    [Senate Hearing 117-456]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-456

                    THE POTENTIAL NON-ELECTRIC APPLICATIONS
                           OF CIVILIAN NUCLEAR ENERGY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                NOVEMBER 4, 2021
                                   __________

                      [GRAPHIC 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

    46-201                    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
                   Bradley 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

    Bragg-Sitton, Dr. Shannon, Division Director for Integrated
      Energy and Storage Systems, Idaho National Laboratory..........     4
    Chodak III, Dr. Paul, Executive Vice President, Generation,
      American Electric Power........................................    10
    Guastella, Michael J., Executive Director, Council on
      Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, Inc....................    17

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Bragg-Sitton, Dr. Shannon:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Written Testimony............................................     6
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    45
        Report of the Versatile Test Reactor Working Group on Isotope
          Production, September 2021.................................    53
    Chodak III, Dr. Paul:
        Opening Statement............................................    10
        Written Testimony............................................    12
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    67
    Guastella, Michael J.:
        Opening Statement............................................    17
        Written Testimony............................................    19
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    69
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    TerraPower:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    76
    Young, Kayla:
        Letter for the Record........................................    78

                           THE POTENTIAL NON-ELECTRIC
                            APPLICATIONS OF CIVILIAN
                                 NUCLEAR ENERGY

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 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.
        Normally, when we talk about nuclear energy, we are talking
    about electricity generation, but today we will be discussing
    the non-electric applications of nuclear energy and systems
    integration. It is the technology set that will truly transform
    how we think about and use energy. I want to thank our
    witnesses, who will provide us with insights on how we can best
    deploy these technologies over the next decade. Earlier this
    year, we had a hearing that focused on the importance of
    maintaining our current nuclear fleet and developing advanced
    reactors. That hearing set the stage nicely for this one, as
    developing additional value streams for nuclear technologies
    will help their competitiveness in electricity markets. In
    addition, being pioneers in this endeavor will allow the U.S. a
    competitive edge in the international market. Reducing
    emissions in the industrial sector has been identified as a
    significant challenge that we must tackle in order to meet our
    climate goals. The U.S. has had success in lowering emissions
    in the electricity and transportation sectors due to advances
    spearheaded by the Department of Energy (DOE) in energy
    efficiency, renewables, batteries, and electric vehicles.
        But as we have progressed in these sectors, emissions from
    the industrial sector have increased by about 69 percent since
    1990. The industrial sector also represents a significant
    portion of global emissions, accounting for approximately 28
    percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. As developing
    economies begin to shift to more energy-intensive industries,
    the U.S. must be on the cutting edge in developing the
    technologies required to decarbonize industry. This shift is an
    enormous opportunity to deploy new technologies domestically
    and abroad to promote job growth here in the U.S. as the demand
    for nuclear technologies that reduce emissions and deliver
    industrial products, such as hydrogen, chemical feedstock,
    district heating, water purification, and building materials
    increases.
        Last year we enacted the Nuclear Integrated Energy Systems
    Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial
    Application Program as a part of the Energy Act of 2020 and we
    are fortunate to have Dr. Shannon Bragg-Sitton, who is leading
    this crucial endeavor, with us today. The Department of Energy
    and the national laboratories are developing energy systems
    designed to be jointly operated with nuclear energy to reduce
    emissions in both the electric and non-electric sectors while
    maximizing energy production and efficiencies. In short, this
    program will help commercialize technologies to reduce
    emissions for water purification, heat for industrial
    processes, microgrids, district heating, and other various
    applications, all through the use of nuclear energy. The
    Department of Energy is leading a tri-lab consortium, including
    Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the National Renewable Energy
    Laboratory (NREL), and National Energy Technology Laboratory
    (NETL) in Morgantown, West Virginia, to pioneer the
    technologies to transform how we use energy.
        As we begin this transition, it is my hope that we can
    commercially deploy these types of technologies in my State of
    West Virginia. However, West Virginia has had a ban on the
    construction of nuclear power plants for over two decades. This
    is something that I would like to see changed, and I have
    spoken to all of my friends in the legislature and I think they
    understand the need and the urgency also. I believe advanced
    nuclear reactors hold enormous potential to provide
    opportunities to communities across the country with zero-
    emission baseload power. I am very excited to get the utility
    perspective today from Dr. Paul Chodak on how we can best
    deploy the next generation of nuclear.
        With that, I am going turn to my friend, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, for his opening statement.

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

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this very important hearing today.
        Nuclear technology is fundamental to meeting America's
    energy, environmental, and national security needs. Nuclear
    energy is necessary for reliable, affordable, and resilient
    electric service. Now, more than ever, we need to be looking
    for opportunities to expand the use of nuclear energy. The U.S.
    currently has 93 operating commercial reactors in 28 states.
    These reactors provide 20 percent of our electricity. They
    provide the majority of our carbon-free energy. These reactors
    could safely remain online for decades.
        Yet many of our nuclear reactors are facing political and
    economic pressures to shut down. Since 2013, 12 reactors have
    shut down. This trend needs to stop. Earlier this year, this
    Committee took an important step by advancing the Nuclear
    Credit Program. But that program will only provide a temporary
    fix. Reckless federal and state policies are pushing excess
    amounts of wind and solar energy onto the grid. The result is
    an oversupply of electric capacity that forces nuclear reactors
    off the grid. In some parts of the country, these policies have
    caused wholesale electricity prices to drop below zero. Nuclear
    operators have been left with no choice but to consider ways to
    reduce costs, to increase revenues, or to shut down.
        Today, we are discussing potential expanded revenue
    streams. Some nuclear operators are pursuing non-electric
    applications and other specialized uses. Several nuclear
    operators are making or considering investments in hydrogen and
    ammonia production. Others are looking at powering Bitcoin
    mining data centers. Nuclear operators are also considering the
    production of medical isotopes--elements used in the diagnosis
    and treatment of diseases like cancer. Each of these innovative
    applications presents an opportunity to retain our existing
    nuclear power plants.
        Innovation will be the key to reestablishing America's
    leadership in nuclear energy. Over the next decade we expect
    advanced nuclear reactors to be in operation. Advanced reactors
    will be smaller, safer, and more efficient. They will also
    generate less nuclear waste. Some may even run on previously
    used nuclear fuel. My home State of Wyoming will host
    TerraPower's Natrium reactor, which will be the first of its
    kind anywhere in the world. It is designed to generate and
    store electricity. Like existing reactors, advanced nuclear
    technologies will enable new market opportunities beyond the
    electricity sector. Unlike existing reactors, which require
    modifications to enable these applications, advanced reactors
    are specifically designed for multiple purposes.
        The heat from advanced nuclear reactors can drive a variety
    of industrial processes, and can improve the efficiency and
    economics of chemical hydrogen and medical isotope production.
    Nuclear heat can contribute to enhanced oil recovery. This heat
    can also clean up wastewater and turn salt water from our
    oceans into fresh water. In addition, small advanced reactors
    are well-suited for specialized electricity generation. The
    Department of Defense is considering transportable
    microreactors for powering remote bases. These same reactors
    could also provide needed power for disaster recovery.
    Microreactors will even power missions in space.
        We must ensure American technologies are leading this
    global expansion of nuclear energy. Today we are going to hear
    about exciting new applications for nuclear energy. These new
    applications can help make nuclear energy profitable. They will
    also create new markets around the world for American-made
    nuclear technologies. So thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this important hearing. I look forward to hearing from
    our panel of experts and look forward to the testimony.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        Now let me welcome our highly qualified panel of witnesses
    for their opening statements. We are going to start with Dr.
    Shannon Bragg-Sitton. She is Division Director of the
    Integrated Energy and Storage System, Idaho National Lab. Thank
    you for being here.

     STATEMENT OF DR. SHANNON BRAGG-SITTON, DIVISION DIRECTOR FOR
         INTEGRATED ENERGY AND STORAGE SYSTEMS, IDAHO NATIONAL
                               LABORATORY

        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Good morning. I want to thank Chairman
    Manchin and Ranking Member Barrasso for scheduling this
    important hearing and for the opportunity today to participate.
    As you said, my name is Shannon Bragg-Sitton, and I am the
    Director of the Integrated Energy and Storage Systems Division
    at Idaho National Laboratory. INL is the nation's center for
    nuclear energy research and development, and INL works with
    industry to develop and deploy advanced reactors that will
    power American prosperity into the future. We also lead DOE's
    Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, which is
    working to extend the operating lifetime of our high-performing
    nuclear fleet. A key focus for both of these programs is
    extending the use of nuclear energy beyond electricity
    generation.
        Integrated energy systems refer to power plants that are
    able to leverage multiple energy sources to meet a variety of
    energy demands. These systems provide us with many benefits.
    They provide the ability to couple diverse energy sources such
    as nuclear, renewable, and fossil with carbon capture, allowing
    us to leverage the benefits of each resource. This provides us
    with more efficient energy use, which helps the environment
    while keeping consumer costs down. And they also increase
    revenues for plant owners by providing multiple product streams
    and they offer the potential for cleaner, lower-cost, and more
    efficient transportation and industrial applications. These
    integrated systems will help us to stabilize the grid through
    their flexible operation. It is exciting to be examining their
    non-grid applications, which could include water desalination,
    production of clean hydrogen, production of heat and hydrogen
    to support industrial processes, such as steel manufacturing or
    to produce synthetic fuels for transportation or ammonia-based
    fertilizers for the agricultural sector.
        This isn't just theoretical. We are partnering with the
    private sector to demonstrate how existing nuclear plants can
    use their excess heat and electricity when it is not needed by
    the grid in order to produce hydrogen. Today, hydrogen is
    primarily produced by breaking down methane, which also
    produces carbon dioxide, and if we instead use non-emitting
    nuclear energy to produce hydrogen from water, we can realize
    enormous emissions savings across multiple industries. And
    these projects are an important part of DOE's Earthshot
    Initiative, which aims to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen to
    decarbonize industrial applications as well as to realize a
    net-zero economy by 2050. So we are partnering with a tri-
    utility consortium that will first demonstrate clean hydrogen
    production using water electrolysis at the Energy Harbor Davis-
    Besse plant in Ohio. That will be followed by higher
    temperature steam electrolysis demonstrated at an Xcel nuclear
    plant in Minnesota. And in the third phase, we will demonstrate
    larger-scale hydrogen production at the Palo Verde Generating
    Station in Arizona in partnership with Arizona Public Service.
        Additionally, INL, Argonne National Laboratory, and the
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory are partnered with Exelon
    generation, which is also demonstrating hydrogen production at
    their Nine Mile Point plant in New York. These projects will
    produce hydrogen in the next year. These efforts will enhance
    grid stability and will create an additional revenue stream for
    these nuclear plants. This is becoming more important as the
    financial pressures on our existing fleet are increasing as
    evidenced by recent plant closures. Because traditional nuclear
    plants operate
    24/7, they are impacted by negative power prices, which occur
    when generation appears simultaneously with reduced electricity
    demand, and these situations are becoming more prevalent as we
    have more deployment of variable renewables. Hydrogen
    production will enable these plants to become more profitable
    as they continue to produce more than half of our nation's
    carbon-free electricity and contribute roughly $600 billion
    annually to our economy.
        Finally, I want to emphasize that integrated systems
    research is not just about the current fleet. Advanced reactors
    that are in development today and planned for deployment within
    the next decade are designed to operate at higher temperatures,
    run more efficiently, and provide greater flexibility. Working
    in concert with renewables, these advanced reactors can power
    microgrids in isolated communities, supply heat and electricity
    to remote mining applications, produce synthetic fuels, and
    much more. These advanced reactors could even be sited at
    retiring coal plants to ensure that reliable, affordable
    electricity remains available for these communities. All of
    this is vital to our nation's economy and environment as we
    develop technologies that will create clean energy jobs, reduce
    land use and the impact on air and water, promote energy
    independence, and increase our nation's economic
    competitiveness.
        So thank you again for the opportunity to testify here
    today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Bragg-Sitton follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Next, we are going to have Dr. Paul Chodak, Executive Vice
    President, Generation, American Electric Power (AEP).

      STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL CHODAK III, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
                  GENERATION, AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER

        Dr. Chodak. Good morning Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee. As Executive Vice
    President responsible for AEP's generation assets, I am
    privileged to be part of one of the nation's largest
    electricity producers, with approximately 31,000 megawatts of
    diverse generation capacity, including more than 5,900
    megawatts of renewable energy and 2,100 megawatts of nuclear
    energy at our Cook Nuclear Plant on Lake Michigan. American
    Electric Power also plans to grow its renewable generation
    portfolio by approximately 16.6 gigawatts, which will put our
    capacity at 50 percent renewables by 2030. With our aggressive
    plan to invest in renewable resources, AEP is on track to
    achieve an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
    from 2000 levels by 2030 and has committed to achieving net
    zero by 2050. However, the technology to ensure that we are
    able to reliably and cost-effectively achieve net zero is still
    in development. We need a diverse mix of solutions because the
    best solution will likely vary by region.
        Fossil generation with carbon capture may be the most
    effective solution where local geology supports CO2
    storage, while advanced nuclear generation sources can make the
    most sense in regions where the geology is not good for
    CO2 sequestration and long-
    distance pipelines are impractical. As a U.S. Navy nuclear
    submariner and later as a Los Alamos National Lab scientist
    where I could prevent non-state actors from developing nuclear
    explosives, I had a clear mission of which I was very proud.
    Today, my mission is to provide our customers with safe,
    reliable--and when I say reliable, I mean 24 hours a day, 365
    days a year, regardless of the weather--at as low a cost as
    possible. Our modern way of life depends on the successful
    execution of that mission. The United States operates the
    largest and highest-performing fleet of nuclear reactors in the
    world. The fleet already safely provides over half the carbon-
    free electricity consumed in the United States. Small modular
    reactors, or SMRs--their designs go further by incorporating
    decades of operating experience and technology improvements to
    produce even safer and inherently safe reactor designs. Several
    advanced reactors are currently in the design and development
    phase and will complement renewables by generating carbon-free
    electricity.
        In addition, they are also capable of multiple non-electric
    functions such as hydrogen production. Hydrogen can be used to
    store large quantities of energy and to enhance grid
    reliability as a non-emitting transportation fuel. This is
    similar to the DOE demonstration projects that Dr. Bragg-Sitton
    talked about at the Palo Verde and Nine Mile power plants.
    Desalination plants will need SMRs as the world continues to
    stretch the supply of fresh water. Advanced nuclear plants that
    operate at high temperatures can also help decarbonize the
    industrial sector by providing electricity and hydrogen and
    process heat. SMRs offer resilient, reliable, and long-term
    power to facilities important to national security, like
    military bases. I would also add that in my personal experience
    at Los Alamos National Lab, I saw firsthand the importance of
    the U.S. actively developing and deploying civilian nuclear
    technology, if it is to remain influential in the development
    of international nuclear policy.
        The first SMRs are expected to be commercially viable in
    the 2027 to 2029 timeframe. Continued engagement between the
    private sector and the Federal Government is needed to advance
    the technology and offset the financial risk of early adoption
    of this technology. SMRs are very large investments that are
    likely to have 40-year life cycles. Consequently, they require
    significant regulatory and legislative support. We believe SMRs
    can provide an essential complement to renewable sources and
    can be a valuable tool to address carbon reductions and meet
    the growing energy needs of the U.S. economy.
        Finally, AEP is very focused on the development and support
    of the communities we serve. The highly skilled energy
    workforce in our Appalachian service territory has powered
    America's economy for decades. Through no fault of their own,
    these communities are now being negatively impacted by the
    country's need to move toward a low-carbon economy. Nuclear
    generation sources bring with them large numbers of good-paying
    jobs. Through the co-generation of power and hydrogen, these
    communities can continue to meet the energy demand of our
    economy while making possible our nation's transition to net
    zero. Given the tremendous challenges ahead, we can ill-afford
    to forgo this great resource.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Chodak follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Next, we have Mr. Michael Guastella, Executive Director of
    the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals.
        Mr. Guastella.

    STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. GUASTELLA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL
            ON RADIONUCLIDES AND RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

        Mr. Guastella. Good morning Chairman Manchin, Ranking
    Member Barrasso, and members of the Committee. I am Michael
    Guastella, the Executive Director of the Council on
    Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR). CORAR is an
    association of companies that manufacture and distribute
    radioactive sources and medical isotopes in the United States.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Committee with our
    concerns with the current supply of isotopes.
        Medical isotopes are used by nuclear medicine doctors to
    diagnose or treat disease. Nuclear medicine has the distinct
    advantage of being non-invasive with few side effects. We
    estimate that there are 20 million nuclear medicine procedures
    performed annually for diseases such as cancer, heart disease,
    Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. In the mid-
    1990's, the last U.S. commercially operated reactor that
    produced fission-based medical isotopes was closed and
    decommissioned. In addition, in the late 90's, the U.S.
    Government closed the Stable Isotope Production Facility at the
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These two actions left the
    medical and industrial communities more reliant on foreign
    sources. Few in the government focused on the loss of domestic
    medical isotope production until 9/11, when many of the
    isotopes coming from abroad were temporarily cut off due to the
    cessation of flights into the U.S.
        In the years following 9/11, your Committee took up the
    concern over the lack of a domestic supply of medical isotopes
    and to remove the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in the
    production of medical isotopes, and led the effort to enact the
    American Medical Isotope Production Act of 2012 (AMIPA). AMIPA
    focused on the Department of Energy on assisting in the
    development of domestic medical isotope production from non-HEU
    sources. I am proud to be here today to say ``thank you'' for
    this Committee's acknowledgement of the isotope supply issues
    and your support in addressing our concerns. Also, I want to
    recognize past Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski
    for their leadership and efforts that resulted in the enactment
    of AMIPA.
        Now, let me update the Committee on U.S. isotope supply,
    opportunities, and challenges. Of the 20 million nuclear
    medicine procedures performed annually in the U.S., an
    estimated 15 million of these procedures utilize a medical
    isotope that is used for diagnostic imaging procedures and is
    predominantly and approximately 90 percent sourced from
    overseas. We note that U.S. patients rely on other medical
    isotopes that are either sole-sourced or predominantly sourced
    from overseas. For example, palladium-103 is used to
    manufacture brachytherapy seeds, and the primary source of
    palladium-103 is Russia. These radioactive seeds are primarily
    used in early-stage prostate cancer treatment.
        The DOE has also been a supportive and constructive partner
    through efforts of the Office of Science Isotope Program to
    domestically produce both the isotopes that are needed because
    commercial production has not yet been established or is not
    sufficient to meet U.S. medical and industrial needs. The DOE
    Isotope Program (DOE IP) accomplishes this through a network of
    production sites that utilize national laboratory resources.
    DOE especially plays a critical role in producing and
    distributing isotopes needed in scientific research and for
    initial medical clinical development, as there are not
    sufficient commercial incentives for production of such
    isotopes. CORAR and its member companies believe that where
    commercially feasible, medical and industrial isotopes should
    be produced by the private sector. Various companies are
    currently developing reactor and non-reactor capabilities to
    help scale-up domestic production of essential medical
    isotopes. CORAR believes that when diverse commercial
    production sources can meet U.S. demand, the DOE Isotope
    Program should exit the market for such isotopes, consistent
    with the mission of the DOE Isotope Program.
        CORAR would recommend that the Committee continue to
    support the DOE's research, development, and production
    activities. Also, CORAR suggests that the Committee suggest an
    increase in DOE's industry and government cooperation through a
    stakeholder and an agency advisory committee to help to find
    the nation's isotope need and help identify opportunities to
    increase domestic isotope production.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I
    welcome any questions that you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guastella follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank all of you for doing a great job and we
    appreciate it. We will start our questioning now, and I am
    going to start with Dr. Shannon Bragg-Sitton.
        U.S.-based companies are working with the national labs to
    bring advanced nuclear technology to market, technologies that
    can generate high temperatures needed for manufacturing. We
    know that the industrial sector is difficult to decarbonize
    because of the technological challenges and the volume of
    energy that must be replaced with non-emitting technologies.
    The manufacturing industry in the U.S. uses about 25
    exajoules--Did I say that correctly?--exajoules of energy.
    About 20 percent of this is from electricity, 40 percent from
    steam, and 40 percent from fossil-fired combustion, and over 90
    percent of the primary energy required is currently derived
    from the combustion of fossil fuels.
        So can you explain the advantages of advanced nuclear
    plants for process heat applications or hydrogen production?
    What I am trying to look at is the price model too, there, to
    make it more competitive price-wise. If we are going to be
    replacing our fossils, I want to make sure that we have the
    horsepower to do it.
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Thank you so much for that question,
    Senator Manchin.
        Absolutely. Advanced reactors can provide us with high-
    temperature heat to produce hydrogen very efficiently. Using
    that high-temperature heat and electricity, we can produce
    hydrogen approximately 30 to 50 percent more efficiently than
    by just using electricity alone. And we can provide that heat
    directly via steam or via stored energy in energy storage
    systems to support that industrial application and bring those
    costs down such that we can bring back domestic manufacturing--
    and steel manufacturing--all without the carbon emissions
    associated with it. And these industrial applications can be
    very efficient, can be produced just as efficiently as with
    fossil resources, but doing so without emissions provides a
    significant advantage over these competing technologies.
        The Chairman. Do you see--it looks like nuclear is the--if
    we are going to decarbonize the industrial sector, I do not
    believe, personally, that we can do it with renewables. So we
    need to do it with something that has the horsepower and
    basically is dispatchable 24/7. Is nuclear the way to go?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Yes, I believe it is.
        The Chairman. Dr. Chodak.
        Dr. Chodak. Yes, Senator.
        The Chairman. Mr. Guastella.
        Mr. Guastella. Yes.
        The Chairman. Okay, it is good to get that understanding.
    In light--and this is to Dr. Chodak. This will be yours. In
    light of recent legislation that developed an emergence of U.S.
    companies building advanced reactors in the next decade, my
    legislature is working in West Virginia to reverse the civil
    nuclear that restricts the construction of nuclear plants in
    the state. I think we are going to get that done. They
    understand. Several potential sites in West Virginia and across
    the country have preexisting infrastructure. We have coal-fired
    plants that are going down. I think my friend in Wyoming has a
    coal-fired plant. Everything is there. The base is there to
    work off of.
        So would that be the way for us to go as we are taking
    fossil coal off of the grid, but having all the
    interchangeable--the switch stations right there on that site.
    Would that be our best way to get up and running quicker?
        Dr. Chodak. Yes, Senator. If you can hit the targets that
    they are talking about for us--if they can build them for, you
    know, $2,000 to $3,000 per KW, and if they can get a levelized
    cost that's competitive at around $50 per megawatt-hour, then
    nuclear technology makes a tremendous amount of sense.
        The Chairman. Doctor, let me see, you are saying that is
    five cents, five cents a kilowatt-hour is what you are talking?
        Dr. Chodak. Right.
        The Chairman. Okay. At five cents, I do not see that in my
    energy reports every day. I see it being up there high in the
    9, 10, 11, 12--even higher.
        Dr. Chodak. So the five cents is just the generation cost
    and then on top of that you have the cost to actually transmit
    it. So the generation cost is probably around five cents.
        The Chairman. And how does that compare with natural gas,
    combined cycle, and coal?
        Dr. Chodak. Three-dollar natural gas would be closer to
    three cents per kilowatt-hour.
        The Chairman. Three cents, okay, and coal?
        Dr. Chodak. And coal is right around in there too. Natural
    gas and coal are probably around $20 to $30 a megawatt-hour.
        The Chairman. So nuclear is higher.
        Dr. Chodak. Nuclear is----
        The Chairman. Is there any way that you can see--through
    advanced technology and how we basically are using this money
    that we are talking about, a good bit of money for research and
    development--can we get that cost down or does the new
    generation of nuclear--will that bring it down?
        Dr. Chodak. Senator, I believe it will. Those are the
    targets they are talking about and we are talking about 10
    years from now. So the cost of power 10 years from now is
    likely going to be above that three cents per kilowatt-hour. It
    is going to be closer to four or five cents. I think at those
    prices then nuclear can be competitive. The key is to get
    through the first-of-a-kind costs and that is where we need a
    lot of collaboration at the state and federal levels because
    there are additional costs associated with that. And so the
    programs that the DOE is engaging in to do the R&D are very,
    very helpful in that regard, but also remember that these are
    40-year cycles.
        As a utility, my job is to be cost-effective for my
    customers. That's the number one thing after----
        The Chairman. I want to take the liberty of asking one more
    question, if you don't mind.
        Dr. Chodak. No.
        The Chairman. The liberty of asking one more question is
    this: We had a program that was presented to us called CEPP
    (Clean Energy Performance Program), which we were going to pay
    utilities to--and the carbon, the fossil cycle, if you will--
    and it was basically geared toward coal. And I understand, coal
    has gone from 52 percent of basically producing the power for
    our country, down to 19 percent. People do not realize, we are
    going in the right direction, if that's what they want. But the
    bottom line is we had gas fill the back--come back and fill the
    baseload. So we had baseload power. Going down that cycle, do
    we have anything that will replace the dispatchable baseload
    power by 2030 if we took all of our fossil off? Can any of you
    answer? Do you think we would be in jeopardy of not having
    dispatchable power? Baseload?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Absolutely. We need to have that
    dispatch-
    ability, that nuclear energy.
        The Chairman. But the way this program was going, your
    thought? Did you know a little bit about the CEPP?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. No, I did not.
        The Chairman. Okay. Well, you ought to read up on it.
        Dr. Chodak. Senator, I am familiar with the CEPP and you're
    absolutely right. If you were to remove baseload generation
    dispatchable power from the grid by 2030 then you couldn't
    guarantee the reliability and stability of the grid.
        The Chairman. So reliability, first of all, and the cost
    would have been outrageous too, I am understanding.
        Dr. Chodak. Exactly.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Mr. Guastella.
        Mr. Guastella. Senator Manchin, I am not an expert in
    power, so----
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Okay. Well then, I am going to let you pass
    on that one.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Let me testify that Senator Manchin is an
    expert in power and how to use it.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Guastella. He certainly sounds like he is.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Oh, boy.
        Senator Barrasso. Dr. Chodak, TerraPower has announced
    plans to build its Natrium advanced nuclear reactor in my home
    State of Wyoming. This reactor will be the first of its kind
    built anywhere in the world. It will also be the first time a
    nuclear reactor uses the infrastructure and workforce from a
    retired coal plant. Why are utilities interested in advanced
    nuclear technologies like TerraPower's Natrium reactor?
        Dr. Chodak. Senator, they're interested because it
    complements renewables very well and supplies the dispatchable
    resources. You know, when we talk about 24/365 regardless of
    the weather, we saw what happened in Texas with Uri. We saw all
    the devastation that that caused. We saw the challenges that
    you see in California today where they are--the California
    Public Utility Commission just went out and said, ``Hey, we
    need gas resources. We need dispatchable power to make sure the
    lights don't go out.''
        There are still days in a row where you don't have the wind
    blowing and it's very cloudy, and so you have to have that
    dispatchable resource. And small modular reactors are flexible.
    They can load-ramp. They are small in size so they take a much
    smaller footprint. I believe the Natrium reactor takes about a
    44-acre footprint, very small footprint. And because it has the
    molten salt energy storage device in it, it can ramp up from
    345 to 500 megawatts. That's considerable ramp-up during a time
    when solar energy is dropping off at the end of the day--
    everybody is coming home, turning on their computers, turning
    on their lights, turning on their stoves--and that's exactly
    when solar power is going away. That's when that Natrium
    reactor can respond. And small modular reactors are flexible in
    design to be able to do that.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Guastella, particle accelerators and
    nuclear reactors are used to produce medical isotopes--elements
    which doctors use to diagnose and treat cancers, a number of
    diseases. Research reactors and particle accelerators provide
    the bulk of these isotopes. What kind of opportunities do
    existing commercial reactors present for medical isotope
    production and then also, what kind of opportunities do
    advanced reactors like TerraPower present for medical isotope
    production? So both the advanced and the traditional?
        Mr. Guastella. Well, Senator, thank you. Thank you for that
    question. I am not a nuclear engineer so what I would like to
    do is submit that question for the record so that we can
    respond with more detail.
        To your point, research reactors and particle accelerators
    are currently being used in the U.S. There is a lot of research
    and development being done right now, particularly with
    particle accelerators in the U.S. commercially, and I think it
    would be a good thing to actually take that question offline
    and then provide some additional information to the Committee.
    Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. So could you explain why it is important
    for the United States to maintain and enhance our ability to
    produce medical and industrial isotopes?
        Mr. Guastella. Well, we are dependent--like I mentioned in
    my opening comments--we are significantly dependent on foreign-
    sourced materials. That includes molybdenum. The daughter
    isotope of molybdenum is technetium, and about 75 percent of
    all nuclear medicine procedures require technetium, and what we
    have seen in the past is when we have issues like the start of
    the pandemic when commercial flights were canceled from Europe,
    we had a significant issue with access here in the U.S. and
    accessing those products.
        So increasing domestic production is incredibly important
    to ensure accessibility to needed isotopes and there are many
    others, not only radioactive, but stable isotopes also.
        Senator Barrasso. Dr. Chodak, one more for you. The world
    is looking to expand the use of nuclear energy to meet its
    environmental and energy goals. U.S. leadership in the nuclear
    energy sector, I believe, is critically important. To what
    extent can utilization of nuclear reactors for non-electric
    applications like hydrogen production further enhance our
    leadership in terms of energy and around the world?
        Dr. Chodak. Well, Senator, as I alluded to in my testimony,
    I have firsthand experience with being at the negotiating table
    with international nuclear authorities and the question that
    was leveled at us, no matter what we said, was ``Well, you guys
    aren't deploying anything. You haven't built anything in 30
    years. Why should we listen to you?'' In essence, that was
    their argument, which is very difficult to argue against. Very
    difficult to argue with that.
        If we are out there deploying, leading the way in
    technology, and defining systems and out there showing how it
    can be done, how nuclear technology can be used for all these
    non-electric uses, then we are able to have a seat at the table
    and have a conversation and credibly argue for international
    policy that we believe to be correct.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Now we are going to go to Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    This is an incredibly important panel. So I appreciate you all
    being here.
        Let me follow up on Senator Barrasso's question, Mr.
    Guastella, to you. With respect to the production of medical
    isotopes, I am interested in how we can utilize the current
    nuclear reactors for the production of it versus the advanced
    technology that we are looking at. Which one is better? So
    whatever research you put together and you submit, would you
    please submit it to my office as well?
        Mr. Guastella. Absolutely.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Because I think this is an
    important issue. Are you familiar with the GE-180 Tracer?
        Mr. Guastella. I am not, no.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. So the GE-180 Tracer was
    approved by the FDA to help really understand the underlying
    causes of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and it happened in Las
    Vegas at the Lou Ruvo Clinic--Cleveland Clinic, by one of our
    doctors. And this is a perfect example of supporting what you
    are saying----
        Mr. Guastella. Right.
        Senator Cortez Masto [continuing]. Why this production--
    medical isotopes are so important. But in layman's terms, can
    you explain? When people hear medical isotopes, that is very
    confusing, I think, and it doesn't explain how this is utilized
    to help uncover the causes and determine, really, what we are
    trying to understand with Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's
    disease, and so many others. Can you explain it in layman's
    terms how it is utilized?
        Mr. Guastella. Sure. Let's take a simple example using PET
    imaging. So the GE machine that you mentioned, I'm sure, is a
    machine that is used to produce PET isotopes. So we will take
    PET imaging, and a fairly generic use of that technology in the
    diagnosis of cancer. So a fluorine-18 radioisotope is attached
    to a sugar molecule--glucose--and that is injected into a
    patient and glucose is used by every cell in the body, but
    cells that are particularly active, that have a much higher
    level of metabolism, absorb more of that. And so, with PET
    imaging using fluorinated glucose (FDG), physicians can
    actually diagnose where cancer has metastasized. That same
    technology can be used with a patient that has been diagnosed
    with cancer, and then used after treatment to determine if some
    of those tumors have actually decreased in size or actually
    gone away.
        So it is a nice example of how nuclear medicine and PET
    imaging can be used, not only in diagnosis, but in forming
    treatment.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you so much.
        And then, you ended your testimony talking about the need
    for a stakeholder agency advisory committee. Can you talk a
    little bit about your vision for that? What do you anticipate?
    If we were to put something together like that what would be
    its duties and functions? What are you thinking?
        Mr. Guastella. The Isotope Program, basically, through the
    NSAC (Nuclear Science Advisory Committee), underwent a review
    of isotope needs. It was the NSACI--isotope subcommittee--that
    has done that twice. The last report was in 2015. We think, as
    an industry association, it would be helpful to actually
    provide another report working with stakeholders, industry,
    researchers, clinicians, the Isotope Program (DOE), to evaluate
    current needs, potential opportunities moving forward, and the
    resources needed to accomplish the goals of the action items
    that come out of that committee.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Dr. Chodak, let me ask you this. When it comes to all
    things nuclear, can you expand on the need for state and local
    input? Do you think it is important to have state and local
    input as we look and move forward on all of these areas?
        Dr. Chodak. Yes, as a utility it is absolutely essential
    that we not only serve customers with safe, reliable power, but
    we serve them in the way that they want to be served. And we
    need to work very collaboratively with state and local
    governments to ensure that everybody is on board with the way
    that we serve. There are multiple options to serve customers,
    and generally speaking, we try to remain technologically
    agnostic. Now, we are looking for the solution that provides
    that reliable, low-cost power, but also one that communities
    are willing and interested in having as part of their mix.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Dr. Bragg-Sitton, hello.
        One of the things we hear and read about for smaller, micro
    nuclear reactors is to help isolated communities after natural
    disaster. Louisiana was hit recently by hurricane Ida. There
    were a lot of transmission lines that were down, but one of the
    ways that they brought electricity back more quickly was by
    firing back up a mothballed natural gas plant in New Orleans to
    allow at least a local distribution. Similarly, after
    hurricanes Delta and Laura in Jeff Davis Parish, the local
    generating capacity was destroyed. So to what degree could a
    small or micro nuclear reactor help this? Obviously, I am
    begging the answer--it could help a lot. So what I am really
    asking is, what is the likelihood of this happening safely, and
    on what timeframe?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Thank you for that question, Senator
    Cassidy.
        We have a number of companies that are interested in the
    development of microreactors for many applications, whether
    those be for deployment for permanent installations, remote
    communities, or for emergency deployment. Microreactors offer
    us the opportunity to have high-density energy in a very small
    package. Many of these microreactors are characterized by
    factory manufacturing, factory assembly, and rapid shipment to
    site for operation within just a few days. And there are a
    number of companies working on these to ensure that they will
    be available this decade as well as programs under the
    Department of Energy and the Department of Defense that are
    enabling rapid development.
        Senator Cassidy. What would be the cost of such a reactor?
    How long could it be used for? And what would be the cost per
    megawatt-hour and how does that relate to conventional or
    traditional forms of energy?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. With regard to operational time, many of
    these reactor technologies are designed to operate with
    extremely long fuel cycles, where our traditional plants today
    require refueling every 18 to 24 months. These microreactors
    are designed to offer long life cycles of 5 years, 10 years, or
    even 20 years of operation so that they could be set down
    onsite and operated for those long periods of time.
        With regard to cost, we believe that they will be quite
    competitive with other energy sources that could be deployed in
    those types of regions, but for the record, I would like to
    provide a detailed answer after communicating with some of
    those companies to understand their current cost numbers.
        Senator Cassidy. So the way you answered that suggests to
    me that it might be more expensive but if you are in a region
    where electricity is already more expensive, it would be
    competitive, but if you are in a place where electricity tends
    to be less expensive, it might be a little bit more highly
    priced.
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Yes, that is correct, in that if we were
    looking at a remote region that is currently dependent on
    diesel generators, this would be much more cost effective than
    those diesel generators. But if we are looking to deploy
    something in a region that has large centralized power plants
    today, it might be a bit more expensive. So they will not be
    applicable to all applications, but in many applications, they
    will be a ready source of reliable, dispatchable energy to meet
    those needs in emergency situations or to provide that long-
    duration, sustainable power to remote communities or remote
    industrial facilities.
        Senator Cassidy. And what is the capacity? How much energy
    could they produce for this long life cycle?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. These microreactors that could be
    packaged in the small transportable units are on the order of
    megawatts. So a few megawatts of electricity up to 10 or maybe
    20 megawatts of electricity, really bound by the requirements
    of that factory manufacturing and easy shipment to site via
    truck, rail, barge, types of technologies.
        Senator Cassidy. I have a lot of petrochemical industry,
    and obviously there has also been interest among the steel and
    cement and other energy-intensive industries to lower their
    carbon intensity. Now, this sounds like a way that they could
    have an onsite means by which they could, for that portion of
    their consumption that is related to firing a boiler, they
    could help decarbonize, correct?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Yes, these types of technologies are
    something that could provide both the electricity to drive
    those processes, but also the heat that is necessary to drive
    the processes, and they can be sited very close to those
    applications and be dispatchable when that energy is needed for
    a very long duration of time, as I mentioned.
        Senator Cassidy. Now, in the life cycle--you talked about
    expense--if you are speaking about that long of a life cycle,
    you would be avoiding all the input costs for whatever your
    traditional form of energy would be as well as theoretically
    your repair costs for lines. If there is an Ida and it blows
    down your transmission lines, there is a cost of repair. Under
    this circumstance, co-located, you would be potentially more
    secure, but also avoid that kind of life-cycle expense of
    maintaining a grid. Am I begging an answer again or do you
    think that is reasonable?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. I think that is reasonable--that these
    types of systems can support regional microgrids for both heat
    and electricity and therefore be much more secure under a
    variety of events, whether those be weather related or
    otherwise, and provide that reliable energy for those long
    durations. And those long life cycles, those refueling cycles
    that are much longer, mean that we have much fewer operations
    required onsite. And in fact, after that 10 or 20 year life
    cycle for that plant, we would then simply replace the core and
    refurbish that back at a factory.
        Senator Cassidy. Got it. Thank you very much. I yield.
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. I am going to go just a
    quick second round. If anybody else wants to, I only have one
    question to any of you or all of you or whoever wants to
    answer.
        My state energy production is about 96 percent coal for my
    electricity needs in my state. And we export quite a bit of
    power from our state. Do you believe, for the State of West
    Virginia, the best direction for it to go would be--as we
    transition--to nuclear? Does it make sense because of the
    footprint that we already have, the substations we already
    have, everything--connection, doesn't need any new
    transmission, doesn't need anything except a new plug-in model?
        You can start right here. We will go down.
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Great. Thank you so much for that
    question. As Dr. Chodak mentioned, those coal sites offer us
    with significant infrastructure that these nuclear plants can
    come in and thereby reduce the cost of installing these plants,
    so those low numbers to make those very competitive. We can
    take advantage of the grid interconnection and many studies are
    being conducted to better understand how much of the other
    assets in that region can be leveraged.
        Now, another opportunity that those sites offer us is that
    we now have a carbon-based feedstock that isn't going to
    production of electricity, but we could instead use that high-
    quality heat and electricity from a nuclear plant that goes
    into that site to process that carbon-based feedstock into
    higher-value consumer products, thereby enhancing the economic
    development of those communities that are being impacted by
    this energy transition. So I think there is a really tremendous
    opportunity here.
        The Chairman. We are going to have to bring you to West
    Virginia, do a little confab there and get everybody on the
    right track.
        Dr. Chodak.
        Dr. Chodak. Senator Manchin, I will just add, first off, I
    agree with everything that was just said and I would just add
    that if you look at it today, CCS, you know, fossil generation
    with carbon capture and storage and nuclear are the only two
    emission-free dispatchable sources that we really have that can
    go multi-days or even seasonal. And when you look at West
    Virginia, West Virginia's geology is wonderful to look at, but
    in terms of storing CO2, not so good.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Dr. Chodak. And so, it's an outstanding opportunity for a
    small modular reactor to come in there. The key is, we need to
    be able to get the cost down and be able to take down the risk
    of that first-of-a-kind through energy policy. When you layer
    in the secondary sources, you know, we have a chemical industry
    there in West Virginia, along the river, where the process
    heat, the hydrogen production and hydrogen production potential
    for export to the rest of the country----
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Dr. Chodak [continuing]. You're now looking at West
    Virginia doing what it used to do with coal only now it's doing
    it with nuclear.
        The Chairman. Good.
        I know you are not an energy person.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Guastella. I would defer to the experts here on the
    panel, and if it actually increased medical isotope production
    domestically, it would be a win across the board here.
        The Chairman. Thank you all. I am going to have to run, but
    Senator Barrasso is going to take over.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    I will do that.
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton, what more can be done to support private-
    sector efforts to use nuclear energy for non-electric
    application?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. There are a number of efforts that are
    underway that are helping significantly to demonstrate these
    advanced reactor technologies. For example, the Advanced
    Reactor Demonstration Program is supporting those first
    demonstrations of private-sector concepts, the Natrium reactor
    by TerraPower has been mentioned and is planned for
    demonstration in Wyoming and the
    X-energy Xe-100 reactor will be initially demonstrated in the
    State of Washington. These demonstration projects get us
    considerably down the path toward commercial deployment, but we
    do need those commitments to be sustained--not just
    demonstration, but deployment. Commercial-scale deployment of
    these technologies needs continuing support. We need to look at
    policies that help to promote that. We need to understand how
    these technologies not only provide us with reliable heat and
    electricity, but also that reduced carbon emission that is so
    important to achieving that net-zero economy.
        And the pathway to decarbonizing industry is very
    challenging. There are not very many technologies that can do
    this. So I would say continued support to ensure that we get to
    large-scale commercial deployment of these technologies that
    will help us toward that net-zero future is essential.
        Senator Barrasso. When we get to this point of future
    deployments and the scope that you are talking about in the
    long-term future, I understand these reactors will be smaller,
    safer, and more efficient. What kinds of opportunities do these
    specific characteristics--something that is smaller, safer, and
    more efficient--present for the siting and for the economic
    viability of nuclear energy?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. The smaller packages offer us the
    opportunity to locate these plants, these reactors, much closer
    to their end-use so that transport of heat is much shorter,
    much reduced heat loss. The smaller packaging also opens that
    opportunity for factory manufacturing that I mentioned with
    microreactors. The same thing applies to small modular reactors
    where we can begin to produce these in large numbers in a
    factory assembly line type of process such that they no longer
    become an onsite, one-of-a-kind application. We can reduce cost
    dramatically through that type of manufacturing approach which
    then, when we get to those ``nth-of-a-kind'' systems, then our
    costs come down significantly overall.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Guastella, can you talk a little bit
    about targeted alpha therapy? That seems to be a promising
    option for cancers that are no longer responsive to some
    conventional treatments. Could you describe this treatment and
    how nuclear energy can enable the production of a new class of
    isotopes to help in our fight against cancer?
        Mr. Guastella. Sure. Actinium-225 is an alpha emitter. It
    is unfortunately in short supply right now and anything that we
    can do to increase the production of actinium-225 would be
    helpful. There is a lot of work being done right now in using
    alpha emitters like actinium-225 in the treatment of cancer.
    So, for example, a high percentage of prostate patients express
    a protein--a prostate-specific membrane antigen, and the use of
    an alpha emitter like actinium-225 to a carrier--a protein or a
    monoclonal antibody that would be specific to that antigen--
    would now provide a very targeted therapeutic for patients that
    express that particular antigen. And that really is kind of the
    definition of precision medicine.
        And what is also helpful is that the carrier protein--
    monoclonal antibody, or whatever--can also be used with a
    diagnostic isotope. So you can identify the appropriate
    patients and then use a radiotherapy, like actinium, to treat
    the patient.
        Senator Barrasso. Great.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Let me talk a little bit about
    another opportunity here and I am curious if it does exist--
    around water purification. Obviously, western states--I am one
    of them, also Senator Barrasso--we all have concerns about a
    drought happening right now in the West and how we augment some
    of our water, particularly along the Colorado River. I know
    that in the past there have been projects trying to couple the
    desalination with existing nuclear power plants, and
    unfortunately, the cost is very high. So I am curious, both Dr.
    Bragg-Sitton and Dr. Chodak, if the advanced nuclear technology
    is going to be able to couple with this type of water
    purification and bring those costs down, or just your thoughts,
    in general, about the state of desalination and is it in our
    purview? Is it in 10, 20 years? Is it something that is viable
    but also economically viable as well?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Thank you so much for that question.
    Idaho National Laboratory partnered with Arizona Public Service
    a few years ago to look at that exact question. How can we
    utilize excess energy from the Palo Verde Generating Station to
    desalinate water? It is a very interesting scenario there in
    that they have an ample amount of brackish groundwater rather
    than sea water. And so, looking at that resource and looking at
    reverse osmosis technology, which is commercially available at
    large scale, we actually found that there were reasonable
    opportunities to bring those costs down, to make that
    affordable, to provide cooling water for that plant, which
    currently uses municipal wastewater for cooling, or to provide
    that to the agricultural regions or potable water for those
    growing communities west of Phoenix.
        So there are some opportunities available and it does
    depend on the water source. It depends on the economic
    competitiveness of how else that electricity would be used and,
    in that case, it was curtail electricity due to rising solar
    penetration in that region, or use it to produce this clean
    water. So there may be some viable options with technology we
    have today and we see many countries, in the Middle East, for
    example, that are looking to enhanced water processing
    desalination to support their communities as well. Reverse
    osmosis is driven purely by electricity to drive that process.
    There are also thermally driven desalination processes that may
    become more affordable as we begin looking to the higher
    temperature applications that are available with advanced
    reactors. So I do think there is a considerable pathway toward
    that.
        And another item to consider is that these advanced
    reactors, in many cases, don't use water themselves for
    cooling. They use advanced cycle. So they can provide a
    positive output of water without using cooling water to
    operate.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Dr. Chodak, anything to add to that?
        Dr. Chodak. I would just add a little bit to that. That was
    a great answer. Just a little bit to add to that would be--
    small modular--because it is modular, it can be built in the
    factory, so it is a lower cost. So when you think about a small
    modular reactor, the targets they are talking about, the
    numbers they are talking about, about $2,000 to $3,000 a KW,
    compare that to existing, you know, AP1000 designs, which are,
    you know, $6,000 to $12,000 per KW. So there is significantly
    less capital cost and then the ``smaller'' means they can be
    sited closer to where that water is going to be used because
    they have a much smaller footprint, and because you are
    designing it upfront, you can design that cycle and optimize it
    for that specific use. So there are multiple layers of
    potential cost savings and additional utility that you can get
    out of these designs.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thanks for
    the hearing today. One of the things that I miss about not
    being Chairman of the Committee is, you know, before you would
    get to sit and listen to all this great stuff. Now I am like
    everybody else, I come air-dropping in right at the end when
    everyone is trying to wrap up. I get the gavel again. So thank
    you for that, Mr. Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Murkowski. But these are important issues, when it
    comes to nuclear, particularly the advances that we are seeing
    with advanced nuclear reactors and small modular reactors. We
    just got an announcement a couple of weeks ago now that Eielson
    Air Force Base--the Department of Defense--will be hosting the
    first pilot of a microreactor there. I am really excited to see
    the application there and what it can mean for us in remote
    areas, not only on military installations, but greater
    application elsewhere. So I love the topic.
        I mention my excitement but one of the things that I had
    been focused on, certainly in years previous to this is, as we
    think about these advanced reactors, we need advanced fuel. And
    so, we talk about HALEU (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium). Of
    the ten reactor designs selected for the advanced reactor
    demonstration program, nine use HALEU. So I have tried to focus
    on this as a supply chain issue and raising the concern. My
    understanding is that today, HALEU is only commercially
    available from Russia. So I would like to have a little bit of
    a discussion here this morning since everybody else is gone and
    I have the gavel here.
        What do we do? Do you all agree that we need to develop
    domestic supply here to produce HALEU. I would hope that we
    think that that is preferable to reliance on foreign sources.
    And if so, really, what is our biggest obstacle here? Is this
    primarily an economic and market issue? Is it a public policy
    problem? What do you think we can do to build up this fuel
    source? What more can we do on the infrastructure side?
        So let's start with you, Dr. Bragg-Sitton.
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        You've kind of hit the nail on the head on one of our
    challenges to these advanced reactors. With regard to High-
    Assay Low-
    Enriched Uranium, we have different pathways to get there. We
    know how to do it. This is something that we can do at our
    national laboratories and working with our fuel fabricators
    here in the United States. And it is essential that we have a
    domestic supply of this resource. It provides us the
    opportunity to build these advanced reactors that can be put in
    smaller packages and operate more efficiently.
        So what do we need to do to make sure that we have that
    resource available?
        We need to make sure we put the investment in to establish
    that supply chain. Why haven't we done that before? Well, the
    demand wasn't necessarily there from the commercial sector
    previously. And now that we see this very large interest
    growing in the private sector to develop and deploy these
    technologies, now we're beginning to have that demand for this
    resource, for HALEU, and we need to put the investment in to
    develop the capability to fabricate those fuels.
        Senator Murkowski. So it has really just been a chicken and
    an egg type of a thing?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. In my opinion, yes, frankly, that is a
    part of it. Until the demand is there, the supply chain won't
    be there. We know how to do it. We know how to get there, but
    we need to invest in it to make sure that we can have that
    resource available.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Others on this point?
        Dr. Chodak. I would just add, just to concur that this is
    not amazing new technology. We absolutely know how to do this.
    It's just that the market isn't there and so the supply isn't
    there.
        Senator Murkowski. So you know, last year, we established a
    program within DOE to support the domestic availability of
    HALEU. Can anyone give me an update on the current status of
    that program? Has the Department been active in standing it up
    and getting it going?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Yes, the program has stood up. That's
    actually led out of my laboratory by a colleague of mine and
    that has been moving forward, but again, we need to have that
    continued investment to move those processes forward, whether
    that is producing HALEU from existing materials or enriching
    materials down the line. But yes, things are moving forward,
    but we need more investment.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        One last question, and we are certainly hearing this in
    Alaska. I mentioned the microreactor that will be deployed up
    in the interior part of the state, but I think educating and
    informing the public about the reality of modern advanced
    nuclear systems still remains a challenge. I think for so many,
    particularly in a state like Alaska, where we just do not have
    any nuclear power to speak of, so many still envision Three-
    Mile Island. They think of Chernobyl when they think of nuclear
    even though the small modular reactors and the microreactors
    are really a world apart in terms of safe operations.
        So I know that you all are focused on the technology, the
    research, the deployment, but I think we also recognize that we
    have to do more when it comes to educating people that this
    nuclear is not just about clean energy, but it is also safe
    technology. How do we make this transition? We are doing it on
    the technology side. We are transitioning. But are we doing it
    in the public mindset? What more can we be doing there? I throw
    that out to any of you.
        Dr. Chodak. If I could just chime in, I can give you a good
    example. At our Cook Nuclear Plant on Lake Michigan, the
    community there are the strongest supporters of the Cook plant
    possible. And that occurs because the management of that plant
    invites people to come into the plant, to tour the plant, to
    see what's there and explain the technology. We have a visitor
    center that has models where we go in and we bring in school
    kids and we explain to them, ``Here's how the plant works.''
    And when people understand what something is, then they're no
    longer afraid of it. And when we start talking about these
    advanced designs that--particularly the inherently safe
    designs, where you can walk away from the facility at 100
    percent power, and physics and the nature of it, because it's a
    smaller size and a higher power-to-surface-area ratio, the
    thing just naturally cools down and shuts itself down. And when
    you start explaining those things to people, and they get that
    understanding, then I think the fear level drops.
        Now, that's no small feat to help them understand it and
    you do it almost one community at a time, but I think
    certainly, the story is an excellent one. And it's just a
    matter of education.
        Senator Murkowski. We do have to get the word out.
        Mr. Guastella. And Senator Murkowski, I would say from a
    medical isotope perspective, it is very similar. It's not
    community, it's patient by patient. So there is trepidation by
    patients when they walk into a nuclear medicine department and
    you know, they see a radiation sign, and some will freak out--
    but educating patients that we're talking about a very low
    level of activity, they are very short-lived. The half-lives of
    the isotopes that we use in healthcare are very short. They are
    excreted from the body efficiently. And again, patient by
    patient and with some of the educational efforts that are being
    done, not only by industry, but by the Society of Nuclear
    Medicine and Molecular Imaging, I think we are making some
    efforts. And with some of the new therapies, for example--
    Senator Barrasso asked about these a little bit earlier--the
    targeted alpha therapies that use isotopes like actinium. We
    continue to make inroads, especially when they are so
    efficacious and help patients.
        Senator Murkowski. Good, well, thank you.
        Well, and as I have indicated my interest, voila, everybody
    else shows up. So I am going to turn the gavel back.
        Senator Barrasso. Everybody wants to be where you are. Even
    the Senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Risch. Four Republicans,
    no Democrats.
        Senator Risch. Well, it couldn't be a better day.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Barrasso. Well, and the----
        Senator Risch. Go ahead.
        Senator Barrasso [continuing]. And the first witness,
    magnificent.
        Senator Risch. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. From the Idaho National Lab.
        Senator Risch. That is great. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. That we toured together.
        Senator Risch. Yes, thanks so much.
        Senator Barrasso. As well as Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes, it is very true.
        Senator Risch. That was not your first trip to the lab, was
    it, Senator?
        Senator Murkowski. No, and it is not going to be my last
    either.
        Senator Risch. That's good.
        Well, thank you, and thank you, Senator Barrasso and to the
    Chairman for holding this hearing. This is something, I think,
    that most people aren't aware of. If they are aware of the
    importance of nuclear energy, most people do not drill down
    this far. So it is important that we do explore these kinds of
    things.
        I am proud to represent the nation's flagship nuclear
    energy laboratory at the Idaho National Lab, which we still
    have the first three light bulbs there that were lit by nuclear
    energy. So we are very, very proud of that. We built 52
    reactors over time at INL. Some demonstration, some actually
    working, but Senator Murkowski, you were talking about Alaska
    and not having access to nuclear power. At the lab right now
    they are building the SMR, the small modular reactor, which
    will serve a smaller community, but you will be interested to
    hear that they are also on the drawing boards for the
    microreactor that a lot of us have been pushing for a long
    time. Look, if you can put it on a ship and drive a ship with
    it, why can't you put it on a trailer and take it to deepest,
    darkest places of the world, you know? So anyway, I think that
    is certainly the future. Whether people want to or not,
    obviously, we are going to run out of these fossil fuels and
    probably stop using them even before we run out of them, but
    this is the only way to deliver a load. The Idaho National
    Laboratory is on the front edge of that. There is no question
    about that.
        From the safety standpoint that was just being discussed, I
    think most people, again, when you talk about--if they throw
    Three-Mile Island in your face or Chernobyl--you can always
    come back with, ``Look, the entire navy is run on nuclear
    reactors.'' They are all over the world now. We only have 93 in
    the United States, but they are growing dramatically all over
    the world. And it is the safest, one of the safest things to do
    in the world. We just do not have those kind of things
    [Chernobyl style reactors], you know, we have better
    engineering and everything else. So it is important, I think,
    that all of us be advocates for how safe, not only how clean
    nuclear energy is, but how safe it is.
        So the area that we are talking about today, I think, is
    particularly important and I think that Shannon, it is good to
    have you here. You are recognized worldwide as a pioneer in
    this field of non-electric applications for nuclear energy. And
    I think it is particularly important that we be focusing on
    this now as our nuclear fleet continues to shrink. Originally,
    it was just from wearing out or time. Now economics is playing
    a lot more--a lot bigger role in that--particularly when you
    have other forms of energy being used alternately to substitute
    for the nuclear in the power that is generated.
        So I would like each of you, if you would, for a minute, to
    talk about the urgency of finding these additional economic
    streams as to how that will help maintain the fleet that we
    have.
        Shannon, why don't you go first, since you are from Idaho.
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Thank you, Senator Risch.
        It is essential that we act quickly. The existing fleet of
    nuclear plants, as you mentioned, is experiencing financial
    pressures as we see more and more variable renewable resources
    coming online. That variability requires our baseload or
    traditionally baseload generation to respond to that and to
    dial back power. That's not necessarily the best economic
    performance. These plants can do it. They can technically
    provide that flexible response, but if we don't operate these
    to the fullest extent possible, we're essentially throwing away
    some of that resource and throwing away what we could be
    utilizing. If we only look first at decarbonizing the electric
    sector, I think we're going to miss a really elegant solution
    to use these powerhouses of clean heat and electricity to
    support broader decarbonization.
        A nuclear plant is a producer of heat, which we then
    convert to electricity. So using that heat directly to support
    these areas that are very difficult to decarbonize and probably
    shouldn't always be electrified or can't be electrified, we can
    then come to a solution that still needs that reliable,
    resilient grid and meets that demand at all times, working
    right alongside other clean energy generators, like renewables,
    like fossil with carbon capture, but then using the excess heat
    and electricity to get to those hard-to-abate sectors and we
    can get to those net-zero goals much more rapidly if we looked
    at these holistic solution sets.
        Senator Risch. I appreciate that.
        Dr. Chodak. Senator, not only do we get to those goals much
    more rapidly, but we get there much more cost effectively. If
    you look at the existing fleet today, part of the reason they
    are economically challenged is because the playing field is not
    at all level. They are bringing value to the grid in terms of
    dispatchable capacity that is available and there is no real
    market mechanism that compensates them appropriately for that.
    And then they are thrown into an energy market where they are
    competing against renewable resources that have investment tax
    credits and production tax credits, which can drive down the
    price for power to actually negative numbers so that you have
    to pay to keep your unit online to deliver power. That is an
    unreasonable situation, particularly since these assets are so
    incredibly valuable for us meeting our decarbonization goals.
        So I think one of the things we can do for the existing
    fleet is to put them on a level playing field and give them a
    production tax credit and make those tax incentives such that
    they can actually use them by using direct pay mechanisms to
    provide that support and level the playing field so those units
    can compete.
        Senator Risch. Level playing field is incredibly important.
        Mr. Guastella. Senator Risch, from a medical isotope
    perspective, in the U.S., all the medical isotopes that are
    produced domestically are done either through research reactors
    like the University of Missouri Research Reactor, as an
    example, or particle accelerators. Power reactors in Canada,
    for example, are being used for a certain amount of isotope
    production and I would defer to the experts whether the nuclear
    power fleet here in the U.S. is actually capable of doing some
    of the same things. Anything that we can do to increase
    domestic supply would be important. So I certainly think that
    folks would be open to looking at those opportunities.
        Senator Risch. What is the situation? When I was Governor
    in the mid-part of the first decade of this century, we had no
    supply in the United States. We were totally reliant on Canada
    or from Europe, as I recall. We did some work at INL to get up
    and running in that regard and it was really critical,
    particularly with the short half-lives of some of the isotopes.
    What is the situation now?
        Mr. Guastella. Well, you are probably referring mostly to
    molybdenum. Ninety percent of the molybdenum sourced in the
    U.S. is still foreign-sourced, either from Europe, South
    Africa, or Australia. We do have one domestic supplier--
    NorthStar in Wisconsin. There are others that are looking at
    becoming domestic producers. SHINE in Wisconsin, also, is
    another commercial organization that is getting close, but we
    are still working on increasing domestic supply of molybdenum
    and certainly many of the other isotopes that are needed by
    healthcare professionals.
        Senator Risch. I appreciate that. So important in the
    medical field.
        Well, with that, I will close. I just want to say that I
    appreciate the Chairman and the Ranking Member doing this. I
    think the economics of this is so important and the fact that
    we do look at these alternative things.
        The Chairman, Senator Manchin and I drew and got passed the
    Integrated Energy Systems bill, which was signed into law last
    year, which is accelerating this research at the DOE, which we
    appreciate all your work on it and it is so important in
    helping to keep online these 93 reactors that we have left. I
    expect that that is going to turn around, but it is going to
    take some time, there is no question about that. I yield back.
    Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton, you know, I know we are talking about
    nuclear here, but also, I want to ask you, in addition to
    nuclear, do you agree that we need to accelerate the deployment
    of carbon capture technologies allowing us to continue to
    benefit from our abundant, low-cost, dependable fossil energy
    resources? And that is something, obviously, that the Ranking
    Member and I have a lot of in our states, is a lot of coal-
    fired electricity, and do you think with carbon capture we can
    and should make those investments to continue that baseload
    generation?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. So carbon capture is a little outside of
    my main technical area, but I will say that to get to these
    ambitious goals we have to achieve that net-zero economy, it is
    going to take everything we have in our toolbox. We will need
    renewables. We will need nuclear. We will need fossil with
    carbon capture. And how we accomplish that carbon capture does
    require some additional research. We also are looking to direct
    air capture to capture CO2 that is already emitted
    in our environment. And I think those technologies will play a
    significant role in the solution and those nuclear plants could
    be sited right alongside those fossil plants and other plants
    that emit CO2 to help drive that capture technology
    to reduce costs.
        Senator Hoeven. That is a very interesting idea.
        What are some other ways to improve the commercial
    viability for advanced reactors and bring technology to scale?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. I think we need to build it. I think that
    bringing those technologies to the commercial sector requires
    commitment. It requires us to develop and demonstrate those
    technologies and get to the finish line by deploying those
    technologies at scale, such that we can bring costs down, and
    make them cost competitive. And producing these multiple
    product streams will be a part of that cost competitiveness.
    When we look to buildout of additional resources, we often look
    to just the electric sector and we make decisions based on the
    cost of that electricity, but bringing back that conversation
    on leveling the playing field, part of that is looking at all
    the assets these technologies bring to the forefront.
    Renewables will play a role, but most of those renewables
    provide only electricity and that is only part of our energy
    use. These advanced reactors offer those additional
    opportunities for heat and electricity that can support such a
    wide array of industrial applications--chemical manufacturing,
    bring back some of the domestic steel manufacturing. We need to
    value those product streams and bring that into the decision
    process when new plants are built.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
        Dr. Chodak. And Senator Hoeven, specifically to your
    question around what can we do to make these technologies more
    cost-
    effective and more competitive--so the challenge is that they
    are first-of-a-kind technologies, and as a result they tend to
    be more expensive, and that is my colleague's argument on why
    we need to build them, right? Because if we build them, then
    they are no longer first-of-a-kind because we get those lessons
    learned and we get to save and learn on the ``nth'' cost
    savings. But starting off as a utility, we try to be very much
    technology agnostic--whatever is in the best interest of our
    customers in terms of cost and reliability, that is what we are
    going to go with.
        And if you want to level the playing field with renewables,
    then an investment tax credit, not unlike what renewables have,
    particularly in the solar field and if you can get rid of the
    requirement to normalize those costs, those are benefits that
    pass directly to our customers. So if I can take that tax
    credit and pass that benefit directly to my customer and it
    reduces that cost to my customer, that greatly incentivizes
    that technology and it enables me to bring that technology to
    my customers.
        Senator Hoeven. Very good. Thank you, Dr. Chodak.
        And then, Mr. Guastella, given our reliance on foreign
    sources for isotopes, particularly from Russia, what steps
    should the U.S. take to increase our domestic production
    capabilities?
        Mr. Guastella. Well, we are taking steps currently to
    increase domestic supply. There are several core member
    companies, two of which I have already mentioned, that with
    help from the Department of Energy and the grants of
    cooperative agreements, are either currently producing or are
    close to producing some of the primary radioisotopes that are
    used in nuclear medicine--molybdenum, xenon, iodine-131 used
    for thyroid disease. In addition, there are efforts right now
    to install a fleet of particle accelerators to produce some of
    the radiotherapies like actinium, for example, directly or by
    using stable isotopes and irradiating those either in
    cyclotrons or particle accelerators. And there are some core
    member companies that are working toward that end also.
        So efforts are being made. Also, as I had mentioned earlier
    in my testimony, the efforts with the Department of Energy
    Isotope Program have been extremely helpful and the
    collaboration between industry and the DOE is necessary right
    now to continue to provide much-needed isotopes that may not be
    commercially viable at this point, but certainly needed by
    researchers and physicians in looking at new treatments and new
    diagnostics.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Risch, any additional thoughts or
    questions?
        Senator Risch. Yes, you piqued my interest in a question.
    You know, some time ago there was a lot of excitement about
    hydrogen. That was going to be the new ``save the world'' kind
    of idea, new shiny object. And that did not mature very much,
    it does not seem like. Can you give us your thoughts on that?
    Where that is? Where it is going? Whether it has the potential
    everybody thought it had at the beginning?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Thank you very much. Hydrogen is a very
    significant focus right now. And why is it such a focus? It is
    because hydrogen is a highly versatile energy carrier and we
    can produce it without emissions when we use non-emitting heat
    and electricity from nuclear energy. And this hydrogen can be
    stored so that it can be used now or it can be used later or
    even transported to end users. So it is essentially a chemical
    energy storage means and by producing that hydrogen, it gives
    us these additional revenue streams for our operating plants.
        Senator Risch. Is there an industry developing around that?
        Dr. Bragg-Sitton. Yes. So hydrogen is an avenue to
    decarbon-
    ization of the electricity grid, transportation, and industry.
    My colleagues at the Renewable Energy Laboratory and Argonne
    National Laboratory have looked at market growth for that
    hydrogen and those estimates range from growth on the order of
    4 to 16 times depending on different assumptions being made.
    That hydrogen can be used to produce electricity with
    reversible fuel cells or via combustion in gas turbines.
    Without emissions, we can use that in transportation for fuel
    cell vehicles or through the production of synthetic liquid
    fuels to begin meeting the needs for heavy duty transport or
    maritime or aviation transport that won't be electrified or are
    very difficult to electrify.
        And in regard to industrial applications, there are
    significant growth opportunities. Now, I mentioned in my early
    remarks, hydrogen is available today and we see that mostly
    through breaking down methane, which has those CO2
    emissions associated, but if we use clean hydrogen, we can use
    that in upgrading iron ore to create steel, so a domestic
    manufacturing opportunity for steel without the associated
    emissions that are traditionally a part of that process. We can
    use it to upgrade coal and biomass to produce alternative fuels
    and chemicals. And as we start valuing this clean energy
    resource and these clean avenues to achieving these consumer
    products, we do anticipate a significant growth in those
    hydrogen markets and a significant opportunity for clean
    hydrogen. We are already seeing that demand for clean hydrogen
    from non-emitting sources is growing significantly in places
    like Europe, where a premium is being paid for that.
        And as we develop these technologies further, we will be
    able to reduce those costs and achieve this Energy Earthshot
    goal and the Hydrogen Earthshot goal of reducing the cost of
    clean hydrogen dramatically over the next decade, which will,
    again, grow that market considerably.
        Senator Risch. Interesting.
        Dr. Chodak. Senator, I was at a conference just yesterday,
    the Association of Edison Illuminating Companies (AEIC), where
    I listened to executives from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
    (MHI), who have a project where they are working to develop
    green hydrogen. And if you look at the major turbine
    manufacturers, they are developing turbines to be able to run
    on hydrogen. In the transportation industry, you also have oil
    companies looking at potentially transitioning from using
    hydrocarbons to generating hydrogen for the transportation
    industry. So the answer is not if hydrogen is going to be part
    of the future, it is just a matter of when and at what cost.
    The real challenge is around--particularly for electricity use
    and energy storage--you know, we make a product and the
    electricity that is turning these lights on right now came off
    a generator less than a second ago. And it is not easy to store
    for more than four to six hours. That is the limit of existing
    technology. Hydrogen is that technology that allows us to store
    it so that, for example, in areas where you don't have the sun
    shining all year long, which have a really strong summer, I can
    take some of that solar energy, put it into hydrogen and then
    take that hydrogen and use it later back during off-season
    periods where I don't have as much solar power.
        And there are all kinds of opportunities with small modular
    reactors to create that hydrogen that gets used in that
    infrastructure, both for transportation and also potentially
    for electricity generation.
        Senator Risch. Thank you.
        Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much and I think, as Dr.
    Bragg-Sitton just said, issues with what we are seeing in
    Europe now with energy prices even more expensive than they are
    here, more issues of energy poverty that are going on there,
    that we need to continue to develop our opportunities here in
    the United States. So thank you for that.
        Thank you all for being here today. We are very grateful
    for your testimony. I think it was a very important hearing.
    Members are going to have until the close of business tomorrow
    to submit additional questions for the record. We would ask you
    to be thoughtful as well as expedient in replying to those.
    With that, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    [all]