[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 80 (Monday, June 1, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5893-S5895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NUCLEAR ENERGY

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, several years back--actually, it was 
further than several years, it was in the early 1990s--there was a 
popular culture sensation in kids' books. The books were entitled, 
``Where's Waldo.'' Those with kids probably remember the books. It was 
a great way to test your kids' eyes and areas of identification. This 
was crafted by a gentleman by the name of Martin Hansford. You try to 
find Waldo with his glasses and his red-and-white striped hat. He would 
be tucked in on the page somewhere, filled with lots of other colors, 
and you would have to hunt through the page. More often than not, Waldo 
was tucked in behind similar looking characters who would attract your 
attention. They played a central role in the overall picture but 
ultimately were not Waldo. I see the young pages nodding. They have all 
seen the ``Where's Waldo?'' books.
  I do not want to take time this afternoon talking about the ``Where's 
Waldo.'' books, but I will tell you I am concerned and the point of my 
comments today is the concern I have that the Obama administration has 
engaged in a new game of ``Where's Waldo'' and doing so with our energy 
policies, only this time instead of ``Where's Waldo'' it is ``Where's 
Nuclear.'' We will need to search carefully to find where the 
administration has hidden the resurgence of nuclear energy.
  The confluence of high oil prices this past summer and the desire to 
reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions has certainly and justifiably 
promoted the interest in and development of renewable and alternative 
forms of energy, from more mature technologies, such as wind and solar, 
to greater awareness of the potential for geothermal, biomass, ocean 
tidal energy, along with greater energy efficiency and conservation 
measures.
  Congress in both the Bush administration and now the Obama 
administration was active in promoting these fields, in extending the 
tax breaks, mandating levels of ethanol to be used, updating our energy 
efficiency standards, and providing for incentives for energy 
conservation measures.
  We are expecting to tackle a climate change bill at some point this 
Congress. In what shape or form certainly remains to be seen at this 
point in time, but we know that we must work to slow and reduce our 
carbon emissions. There is certainly a role for all of these 
technologies and increased energy efficiency to play in our energy 
future. But ultimately, as the new administration lays out its energy 
policy priorities, I have to ask the question: Where is nuclear?
  In an interview with ``U.S. News & World Report,'' Secretary of 
Energy Steven Chu says:

       [t]he biggest gains, in terms of decreasing the country's 
     energy bill, the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the 
     atmosphere, and our dependency on foreign oil, will come from 
     energy efficiency and conservation in the next 20 years.

  Our Energy Secretary, Secretary Chu, has basically said that when it

[[Page S5894]]

comes to making reductions in emissions, it is going to come from 
energy efficiency and conservation.
  I am absolutely all for conservation, but, once again, nuclear power, 
the one energy source that currently provides emissions-free, stable, 
baseload power, along with large-scale, high-paying job creation across 
the United States, seems to be missing from the Obama administration's 
energy plans.
  What is the current state of play when it comes to nuclear? The map 
behind me indicates where we have nuclear facilities throughout the 
Nation. The different colors are based on years of operation. The blue 
triangles are nuclear facilities that have been in operation from 
between 30 and 39 years. That is the majority of the reactors. We have 
52 that have been in operation for about a 40-year period, 42 for a 20 
to 29-year period.
  What this map demonstrates quite clearly is not only where in the 
country our nuclear facilities lie, but the fact that we simply do not 
have any new nuclear plants that have been ordered in this country 
since 1978. We have 104 operating nuclear powerplants across the 
country that are providing right around 20 percent of our electric 
power and approximately 75 percent of our carbon-free power.
  Again, no new nuclear plants have been ordered in this country since 
1978. But we have seen a resurgence of interest that has led to license 
applications for 26 new reactors at 17 sites. These applications have 
all been docketed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with 
construction on the first plant expected to begin in the year 2012. 
This is a very welcome revival. This comes at a time when we know our 
economy is suffering.
  At a recent Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing, the 
president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Mr. Marvin Fertel, 
noted that to date, investment in new nuclear energy plants over the 
past 2 to 3 years has created 15,000 jobs. If all 26 new reactors 
currently in the licensing process are built, that would result in an 
annual average of over 100,000 new jobs, according to a recent study by 
Oxford Economics. Over 20,000 long-term jobs would be generated to 
operate those plants. Those new jobs would allow nuclear energy to 
continue to make the contribution that it does today as our energy 
needs grow.
  We know that nuclear plants also play a key role in reducing our 
carbon emissions and meeting our climate change goals, while also 
helping to mitigate economic harm. In 2007 alone, nuclear power 
resulted in the avoidance of almost 700 million metric tons of carbon 
emissions.
  How much is 700 million metric tons of carbon emissions? It is more 
carbon than Canada collectively emits each year. It is roughly twice 
the amount of carbon emitted by all privately owned vehicles in the 
United States on an annual basis. It is safe to say that nuclear power 
avoids a significant amount of carbon emissions, and it brings our 
expenses down as well.
  An EIA analysis of last year's Lieberman-Warner climate change 
legislation showed that a new nuclear plant construction would reduce 
carbon prices in 2030 by 33 percent, residential electricity prices by 
20 percent, and residential natural gas prices by 19 percent compared 
to a scenario where new nuclear construction is limited.
  Not only is nuclear emission free, nuclear also provides a constant 
reliable source of baseload power. This is an issue we hear time and 
again in the Energy Committee, an issue that renewable and alternative 
energy sources, as much as we like them, struggle with this reality of 
reliable baseload. After all, we certainly know, regardless what part 
of the country you are from, the Sun does not always shine, and the 
wind does not always blow. On the other hand, in 2008, the average 
operating capacity for the 104 nuclear plants in the United States was 
over 90 percent--well above that of coal-fired power generation.
  If we look at the chart, in terms of the capacity factor and what 
nuclear can provide on a sustainable, reliable basis, we have nuclear 
and then coal coming in a good second. But as we look to wind, hydro, 
solar, even oil and gas, if what we are looking for is a level of 
reliability, the answer is nuclear. It is the type of dependable power 
that our utilities need to operate efficiently and effectively.
  This year's Gallup Environmental poll shows 59 percent of Americans 
support the use of nuclear power, which is a new high, but support for 
nuclear is nothing new in the international community. Since 1978, when 
the last nuclear reactor was ordered in the United States, over 250 new 
reactors were constructed overseas. Japan intends to increase the 
amount of electricity it gets from nuclear from where they are today at 
30 percent to over 40 percent by the year 2020. France already gets 75 
percent of its electricity from nuclear.
  I think the American people get it and the international community 
certainly gets it. Nuclear power is a broadly accepted form of safe 
energy, and it is time that we in Washington understood this as well.
  It is clear that nuclear provides good-paying jobs at home, reduces 
our carbon emissions, provides reliable baseload power, and it is 
supported by the American people. So what is not clear is where the new 
administration is on nuclear. While there has been some mention of 
nuclear energy being part of the overall energy strategy, the actions 
of the administration do not support the claim.

  So far, the administration has sought to kill Yucca Mountain as a 
long-term repository for spent fuel. They have shown an unwillingness 
to increase the loan guarantee program and the funding levels to 
support construction of new nuclear plants, and they have focused on 
renewable and alternative fuel developments to reduce our carbon 
emissions without any mention of nuclear energy. So where nuclear 
energy truly stands with the current administration is a bit of a 
mystery to me. Let's talk about Yucca Mountain.
  The administration seems to view Yucca Mountain in the same vein as 
the Guantanamo Bay prison. Both are politically uncomfortable solutions 
to a toxic problem, and they are going to be shut down, never mind that 
we do not have an alternative plan for either one of them. So what are 
we going to do with the thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and 
defense-related, high-level waste that is spread out all across the 
country?
  That map we saw earlier with all of those dots all across the country 
is where we are keeping the nuclear waste. It is sitting right there 
spread out across this country.
  How many tens of billions of dollars in liability will the American 
taxpayers be on the hook for when the administration finally abandons 
all hope of fulfilling the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's already well past 
1998 deadline for a permanent repository?
  Billions of dollars have been spent over the last 25 years in 
characterization and engineering development for the Yucca Mountain 
license. It is hard to imagine a better understood piece of real estate 
on the planet. Onsite dry cask storage is a safe but a temporary 
solution, and it does not remove the need for a permanent repository.
  In the meantime, the nuclear industry faces uncertainty regarding 
spent fuel liabilities, States have no permanent disposition path for 
defense-related waste, and the Federal Government cannot address tens 
of billions of dollars in taxpayer liabilities.
  So far the alternative plan seems to be to leave the waste at its 
current location, and we will talk about it.
  I mentioned the Loan Guarantee Program. The administration seems to 
be just as confused about its support for the new reactor construction 
needed to maintain nuclear energy's current contribution. As part of 
the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress created the Loan Guarantee Program 
to help us develop the 21st century energy system our country needs.
  The Loan Guarantee Program provides support for a broad portfolio of 
clean energy technologies, from energy efficiency and renewable energy 
systems to pollution control and vehicle technology used to advance 
nuclear and carbon capture projects. It is a widely popular program. 
Despite the current limitation of $42 billion for the program, the 
Department of Energy has received applications for over $120 billion in 
new projects.
  Of the $42 billion for the overall program, $18.5 billion was made 
available for the new nuclear technology. Over $93 billion in support 
has been requested. Mr. President, $18.5 billion has been made 
available for the new nuclear technology, but $93 billion has

[[Page S5895]]

been requested. It is oversubscribed by a factor of five.
  We can see on this chart that $93 billion has been requested; $18.5 
billion available. The others--the renewable, nuclear, fossil, mix--
when you look at what we had intended with the Loan Guarantee Program 
and how we envisioned that would move forward, I think we can clearly 
underestimate where that support would be for the nuclear programs.
  It is important to note that the Loan Guarantee Program is also 
entirely self-funded and does not represent a handout to the industry 
and does not expose the taxpayer to default risks. The total loan 
volume for the program is established by the Appropriations Committee, 
but any potential defaults are covered by fees paid by the applicants, 
not by the taxpayer. So the industry does get the help, the 
assistance--that backstop, if you will--of the loan guarantee from the 
Federal Government, but they pay for it. That seems reasonable.
  During debate on the stimulus bill, there was a $50 billion increase 
in the size of the Loan Guarantee Program that was sought. Again, this 
is a $42 billion program with $120 billion in application requests. But 
increasing the size of the program authority was shot down several 
months back because of fears that construction of new nuclear plants 
would take up the bulk of the loan guarantee authority. So where was 
the administration's support for the Loan Guarantee Program during this 
debate? This program helps all forms of clean energy technologies, but 
this increase was denied because nuclear was in the mix.
  For 10 years now, we have consistently heard about the urgency of 
global climate change and the need to address it. I agree. There is 
clearly evidence of climate change. I see the real-life impacts in my 
State of Alaska. But I do find it more than a little bit inconsistent 
that the same entities that would press for immediate action would deny 
nuclear a role in the solution.
  Perhaps the current administration thinks global climate change isn't 
as important as developing a centrally planned electrical system based 
on renewable energy that the administration believes is in the best 
interest of the public. Renewable energy sources will be important and 
deserve solid support, but, as you can see from this chart--and I 
apologize because it is very busy--we could double the amount of 
electricity produced by renewable resources and it still wouldn't equal 
what we currently receive from nuclear power.
  So if you look at our nuclear electric power, 100 percent of nuclear 
power goes to generation of electricity; 21 percent of the sector 
creates our electric power here. Looking up to renewable energy and how 
it feeds into consumption, whether it is transportation, industrial, 
residential and commercial, or electric, if we were to increase--
double--our renewable energy, again we still don't come close to what 
we are able to provide currently with nuclear.
  So going back to the issue of climate change, I believe it is 
important to ask the question as to whether this issue of climate 
change can really wait for renewables to develop to such a scale that 
they will become the primary source of energy. The point I wish to 
leave folks with is that we need to be advancing all technologies 
equitably.
  Nuclear energy is the most robust form of nonemitting base load power 
we have available to us, bar none. Over the last 20 years, the industry 
has demonstrated its ability to operate these reactors efficiently and 
safely to the great benefit of our country.
  Mr. President, I mentioned it earlier. The rest of the world gets it, 
the American public gets it, but where is the administration on 
nuclear? The time to demonstrate our resolve for new nuclear energy 
development is now. We as a nation cannot afford additional delay if we 
are truly serious about how we reduce our carbon emissions while 
maintaining access to affordable energy.
  It is time for the administration to come forward with its plan for 
the inclusion of nuclear power in its overall energy policy and what it 
intends to do with existing and future spent nuclear fuel. We shouldn't 
be left standing here asking: Where is nuclear?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________