[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22175-22177]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             NUCLEAR POWER

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today President Obama told the 
countries of the world thatthe United States is ready to lead on 
climate change. But while he is reassuring world leaders, he has a lot 
of work to do with us in the Senate.
  Only yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, John Bruton, the European 
Ambassador to the United States, chided the Senate, saying:

       Is the US. Senate really expecting all the other countries 
     to make a serious effort on climate change at the Copenhagen 
     Conference in the absence of a clear commitment from the 
     United States? Asking an international Conference to sit 
     around looking out the window for months, while one chamber 
     of the legislature of one country deals with its 
     otherbusiness, is simply not a realistic political position.

  Now I understand the Ambassador's frustration, but I hope he 
understands that the Senate has work to do other than deal with climate 
change and energy. Reforming health care involving one-sixth of our 
Nation's economy is not somethingthe Senate is going to do in a hurry.
  On the matter of
  climate change, however, he is asking a legitimate question. An even 
better question might be this: ``How can the United States lecture 
other countries about climate change when we

[[Page 22176]]

won't take advantage of the one technology that shows the most promise 
of dealing with it?'' I am talking, of course, about nuclear power, 
which produces 19 percent of all our electricity but 70 percent of our 
carbon-free electricity.
  Coal-fired powerplants produce 36 percent of the carbon dioxide; the 
principal greenhouse gas that most scientists believe contributes to 
global warming. Of the top five countries that produce carbon, indeed 
that produce most of the carbon in the world, four, China, Russia, 
India and Japan, are committed to a bold program of expansion of 
nuclear power.
  Only the United States is not. We are the country that invented 
nuclear power, and we have not started a new nuclear plant in 30 years 
even though the 104 reactors we built during the 1970s which produce 19 
percent of all our electricity, and produce 70 percent of our carbon-
free electricity.
  So, if climate change is the inconvenient problem, as my fellow 
Tennessean Al Gore says, the other large carbon-emitting nations are 
posing a legitimate and truly inconvenient question: If we, they may 
say, are building dozens of carbon-free nuclear powerplants in an 
effort to deal with climate change, why are you lecturing us when you 
have not started a new plant in 30 years and yourPresident and everyone 
in his administration seems to become tongue-tied or get a stomach ache 
whenever someone mentions the idea of nuclear power.
  Everyone, that is, except the one member of the administration who 
knows the most about nuclear power, Dr.Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize 
winning scientist who heads the Energy Department. We have heard many 
say that the Bushadministration did a poor job of listening to 
scientists. Well, then, perhaps it is fair for me to suggest that the 
Obamaadministration, including the President, might do more listening 
to their chief scientist, Dr. Chu.
  In testimony before Congress, Dr. Chu has flatly said that nuclear 
powerplants are safe.
  He has said that the used nuclear fuel from those plants,the nuclear 
waste, can be safely stored on site for 40-60 years while scientists 
engage in a mini-Manhattan Project like the one we had in World War II 
to find the best possible way to recycleused nuclear fuel. Most likely 
that will mean that the waste's massis reduced by 97 percent and it 
will only be radioactive for 300 years instead of 1 million, or that it 
will be continuously used over and over again so there is none of the 
plutonium that might be used to make bombs.
  In an interview on National Public Radio the other day, Dr.Chu said 
that he would rather live down the river from a nuclear plant than 
other forms of producing energy. ``There's less pollution we know about 
that's very dangerous. The nuclear power plants' record in the United 
States is really very, very good,'' he said.
  Our whole fleet of 104 reactors is up and running 90 percent of the 
time, which shows we know how to operate nuclear powerplants better and 
more safely than any other country. Even France does not run its 
reactors as well and they have got plenty of experience, they get 80 
percent of their electricity from nuclear power.
  But if we have learned to run reactors in this country, we 
stillcannot bring ourselves to build any new ones. We have been stuck 
at about 100 reactors for 20 years now. We built those 100 reactors 
from 1970 to 1990 at a time when we had never built any before yet now 
that we have got all that under our belt we cannot seem to get started 
on the new generation.
  But while we have not been able to start a new plant in 30 years, the 
rest of the world is taking the technology we invented and using it to 
create cheap, reliable, carbon-free electricity from nuclear plants. 
There are 44 reactors under construction right this minute, most of 
them in Asia. Asia? Yes, without most Americans realizing it, the 
center of gravity of nuclear innovation has moved to the Far East. 
China has four reactors under construction and has announced plans for 
130 more. Russia intends to build two reactors a year in order to 
replace the 30 percent of their electricity they get from natural gas 
so they can sell the gas to Europe at six times the price they get at 
home. Japan already gets 36 percent of its electricity from nuclear, 
almost twice what we get, and is building two more reactors. South 
Korea gets nearly 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear and is 
planning eight more reactors by 2015. They have even got their own 
design now, a 1400-megawatt next generation reactor that evolved out of 
something they borrowed from us. India is developing thorium reactors 
instead of uranium and has a design for a mini-reactor that they are 
going to market to developed countries.
  Just look down the list of the ten top carbon-emitting countries as 
listed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. I have already mentioned 
that of the top five, China, the U.S., Russia, India and Japan, we are 
the only one that does not have an active nuclear construction program. 
Of the next four, Germany, Canada, the U.K., and South Korea, only 
Germany claims they do not want nuclear, but they are buying 
significant amounts of nuclear electricity from France.
  Then there is the number 10 carbon emitter, Iran. Now that is an 
interesting case. A few months ago, President Obama said it was OK for 
Iran to develop a civilian nuclear power program, he did not have any 
problem with that. But if it is alright for Iran to have a nuclear 
power program, why cannot we do the same thing over here?
  Leading on climate change does not require passing a complicated cap-
and-trade regime with renewable energy mandates that will impose a huge 
new tax on energy, stifle economic growth, and leave us with 
intermittent and unreliable alternative energy sources such as wind and 
solar. That is the wrong direction.
  It is time to lead by example and not just words. It is time to 
embrace the one technology that truly has the possibility of powering a 
prosperous planet without ruining the environment or covering our 
treasured landscapes with energy sprawl. It is time to build 100 new 
nuclear plants in the next 20 years.
  And the bonus is we will get plenty of so-called green jobs out of 
it, twice as many as building the 186,000 wind turbines that it would 
take to create an amount of electricity equal to 100 new nuclear 
plants. Building 100 new reactors is going to mean rebuilding a 
forgotten American infrastructure. We are going to have to build steel 
forges that can turn out these 600-ton reactor vessels, which is 
something we cannot do in this country right now. The Japanese and the 
Chinese and the Russians are all working on it, but we are not. We are 
going to need scientists, we are going to need construction workers, 
and we are going to need a whole new generation of nuclear engineers 
and technicians to replace the last generation that is getting ready to 
retire.
  I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  But the prize we are going to get for it is stable, reliable, low-
cost, as well as carbon-free electricity, that will once again allow us 
to manufacture things in this country again instead of shipping all 
those jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. We can put America back 
to work building a whole new infrastructure based on the greatest 
scientific discovery of the 20th century.
  Then when our President visits the United Nations or Copenhagen, he 
might be able to lead on climate change and he might not receive so 
many lectures from other countries that are busy building nuclear 
powerplants because they understand that if climate change is the 
inconvenient problem, nuclear power is the inconvenient but best and 
most environmentally beneficial solution.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 
up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Durbin.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 22177]]



                          ____________________