[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 62 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4730-S4732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NUCLEAR ENERGY

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, do you remember a few years ago when 
our Congress got mad at France and banned French fries in the House of 
Representatives cafeteria? We Americans have always had a love-hate 
relationship with the French, which is why it was so galling last month 
when the Democratic Congress passed a budget with such big deficits 
that it makes the United States literally ineligible to join France in 
the European Union.
  Of course, we do not want to be in the European Union. We are the 
United States of America. But French deficits are lower than ours, and 
their President has been running around sounding like a Republican, 
lecturing our President about spending too much.
  Now the debate in Congress is shifting to the size of your electric 
and gasoline bills and to climate change. So guess who has one of the 
lowest electric rates in Western Europe and the second lowest carbon 
emissions in the entire European Union. It is France again.
  What is more, they are doing it with a technology we invented and 
have been reluctant to use: nuclear power.
  Thirty years ago, the contrary French became reliant on nuclear power 
when others would not. Today, nuclear plants provide 80 percent of 
their electricity. They even sell electricity to Germany, whose 
politicians built windmills and solar panels and promised not to build 
nuclear plants, which was exactly the attitude in the United States 
between 1979 and 2008, when not one new nuclear plant was built. Still, 
nuclear, which provides only 20 percent of all U.S. electricity, 
provides 70 percent of our pollution-free electricity. So you would 
think that if Democrats want to talk about energy and climate change 
and clean air, they would put American-made nuclear power front and 
center. Instead, their answer is billions in subsidies for renewable 
energy from the Sun, the wind, and the Earth.
  Well, we Republicans like renewable energy too. We proposed a new 
Manhattan Project, for example, like the one in World War II, to find 
ways to make solar power cost competitive and to improve advanced 
biofuels from crops that we do not eat. But today, renewable 
electricity from the Sun, the wind, and the Earth provides only about 
1.5 percent of America's electricity. Double it and triple it, and we 
still do not have very much. So there is potentially a dangerous energy 
gap between the renewable energy we want and the reliable energy we 
need.
  To close that gap, Republicans say start with conservation and 
efficiency. We have so much electricity at night, for example, we could 
electrify half our cars and trucks by plugging them in

[[Page S4731]]

while we sleep without building one new powerplant. On that Republicans 
and Democrats agree. But when it comes to producing more energy, we 
disagree.
  When Republicans say build 100 new nuclear powerplants during the 
next 20 years, Democrats say, well, there is no place to put the used 
nuclear fuel.
  We say, recycle the fuel--the way France does. They say, no, we 
cannot.
  We say, how about another Manhattan Project to remove carbon from 
coal plant emissions? Imaginary, they say.

  We say, for a bridge to a clean energy future, find more natural gas 
and oil offshore. Farmers, homeowners, and factories must have natural 
gas, and the oil we will still need should be ours instead of sending 
billions of dollars overseas.
  They can't wait to put another ban on offshore drilling.
  We say incentives.
  They say mandates.
  We say keep prices down.
  Democrats say put a big, new national sales tax on electric bills and 
gasoline.
  We both want a clean energy future, but here is the real difference: 
Republicans want to find more American energy and use less. Democrats 
want to use less, and they don't want to find much more.
  They talk about President Kennedy sending a man to the Moon. Their 
energy proposals wouldn't get America halfway to the Moon.
  We Republicans didn't like it when Democrats passed a budget that 
gave the French bragging rights on deficits, so we are not about to let 
the French also outdo us on electric and gasoline bills, clean air, and 
climate change.
  We say find more American energy and use less--energy that is as 
clean as possible, as reliable as possible, and at as low a cost as 
possible, and one place to start is with 100 new nuclear powerplants.
  Mr. President, I wish to ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks an article from the Washington Post and an article from the 
Maryville ALCOA Daily Times be printed in the Record, which I will 
describe for a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the article from the Washington Post is 
written by James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch. James Schlesinger 
was the first Secretary of Energy, and he established the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Robert Hirsch is a senior energy adviser 
today, and he managed the Federal renewable programs. Their article is 
entitled ``Getting Real on Wind and Solar.''
  Here is the last paragraph of the article I am including:

       The United States will need an array of electric power 
     production options to meet its needs in the years ahead. 
     Solar and wind will have their place, as will other 
     renewables. Realistically, however, solar and wind will 
     probably only provide a modest percentage of future U.S. 
     power. Some serious realism in energy planning is needed, 
     preferably from analysts who are not backing one horse or 
     another.

  The other article from the Maryville ALCOA Daily Times on April 27--
today--is from my hometown. This is my hometown newspaper, and it is 
about a plant that means a lot to me. It is an ALCOA plant--the 
Aluminum Company of America plant. My father worked at the south plant 
until he retired. I went to school on an ALCOA scholarship. During 
World Wars I and II, there were as many as 12,000 and 13,000 people in 
our east Tennessee area who worked at ALCOA with good wages. It changed 
the lives of three generations of families who lived there. It would 
have been impossible for us to have the good schools, the good jobs, 
the good communities we have had without the good wages paid by the 
Aluminum Company of America.
  Here is the headline: ``ALCOA hopes new power contract will bring 
smelting restart.''

       Ninety-five years after ALCOA Tennessee Operations fired up 
     its first potline--

  That is to make aluminum--

     and seven weeks after the company shut down its last potline, 
     the question remains: Will aluminum ingots ever roll out of 
     the south plant again?

  What will make the difference for these ALCOA plants that have 
provided good wages and good jobs to thousands of families in 
Tennessee? The price of electricity.
  The newspaper says:

       The deal that ALCOA is looking for is a long-range power 
     contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority that will allow 
     the Tennessee smelting operations to be cost competitive when 
     metal prices rebound.

  When we talk about electricity, the only cost some people talk about 
is driving up the cost so we will use less of it. That is the idea of a 
carbon tax. That is the idea of driving up the price of gasoline so 
people will buy less of it. But if we drive up the price of electricity 
in Tennessee--if TVA raises its prices to ALCOA--that plant will never 
reopen again and those hundreds or even thousands of jobs will never 
come back again.
  I was visited recently by a number of big companies in Tennessee that 
are concerned about the price of Tennessee Valley Authority 
electricity. They say they may not be able to stay there unless it gets 
more competitive. Residential rates are relatively low--average to 
low--but rates for companies are not low. Ironically, we are 
celebrating in Tennessee the arrival of two big new industries which 
make polysilicon, which is the material that goes into the solar panels 
that you put on the top of your house. Those two new plants, one of 
which will go in Clarksville, TN, and one of which will go in 
Cleveland, will each use about 120 megawatts of power when they open. 
From the beginning, they will be among the largest customers of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority for electricity. They will be using, as I 
said, 240 megawatts of low-cost, reliable electricity produced by coal, 
nuclear, and hydropower in our region. They could not rely on the one 
wind farm that exists in the Southeastern United States, which is in 
Tennessee and which only produces 5 megawatts of unreliable, expensive 
power--because the wind blows much of the time at night, when TVA 
already has 7,000 megawatts of extra power. So the solar plants that we 
need for the renewable energy of the future will have to rely today on 
coal, nuclear, and natural gas.
  It is important, as we debate the so-called renewable electricity 
standard, as we talk about climate change and clean energy--and I have 
had legislation on those subjects every congress that I have been a 
Senator--to realize that cost is important if we don't want to keep 
jobs from going overseas and if we want people to be able to afford 
their electric bills. I mentioned that TVA's electric rates are average 
to low, but last December, 10 percent of the electricity customers of 
the Nashville Electric Service said they couldn't afford to pay their 
bills. When we come down here and start talking about proposals that 
are going to drive up the cost, and when we say we are going to 
deliberately drive up the cost, I think that is the wrong policy.
  We are an inventive country. We can conserve. We can double the 
number of nuclear powerplants we have. We can double the energy 
research that we are doing on solar and other renewable energies, and 
we can do it with the objective of having low-cost electricity. That is 
the way to keep our jobs. That is the way to avoid poverty. That is the 
way to produce the largest amount of clean electricity for the future. 
We need a bridge to a clean energy future. Yes, of course, that 
includes renewable energy, but it is only 1.5 percent of what we have 
today. So to talk about driving the price up and relying on a national 
windmill policy, for example, to drive this big productive country is 
unrealistic.
  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 24, 2009]

                     Getting Real on Wind and Solar

              (By James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch)

       Why are we ignoring things we know? We know that the sun 
     doesn't always shine and that the wind doesn't always blow. 
     That means that solar cells and wind energy systems don't 
     always provide electric power. Nevertheless, solar and wind 
     energy seem to have captured the public's support as 
     potentially being the primary or total answer to our electric 
     power needs.
       Solar cells and wind turbines are appealing because they 
     are ``renewables'' with promising implications and because 
     they emit no carbon dioxide during operation, which is 
     certainly a plus. But because both are intermittent electric 
     power generators, they cannot produce electricity ``on 
     demand,'' something that the public requires. We expect the

[[Page S4732]]

     lights to go on when we flip a switch, and we do not expect 
     our computers to shut down as nature dictates.
       Solar and wind electricity are available only part of the 
     time that consumers demand power. Solar cells produce no 
     electric power at night, and clouds greatly reduce their 
     output. The wind doesn't blow at a constant rate, and 
     sometimes it does not blow at all.
       If large-scale electric energy storage were viable, solar 
     and wind intermittency would be less of a problem. However, 
     large-scale electric energy storage is possible only in the 
     few locations where there are hydroelectric dams. But when we 
     use hydroelectric dams for electric energy storage, we reduce 
     their electric power output, which would otherwise have been 
     used by consumers. In other words, we suffer a loss to gain 
     power on demand from wind and solar.
       At locations without such hydroelectric dams, which is most 
     places, solar and wind electricity systems must be backed up 
     100 percent by other forms of generation to ensure against 
     blackouts. In today's world, that backup power can only come 
     from fossil fuels.
       Because of this need for full fossil fuel backup, the 
     public will pay a large premium for solar and wind--paying 
     once for the solar and wind system (made financially feasible 
     through substantial subsidies) and again for the fossil fuel 
     system, which must be kept running at a low level at all 
     times to be able to quickly ramp up in cases of sudden 
     declines in sunshine and wind. Thus, the total cost of such a 
     system includes the cost of the solar and wind machines, 
     their subsidies, and the cost of the full backup power system 
     running in ``spinning reserve.''
       Finally, since solar and wind conditions are most favorable 
     in the Southwest and the center of the country, costly 
     transmission lines will be needed to move that lower-cost 
     solar and wind energy to population centers on the coasts. 
     There must be considerable redundancy in those new 
     transmission lines to guard against damage due to natural 
     disasters and terrorism, leading to considerable additional 
     costs.
       The climate change benefits that accrue from solar and wind 
     power with 100 percent fossil fuel backup are associated with 
     the fossil fuels not used at the standby power plants. 
     Because solar and wind have the capacity to deliver only 30 
     to 40 percent of their full power ratings in even the best 
     locations, they provide a carbon dioxide reduction of less 
     than 30 to 40 percent, considering the fossil fuels needed 
     for the ``spinning reserve.'' That's far less than the 100 
     percent that many people believe, and it all comes with a 
     high cost premium.
       The United States will need an array of electric power 
     production options to meet its needs in the years ahead. 
     Solar and wind will have their places, as will other 
     renewables. Realistically, however, solar and wind will 
     probably only provide a modest percentage of future U.S. 
     power. Some serious realism in energy planning is needed, 
     preferably from analysts who are not backing one horse or 
     another.
                                  ____


                         [From the Daily Times]

       ALCOA Hopes New Power Contract Will Bring Smelting Restart

                           (By Robert Norris)

       Ninety-five years after ALCOA Tennessee Operations fired up 
     its first potline and seven weeks after the company shut down 
     its last, the question remains: Will aluminum ingots ever 
     roll out of the South Plant again?
       ``For some, the question is not so relevant anymore. After 
     the announcement that the plant was being closed, more than 
     130 ALCOA employees accepted the company's severance package. 
     Others were laid off--245 hourly workers and 80 of the 
     salaried workforce.
       The London Metal Exchange price for aluminum is half what 
     it was one year ago, so prospects for any immediate change is 
     nil. The demand for the 1.3 million pounds of molten metal 
     that the smelting plant can produce does not exist in the 
     current marketplace.
       Still, leadership at the company is hopeful that when the 
     economy rebounds, Tennessee Smelting Operations will be in a 
     position to be restarted.
       ``We're in the standard, ready position,'' said Brett 
     McBrayer Tennessee Primary Metals location manager. ``The 
     employees have done such an incredible job of preparing the 
     plant to have it in as much a ready state as possible.''
       Cranes are being moved up and down to keep them 
     operational, and preventive maintenance is being done so the 
     plant will be prepared if and when the call comes to restart.
       ``I can't say enough about the employees. The way they 
     faced the tough call and the way they responded says a lot 
     about the character of the employees in this region. That 
     drives me even harder in discussions with TVA to get a deal 
     done,'' McBrayer said.
       The deal McBrayer is looking for is a long-range power 
     contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority--the current 
     contract expires next year--that will allow Tennessee 
     Smelting Operations to be cost competitive when metal prices 
     rebound. That has happened at ALCOA smelting plants in other 
     regions where the company has negotiated more flexible prices 
     with electricity suppliers.
       ``We've been in discussions with TVA for quite some time. 
     It always seems more complicated than it needs to be, but 
     there are a lot of issues,'' McBrayer said. ``The sooner 
     we get a deal done, the stronger candidate we'll be for a 
     restart. The longer negotiations drag out, it seems to 
     become harder. An agreement can't happen soon enough.''
       TVA issued a statement indicating its desire to reach an 
     equitable agreement with the aluminum company.
       ``ALCOA has long been a valued customer of TVA's and we are 
     working diligently to reach agreement on a long-term power 
     contract for the future. While these contract negotiations 
     are confidential, we are working to reach an agreement that 
     will allow ALCOA to operate its Tennessee facility while, at 
     the same time, not disadvantaging other Valley ratepayers,'' 
     said Jim Allen, a TVA spokesman.
       Brickey Beasley, president of United Steelworkers Local 
     309, said he looks forward to the day the South Plant 
     Smelting Operations reopens and also in maintaining the North 
     Plant rolling mill. The Tapoco Division of ALCOA--the four-
     dam hydroelectric project on the Little Tennessee and Cheoah 
     rivers--should give Tennessee Operations an edge over other 
     locations, according to Beasley.
       We hope that TVA can help out some and the economy can help 
     some,'' Beasley said, ``We've got a great workforce that's 
     idle right now.''
       McBrayer, who is chairman of the Tennessee chamber of 
     Commerce and Industry Board of Directors, said the impact of 
     the shutdown goes beyond the employees immediately affected.
       ``Being from Blount county and this are a--recognizing the 
     impact on East Tennessee--there's more than just the families 
     impacted from the layoff. The impact multiplies 
     exponentially,'' Beasley said.
       ``Hopefully, when we obtain the power contract, it will 
     just be a matter of waiting for the market to pick up again. 
     The good thing about aluminum is that it is used in more and 
     more applications. It's going to be around for a long time.''

                          ____________________