a sharp dive down and then we discovered we can 
probably just leave it down there for a while, which all of a 
sudden made nuclear not economic anymore.
    When you look at renewables, they're subsidized. They're 
intermittent--a huge, important part of the energy mix--but 
they're intermittent and they're subsidized and so nuclear just 
doesn't fit into the mix anymore. But the largest value that it 
has besides providing immense amounts of constant power is that 
it's carbon-free and secure and reliable.
    Senator Marshall. Huh. Okay.
    Mr. Lyash, I guess what I hear her saying is that it is 
probably a huge capital cost, obviously, to keep these plants--
to keeping them going. So it is just cheaper to build a new 
coal plant or it is cheaper to build a new natural gas plant 
than it would be to rehab these and keep them going? Is it just 
economics?
    Mr. Lyash. Yes, I think what was pointed out, that the 
markets aren't structured to reward the value of this, is right 
on target, but I think there's a deeper problem. It stems from 
a very short-term focus on our energy plan, that we're in the 
market buying whatever the cheapest energy is by our definition 
today, not recognizing that diversity in the energy supply, in 
terms of fuel, in terms of technology, in terms of the economy, 
long-term environmental objectives, is how we really need to 
plan this energy system. It's the same conversation we had 
earlier with respect to uranium mining and enrichment, taking 
the long view and the global view. I think the same view needs 
to be taken of the energy mix in this country. And if you do 
that, technologies like nuclear emerge with a critical role to 
meeting our long-term objectives. And I think the markets need 
policy and they need signal and they need direction in order to 
establish that kind of balance.
    Senator Marshall. Great.
    Being a big defender of nuclear engineering for decades, 
you know, the question always posed for me was the disposal 
part of it. And as I think about electric cars today, I am 
equally concerned about the environmental impact of disposing 
of their batteries as well. And I am thinking of these big 
graveyards of electric batteries. And I know everyone is going 
to talk about future technology, and we are going to reuse it 
all. Is there anybody that has really seen any good 
environmental impacts of nuclear waste versus just the 
equivalent number of batteries we are going to have to throw 
away to make this worse? If this was happening today, not 
future, are there any good studies out trying to compare apples 
and apples?
    Mr. Lyash. Senator, spent nuclear fuel is extremely well 
understood. We can store a lifetime of fuel ever used safely on 
the nuclear site that utilized that fuel. Alternatively, as a 
country, we could go to regional storage or monitored storage. 
Countries around the world have moved safely to geological 
repositories. The strength of nuclear, even in the face of the 
spent nuclear fuel, is that we understand it. We contain it and 
it has no impact on the environment.
    Unlike what we're seeing, for example, with transportation, 
where we drive down the street with our automobile. We emit 
waste from the tailpipe. We're not sure how much. We're not 
sure where it goes. We're not sure what it's doing.
    And so I think the nuclear waste issue is certainly not 
immaterial. It's significant, but it is not a safety issue and 
I think it's an issue we can solve in the long term.
    Senator Marshall. I guess I am past my time, but I have 
been told we could take all the nuclear waste in the United 
States and put it on one football field and if we just had a 
place to do that.
    So thank you so much and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Again, let me thank each and every one of you 
for taking the time and effort to come here because it has been 
invaluable. I can tell you, you have helped me a tremendous 
amount and I think you helped our Committee understand better 
what we are facing and how we can, basically, decarbonize 
without basically killing ourselves, if you will, shooting 
ourselves in the foot.
    So I will say this, members will have until close of 
business tomorrow to submit additional questions for the 
record.
    The Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]