[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]