[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 16, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4563-S4564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Nuclear Energy

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about 
nuclear energy. President Biden, of course, as we both are aware, has 
called climate change the ``existential threat.'' He says it is the 
``number one issue facing humanity today.'' Secretary Kerry, who, as we 
know, is President Biden's climate envoy, has said that climate change 
is a ``life and death'' issue. President Biden's National Climate 
Advisor, the Honorable Gina McCarthy, believes that saving the 
environment is the ``fight of our lifetimes.''
  If you ask many Members of Congress, not all of them--I don't want to 
paint with too broad a brush--but if you ask many Members of Congress 
what they think the solution to our environmental issues is, they will 
probably respond: renewable energy. But if we are really worried about 
the climate--and I know we all are; we all want clean air, and we all 
want bright water--I suggest that we also embrace nuclear energy. 
Nuclear energy is not only safe, but it is clean and, frankly, it can 
produce more power than renewables.
  Nuclear energy, as you know, creates little or no carbon emissions. 
Let me say that again. A lot of people don't realize it. Nuclear energy 
creates little or no carbon emissions. It also creates very little 
waste--an extraordinarily small amount of waste. All the nuclear waste 
that America's commercial nuclear industry has ever produced--ever,

[[Page S4564]]

in the history of ever--can fit into a single football field to a depth 
of fewer than 10 yards Now, you compare that with solar panels, for 
example--solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear 
plants in order to yield the same exact amount of energy--or compare 
the waste from nuclear power production with wind turbine blades. Wind 
turbine blades are very hard to recycle, and they usually end up in 
landfills.

  These facts are underreported, but the fact is that solar and wind 
power do have their own harmful impacts on our environment. There is no 
free lunch, as you know, and you don't get one now. There are pros and 
cons of everything.
  Solar and wind can't hold a candle to nuclear power when it comes to 
efficiency. That is just a fact. It takes more than 3 million solar 
panels or more than 430 wind turbines to produce the same amount of 
energy as the average nuclear plant. Let me say that again--3 million 
solar panels, 430 wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy as 
the average nuclear powerplant. And these numbers do not take into 
account that solar panels, as we know, are useless when the Sun doesn't 
shine, and wind turbines are nothing more than expensive paper waste 
when the wind doesn't blow.
  Also underreported, in my judgment, is how safe nuclear energy is. 
Despite what some people may think, Homer Simpson does not run 
America's nuclear powerplants. The industry is constantly evolving to 
make nuclear powerplants safer, to make them more efficient. In fact, 
we have all read a lot about small modular reactors. I will just use 
that as an example. These small modular reactors are part of a very 
promising new generation of advanced reactors that can automatically--
automatically--prevent overheating. And, frankly, they produce even 
less nuclear waste.
  Now, I want to be clear. I still believe in fossil fuels. I am an 
``all of the above'' energy advocate, but leading that pack is fossil 
fuels.
  America's economy is the largest in all of human history, and it 
can't run without oil and gas. Louisianans know this, and most 
Americans know this. The people of Louisiana serve our country pretty 
well by contributing to our energy independence, and I am very proud of 
that.
  Last year, Louisiana supplied 9 percent--9 percent--of America's 
marketed gas. And Louisianans understand, as do, I think, most 
Americans, that giving up on fossil fuels would not only destroy jobs; 
it would ruin the economy.
  But I want America to use every advantage that it has. I want America 
to use every energy tool at its disposal. Now, that is why nuclear 
energy--I see nuclear energy as supporting oil and gas, not replacing 
it. I want to be clear about that, as supporting oil and gas, not 
replacing it.
  Since nuclear energy holds such promise--and it does--I am hoping 
that my Democratic friends in Congress and my Republican friends in 
Congress--because I see this as a bipartisan issue--will lend their 
full-throated support to nuclear energy.
  I am not saying that renewables don't have their proper place in 
America's energy policy--they certainly do--and I am not saying we 
should get rid of them--I am certainly not--but we need to acknowledge 
that renewables have limitations. They have limitations, and nuclear 
energy does not. There are disadvantages to renewables. As I said, 
there is no free lunch, and you don't get one now.
  Now, for some people, that is a lesson that needs to be repeated. I 
take note. I say this gently, but the Democratic Party platform, for 
example, calls for installing 500 million solar panels--500 million 
solar panels--and 60,000 wind turbines over the next 5 years. This will 
occupy a lot more land and actually create less energy than building 
new nuclear reactors. And that is a fact.
  Some small modular nuclear reactors are roughly twice the length of 
the average schoolbus--twice the length of an average schoolbus. Wind 
farms, on the other hand, can eat up more than 19 square miles. That is 
about half the size of Disney World--half the size of Disney World, 
compared to twice the length of the average schoolbus. If we succeed in 
blanketing our land with solar panels and wind farms, it is going to 
create more waste, occupy more green space, and ultimately weaken our 
economy.
  Again, I am not saying no to solar and wind. I am not at all. I am 
saying yes to explore the possibilities of nuclear energy.
  President Biden, as we know, has a $2 trillion infrastructure plan. 
And I think, if nothing else, his infrastructure plan establishes the 
Biden administration's priorities. His plan does call for $61 billion 
in initiatives that include investments in advanced nuclear technology. 
I am not sure I agree on the amount, but I like the concept, and I find 
that to be prudent. But it also asks for three times that amount--$174 
billion--to support electric vehicles, electric cars. I suggest that 
nuclear energy has more place in energy's future, and it is something 
that we ought to talk about.
  Other spending bonanzas in President Biden's plan include a $213 
billion investment to give 2 million buildings a Green New Deal 
makeover and $100 billion to make our schools greener. These are not 
going to have a more meaningful impact on our environment than 
exploring nuclear energy. They are just not.
  I know that nuclear energy sounds too good to be true, and I don't 
want to oversimplify the circumstances. Nuclear energy has its 
drawbacks, but nuclear energy is powerful. Nuclear energy is safe. 
Nuclear energy is clean. And by building up our nuclear power 
capabilities, the United States can create more jobs; the United States 
can strengthen its economy; and the United States can ensure its place 
as a world leader on energy. And we can do all that while reducing 
carbon emissions.
  I hope my colleagues will come to embrace nuclear energy as the 
efficient green energy source that it is and that the U.S. Congress can 
work with the White House to improve America's standing as an energy 
juggernaut.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey