[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 169 (Monday, November 16, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11386-S11388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Webb):
  S. 2776. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to create the 
right business environment for doubling production of clean nuclear 
energy and other clean energy and to create mini-Manhattan projects for 
clean energy research and development; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senator Webb of Virginia, the colleague 
of the Presiding Officer, and I are introducing legislation today to 
propose that the United States build its clean energy future upon the 
lessons of the Manhattan Project of World War II. That helped end the 
war. It was a millions-of-man-hour effort that the New York Times 
called ``without doubt, the most concentrated intellectual effort in 
history.''
  Specifically, we will introduce legislation to create the business 
and regulatory environment to double our country's nuclear power 
production within 20 years and to launch five mini-Manhattan Projects 
to make advanced clean energy technologies effective and cost-
competitive.
  The most important thing I can say is that the senior Senator from 
Virginia and the junior Senator from Virginia and I have all talked 
about this subject before. I think we see there is a great deal of 
consensus in this body about some steps we can take on clean energy. So 
what Senator Webb and I are hoping to do with this framework is to see 
on a one-on-one basis whether it is the kind of framework that will 
permit us to work with other Senators who expressed an interest in 
nuclear power and energy research and development. And while we are 
contending about economy-wide cap and trade, we could move ahead with 
these steps that have to do with clean energy, clean air, climate 
change, low-cost, reliable energy.
  In other words, this is a piece of legislation that you can support 
if you are for an economy-wide cap and trade or if you are against an 
economy-wide cap and trade. There are some things we can do to help our 
country that also help us deal with climate change.
  In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Senator McKellar, the 
Tennessean who chaired the Appropriations Committee, to hide $2 billion 
in the appropriations bill for a secret project to win World War II. 
Senator McKellar replied:

       That should be no problem, Mr. President. I have just one 
     question: Where in Tennessee do you want me to hide it?

  That place in Tennessee turned out to be Oak Ridge, one of the three 
secret cities that became the principal sites for the Manhattan Project 
that split the atom and built a bomb before Germany could. Nearly 
200,000 people worked on the project in 30 different sites in 3 
countries.
  President Roosevelt's $2 billion appropriation would be $24 billion 
today.
  After World War II, in 1947, ADM Hyman Rickover came to Oak Ridge for 
training that led to the nuclear Navy that helped to defend our country 
for half a century. Shortly thereafter, in December 1953, President 
Eisenhower proposed his Atoms For Peace Program that has grown into the 
world's most effective supplier of large amounts of reliable, carbon-
free, low-cost electricity.
  The rest of the world has a new interest in this American success 
story, as countries seek energy independence, clean air, cheap energy 
for job creation, as well as carbon-free energy to deal with global 
warming. The Chinese are starting a new nuclear powerplant every 2 or 3 
months. The Japanese obtain a third of their power from nuclear plants 
and build new reactors from start to finish in less than 4 years. 
France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and, as a 
result, has among the lowest electricity rates and carbon emissions in 
Western Europe. Russia plans to double its nuclear power capacity. The 
United Arab Emirates is planning three new reactors by 2020, and just 
last week the United Kingdom announced it will build 10. Yet the 
country that invented this remarkable technology, the United States of 
America, has not started a new nuclear powerplant in 30 years even 
though we still get 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity and 19 
percent of all our electricity from 104 reactors built between 1970 and 
1990.
  It is true that there are other promising forms of low-carbon and 
carbon-free renewable energy, but the stark reality is that there is a 
huge gap between this renewable electricity we would like to have and 
the reliable, low-cost electricity that a country that uses 25 percent 
of all the energy in the world has to have.
  Today, despite heavy subsidies, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass 
renewable energy produce only 3 percent of U.S. electricity. The Energy 
Information Administration forecasts a 22-percent increase in U.S. 
electricity demand during the next 20 years. For that much electricity, 
our country simply cannot rely solely on conservation, on windmills and 
solar panels or even on natural gas. We are fortunate to have a new, 
massive natural gas set of discoveries in the United States, but a 
natural gas powerplant still produces about half as much carbon as a 
new coal plant. And if too many natural gas plants are built, today's 
low prices could mean high prices tomorrow for farmers, homeowners, and 
manufacturers.
  Add to that a recent Nature Conservancy scientific paper that warned 
of a coming renewable energy sprawl, especially from biofuels, biomass, 
and wind turbines, that would consume an area the size of West 
Virginia. A biomass plant, for example, that would produce as much 
electricity as one nuclear reactor on 1 square mile would require 
continuously deforesting an area about 1.5 times the size of the Great 
Smoky National Park. Producing 20 percent of our electricity from 50-
story wind turbines, as some have suggested, would require covering an 
area the size of West Virginia and building 19,000 miles of new 
transmission lines.
  When these are strung along scenic ridgetops, coastlines, or other 
treasured landscapes, we will be destroying the environment in the name 
of saving the environment. Solar and wind installations require between 
30 and 270

[[Page S11387]]

square miles to duplicate the output of just one nuclear reactor on 1 
square mile. Moreover, these energy sources must be backed up by other 
generation since they only produce power when the wind blows or the Sun 
shines, and that electricity cannot be stored in large amounts. There 
is only one wind farm in the entire Southern United States because the 
wind doesn't blow enough. In the Tennessee Valley Authority region, 
solar costs at least four to five times as much as other electricity 
that TVA buys.
  As for green jobs, according to the Department of Energy, there will 
be 250,000 construction jobs for 100 new nuclear plants. This would 
compare with 73,000 jobs to construct the 180,000 wind turbines needed 
to produce 20 percent of our electricity from wind. Of course, 
producing a lot of cheap, reliable energy is the best way to produce 
new jobs.
  Think of it this way. If we were going to war, we wouldn't mothball 
our nuclear Navy and start subsidizing sailboats. If climate change, as 
well as low-cost, reliable energy are national imperatives, we should 
not stop building nuclear plants and start subsidizing windmills. I am 
on the side of those who say we need to deal with climate change. The 
national academies of 11 industrialized countries, including the United 
States, have said humans probably have caused most of the recent global 
warming.
  If fire chiefs of the same reputation said my house might burn down, 
I would buy fire insurance, but I would buy insurance that worked and 
that was not so expensive that I couldn't pay my mortgage or my 
hospital bill.
  Fortunately, there are two steps that will benefit our country in 
multiple ways--namely, cleaner air; more energy independence; more 
reliable, low-cost power--and will also help fight global warming. The 
first is to double production of electricity from carbon-free nuclear 
power, which would mean building 100 new plants as we did between 1970 
or 1990 or a larger number of the new, small, and modular reactors now 
being discussed. The second is to apply to the promising new 
technologies, such as the renewable technologies, the same discipline 
and resources we did with the original Manhattan Project in order to 
make them effective and cost competitive.
  That is why the bill Senator Webb and I are introducing today, the 
Clean Energy Act of 2009, proposes the following: No. 1, loan 
guarantees: $100 billion to encourage startup of all forms of carbon-
free electricity production, expanding the $47 billion loan guarantee 
program that exists today, and $18 billion of those funds are currently 
available for nuclear projects.
  Secretary Chu has suggested it should be in the forties. I believe 
that number should be closer to the sixties or the seventies. But the 
purpose of this is to get the first few nuclear plants up and running, 
and then the money is paid back. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates this could cost up to $10 billion but might cost much less. 
New reactor designs, $1 billion over 5 years to enable the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to review new designs such as the generation 4 
reactors that don't isolate plutonium and, therefore, help solve the 
used nuclear fuel problems, and small modular reactors that can be 
built in U.S. factories and assembled on site such as LEGO blocks. No. 
3, nuclear workforce, $1 billion over 10 years to ensure a supply of 
nuclear engineers, operators, and craftsmen such as welders and pipe 
fitters. Americans have a generation gap in these skilled personnel. 
No. 4, more power from existing reactors. This would be $500 million 
over 10 years to increase the efficiency and develop longer lifetimes 
for our existing 104 reactors. If we did both of these things, we might 
create the equivalent production of 20 or 30 more reactors. Then, 
finally, the five new, what we call mini-Manhattan Projects for clean 
energy.
  Here are the five mini-Manhattan Projects: $750 million per year over 
10 years for research and development on, No. 1, carbon capture 
emissions from coal plants. In many ways that is the holy grail of 
energy R&D. If we can find a way to do that, we can have all of the 
low-cost, clean electricity we can use. No. 2, develop advanced 
biofuels from crops that we don't eat; No. 3, improve batteries for 
electric cars so instead of taking us 100 miles without recharging, 
they might take us 300 or 400 miles; make solar power more cost 
competitive.
  That has the most promise in terms of renewable energy because we 
have rooftops on which to put the panels. They just cost too much 
today. Then recycling used nuclear fuel in a way that doesn't isolate 
plutonium, that reduces by 99.9 percent the radioactive life of what is 
left, and by 97 percent the mass we have to deal with. The cost to 
taxpayers over 20 years would be no more than $20 billion. There would 
be no new energy taxes or mandates. This $20 billion would compare with 
$170 billion we would spend in taxpayer subsidies, if we were to 
produce 20 percent of our electricity from wind, not counting the 
billions more for transmission lines.
  By my computation, if we actually did build 100 nuclear plants in 20 
years, as well as electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years, which 
we should be able to do without building one new powerplant if we 
plugged them in at night, we would come close to reaching the 1990 
Kyoto global warming protocols without expensive new energy taxes. 
Reaching that goal is even more likely if some of our mini-Manhattan 
Projects produce results we hope for from new technologies.
  The world nuclear power revival is well underway. With our Clean 
Energy Act of 2009, that revival might finally reach American shores 
where it began. The lessons of the Manhattan Project could advance the 
days when more nuclear power and new forms of clean energy can make us 
more energy independent, clean our air, help fight global warming, and 
produce large amounts of reliable, low-cost, clean electricity that 
will keep American jobs from going overseas looking for cheap energy.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page 
summary of the Alexander-Webb legislation, called the Clean Energy Act 
of 2009.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Alexander-Webb--Clean Energy Deployment Act of 2009

       To create the business and regulatory environment to double 
     nuclear production in 20 years and establish 5 Mini-Manhattan 
     projects to make advanced clean energy technologies effective 
     and cost-competitive
       1. Carbon-Free Electricity Loan Guarantees: $100 Billion 
     for technology-neutral carbon-free electricity loan guarantee 
     program. CBO estimates cost at $10 billion (may cost less). 
     Secretary Chu has suggested doubling the $18.5 billion 
     available today for nuclear power.
       2. New Reactor Designs: $250 million per year for five 
     years to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 
     review new nuclear reactor designs such as Generation IV or 
     small modular reactors. (Would not impact NRC review of 
     potential sites for nuclear power plants.) Reaffirm the 
     federal government's commitment to dealing with spent nuclear 
     fuel.
       3. Nuclear Workforce: $100 million per year for ten years 
     for education, workforce development and training to ensure a 
     supply of nuclear engineers, operators and craftsmen such as 
     welders and pipefitters.
       4. More power from existing reactors: $50 million per year 
     for ten years for nuclear reactor lifetime-extension and 
     efficiency research. Increased efficiency and longer 
     lifetimes for existing 104 reactors could equal the 
     production of 20-30 new reactors.
       5. Five Mini-Manhattan Projects for Clean Energy R&D: ($750 
     million per year for ten years). Clean Coal: to make carbon 
     capture and storage a commercial reality ($150 million per 
     year). Advanced Biofuels: clean fuels from crops we don't eat 
     ($150 million per year). Advanced Batteries: for electric 
     vehicles ($150 million per year). Solar Power: to make solar 
     power cost competitive ($150 million per year). Recycling 
     Used Nuclear Fuel: ($150 million per year). Support Secretary 
     Chu's Blue-Ribbon Panel on what to do with used nuclear fuel.
       Decide upon the best way to recycle used nuclear fuel.
       i. Proliferation-resistant (no pure plutonium).
       ii. Reduce radioactive lifetime of final used fuel product 
     by 99.97 percent.
       iii. Reduce volume and mass of final used fuel by 97 
     percent of what it is today.
       Develop Generation IV reactors that will consume recycled 
     nuclear fuel.
       Total 20 year cost would be no more than $20.25 billion.
       *While the loan guarantee program is scored at 1 percent 
     for nuclear loans and 10 percent for other program 
     participants, this proposal uses a 10 percent score for all 
     loan guarantees.

                Alexander-Webb--Clean Energy Act of 2009

       To create the business and regulatory environment to double 
     nuclear production in 20

[[Page S11388]]

     years and establish 5 Mini-Manhattan projects to make 
     advanced clean energy technologies effective and cost-
     competitive
       1. Carbon-Free Electricity Loan Guarantees: $100 Billion 
     for technology-neutral carbon-free electricity loan guarantee 
     program. CBO estimates cost at $10 billion (may cost less). 
     Secretary Chu has suggested doubling the $18.5 billion 
     available today for nuclear power.
       2. New Reactor Designs: $200 million per year for five 
     years to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 
     review new nuclear reactor designs such as Generation IV or 
     small modular reactors. (Would not impact NRC review of 
     potential sites for nuclear power plants.) Reaffirm the 
     federal government's commitment to dealing with spent nuclear 
     fuel.
       3. Nuclear Workforce: $100 million per year for ten years 
     for education, workforce development and training to ensure a 
     supply of nuclear engineers, operators and craftsmen such as 
     welders and pipefitters.
       4. More Power from Existing Reactors: $50 million per year 
     for ten years for nuclear reactor lifetime-extension and 
     effiency research. Increased efficiency and longer lifetimes 
     for existing 104 reactors could equal the production of 20-30 
     new reactors.
       5. Five Mini-Manhattan Projects for Clean Energy R&D: ($750 
     million per year for ten years). Clean Coal: to make carbon 
     capture and storage a commercial reality ($150 million per 
     year). Advanced Biofuels: clean fuels from crops we don't eat 
     ($150 million per year). Advanced Batteries: for electric 
     vehicles ($150 million per year). Solar Power: to make solar 
     power cost competitive ($150 million per year). Recycling 
     Used Nuclear Fuel: ($150 million per year).
       Support Secretary Chu's Blue-Ribbon Panel on what to do 
     with used nuclear fuel. Decide upon the best way to recycle 
     used nuclear fuel.
       i. Proliferation-resistant (no pure plutonium).
       ii. Reduce radioactive lifetime of final used fuel product 
     by 99.97 percent.
       iii. Reduce volume and mass of final used fuel by 97 
     percent of what it is today.
       Develop Generation IV reactors that will consume recycled 
     nuclear fuel.
       Total 20 year cost would be no more than $20 billion.
       While the loan guarantee program is scored at 1 percent for 
     nuclear loans and 10 percent for other program participants, 
     this proposal uses a 10 percent score for all loan 
     guarantees.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to be cosponsoring this 
legislation with the senior Senator from Tennessee. This is a strong 
attempt by both of us to go toward the area of problem solving rather 
than political rhetoric that surrounds a lot of this issue when we 
examine the pieces of legislation that are before us that are making an 
attempt at solving climate change issues. They are, in some cases, in 
contradiction to what our energy needs are at large.
  On the one hand we stopped building nuclear powerplants 30 years ago 
because of widespread fears among people who were in the political 
process about the technology that was involved. On another level we 
stopped drilling for oil offshore after some incidents, now 40 years 
ago. Then on another level, we heard repeatedly that coal was too 
dirty.
  At the same time we consume more and more energy, rightfully so, 
given the productivity of the country and the state of our economy. But 
we are in contradiction in terms of what we need versus what we fear. I 
believe the time has come for us to focus on those areas in terms of 
energy production that we know are achievable, that we know are safe, 
where we know we are good and which also can contribute positively in 
the area of climate change.
  We have an enormously complex climate change bill that was passed in 
the House. We have another enormously complex climate change bill that 
may be before the Senate. We can't predict whether those bills will 
pass. If they do pass, we know there are some detriments. What Senator 
Alexander and I are trying to do on a bipartisan basis, hopefully, with 
the support of our colleagues, is to put a simple piece of legislation 
forward that will address the areas that are achievable, that can give 
us an end result and get this legislation passed, while all of these 
other issues continue to be examined.
  Senator Alexander outlined the major points of this legislation. I 
would like to emphasize a couple. One is that we will be able to 
provide $100 billion in loan guarantees, but that is not $100 billion 
in money. That is $100 billion in guarantees. It depends on the success 
rate. The basic projection on this is that it will be between 1 and 10 
percent of that $100 billion that our taxpayers actually would be 
required to pay. So we are going to be able to bring at least a dozen 
nuclear powerplants online.
  When I say ``nuclear powerplants,'' I mean the electrical generation 
capability of a traditional nuclear powerplant. We may have more than 
those given the miniaturization of nuclear power that is now underway.
  We are going to be able to develop a nuclear workforce. Let me stay 
on this point for a minute. Senator Alexander was a former Secretary of 
Education. I have spent all of my life, since I was 18 years old, in 
and around the naval service from which our nuclear power programs 
first began. One of the great benefits of the nuclear power program in 
the United States has been quality individuals whose talents are 
unmatched around the world.
  I first watched this when I was at the Naval Academy many years ago, 
where among the brightest people at the Naval Academy, many were 
selected for the nuclear power program. They went through intensive 
training. But also among the enlisted sailors, the quality of the 
training was unsurpassed. We would like to see this take place in terms 
of workforce development in the United States.
  We want to put $100 million a year in over a 10-year period to 
develop superb craftsmen as well as nuclear engineers.
  We are looking at many mini-Manhattan Projects for alternate energy. 
This doesn't simply narrow the focus to nuclear energy. But we do know 
right now, even though we haven't built a new nuclear powerplant in the 
United States for 30 years, that 70 percent of the carbon-free 
electrical power in the United States comes from nuclear energy.
  This is a good match for what people are trying to do in the area of 
climate change. I believe the way we have designed this legislation is 
focused. I am comfortable with the fact that the expansion of nuclear 
power as an alternate energy is doable. It is reasonable in scope and 
in cost. It will go a long way toward our eventual goal of dramatically 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, this is legislation 
that will be beneficial to our economy, to our national health, to our 
position around the world.
  I hope colleagues will join us in moving this legislation forward. We 
can do it in a timely manner, and we know the results are there.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, for his 
leadership. He brings a special knowledge to this because of his 
background in the Navy as an engineer and as Secretary of the Navy. 
Thousands of our sailors have lived on top of reactors for 50 years 
safely. This is an idea that has broad support on both sides of the 
aisle, I believe. We have gotten so stuck on arguing about the economy-
wide cap and trade that we have failed to notice the areas where we may 
be able to agree. We certainly agree on energy research and 
development.
  The President has strongly supported that. We certainly agree on 
electrification of cars and trucks. The President also strongly 
supports that.
  I believe there is more agreement on nuclear power than we have seen 
before. So we are going to work with Democratic and Republican Senators 
who have already expressed such an interest and others who may be 
thinking about it over the next few weeks to see if this will form a 
framework for that kind of discussion.
                                 ______