[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1356-1357]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 1357]]

  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.

                          ____________________