[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 15 (Thursday, February 9, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S973-S974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my agreement with
President Bush's belief that our country's security depends in large
part on a diverse energy portfolio, one that is not overly reliant on
any one energy source, especially sources of foreign origin. I agree
with the President that this country is overly dependent on foreign
oil. Consistent with that belief, the Bush administration has just
announced a potentially far-reaching energy program known as the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership or GNEP. This program provides a wide-
reaching, long-term plan for establishing a robust and sustainable
future for nuclear energy in this country and abroad.
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership promises to provide abundant
energy, without emitting greenhouse gases; to recycle used nuclear fuel
in order to minimize waste; to safely and securely allow developing
nations to deploy nuclear power to meet their energy needs, while
reducing proliferation risks; to assure maximum energy recovery from
still-valuable used nuclear fuel; and to allow the U.S. to rely on a
single geologic waste repository for the rest of this century.
Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of this Nation's
electricity, and does so without emitting any carbon, greenhouse gases,
or other air pollutants. All the waste generated by commercial nuclear
powerplants is securely managed and destined for safe, permanent
disposal in a geologic repository.
However, according to current law, that repository can contain only
slightly more than the amount of waste already stored at existing
reactor sites. Even if the law is changed, the repository at Yucca
Mountain can only accommodate about the amount of spent nuclear fuel
that will be generated by the existing reactors in this country over
their lifetimes. If nuclear power is to have a future in this country,
even to maintain its current 20 percent share of electricity
generation, either a second repository will need to be developed soon--
with many more to follow--or an alternative means of managing this
waste is needed.
After a single use, spent nuclear fuel retains more than 95 percent
of its energy potential. That energy potential could be tapped by
reprocessing the spent fuel, recycling the useable part and disposing
of the rest as waste, which makes up only about 3-4 percent of the
spent fuel. This could substantially reduce the amount of long-lived
nuclear waste requiring burial in a geologic repository, and could
extend the lifetime of the Yucca Mountain repository many fold.
But efforts to recycle spent fuel were abandoned in this country back
in the 1970s, largely because of concerns about nuclear proliferation.
Those concerns stemmed from the fact that, at that time, the method
used to recycle spent fuel, the ``PUREX'' process, separated out pure
plutonium, which might be used to construct a nuclear bomb.
During the 30-plus years since then, the U.S. has--through research
at its National Laboratories--made considerable progress in developing
new methods for reprocessing spent fuel that are much less prone to
proliferation risks, because they do not separate out pure plutonium,
but keep it mixed with other actinides. This mixture is not readily
used for nuclear weapons.
Reintroducing recycling into this country's strategy for managing
spent fuel is a major change in policy, and one that deserves serious
discussion. That discussion should be based on fact and not emotion;
should address current technologies, not those from more than a
generation ago; and should consider reasonable alternatives to
maintaining nuclear energy as a viable part of our Nation's energy
supply.
And what reasonable alternatives are there? Total electricity
consumption in the U.S. is projected to increase by about 40 percent by
2025. Wind and solar energy cannot provide large-scale, base-load
electricity, because they are intermittent energy sources. Hydro
provides about 10 percent of our electricity right now, but building
new
[[Page S974]]
dams to fully accommodate the increased demand is not possible. Relying
solely on fossil fuels to make up the difference is environmentally
irresponsible, and with the price of natural gas increasing
dramatically, less economically appealing. Nuclear energy is the most
environmentally sound technology capable of adequately meeting such
increased demand. But even simply maintaining the current share of
electricity generation provided by nuclear energy will require
constructing many new nuclear powerplants in this country.
So should we continue to push for opening Yucca Mountain to begin
accepting waste as soon as possible? The answer is clearly yes.
Electric utilities demand confidence that spent fuel will be managed
responsibly if they are going to continue to build new nuclearpower
plants in the U.S.
But can we build many more Yucca Mountains to accommodate the
additional waste? I think the answer is clearly no.
Still, new nuclear powerplants are being planned--and not only in
this country, which has not ordered a new nuclear plant in 30 years,
but around the world. China, Russia, several European countries, and
others are planning--or building--new nuclear powerplants. Somewhere
between 100 and 150 new nuclear plants are likely to be built in the
next 20 years or so. In fact, the U.S., despite having pioneered
nuclear power, risks falling far behind in this home-grown technology.
Furthermore, the growth in nuclear power worldwide, while avoiding
the potential environmental impact of a similar number of fossil-fuel
powerplants, raises serious concerns about nuclear proliferation. An
increasing number of countries are interested in developing nuclear
power, and in some cases, developing or acquiring technologies that
could lead to their ability to produce nuclear weapons. North Korea and
Iran constantly remind us of the potential danger.
Therefore, the U.S. and other responsible nuclear-capable countries
need to work together to help developing countries acquire clean,
affordable energy, but not the means to develop nuclear weapons.
And this is another farsighted goal of the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership. Through GNEP, this administration proposes to work with
international partners to help developing nations deploy proliferation-
resistant and emission-free nuclear energy by developing international
fuel services and small-scale modular reactors.
Finally, if this country is to eventually wean itself off its
dependence on foreign oil and gas, we need to develop a clean-burning
fuel for transportation. In fact, even if nuclear power replaced all
the fossil-fueled powerplants in this country, it would make little
impact on our oil use. We would still need to import about 70 percent
of our oil for transportation.
This need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, in addition to
reducing carbon emissions, was the impetus for President Bush to
propose his Hydrogen Initiative in the 2001 State of the Union, and he
has restated his convictions in all subsequent State of the Union
addresses.
Consistent with President Bush's vision, we must continue our efforts
to make the transition to a hydrogen-based economy, and we need to
generate that hydrogen by using environmentally responsible
technologies. Nuclear energy provides one such technology with high-
temperature reactors such as the Next Generation Nuclear Plant that
will be able to produce market-competitive hydrogen.
Nuclear power has the potential to provide clean, affordable, and
emission-free electricity to an increasingly energy-hungry world, and
the next generation of nuclear plants will produce fuel for
transportation in an increasingly oil-starved world.
Access to affordable energy is crucial for improved quality of life
and overall economic prosperity. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
promises to increase energy security, both here in the United States
and abroad. It will encourage environmentally responsible energy
development around the world, and will provide that energy with minimal
impact on the environment. I congratulate our President for his vision
and commitment to helping make all this possible.
____________________