    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
    [June 21, 2007]
    [Pages 780-786]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on Energy in Athens, Alabama
    June 21, 2007

        Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you. Thanks for coming by to
    say hello. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
    your kind introduction, and thanks for the invitation to tour this
    impressive facility. The restart of Browns Ferry Unit Number 1
    represents the first nuclear reactor to come on line in the United
    States in more than a decade. This is a demonstration that one is
    capable of doing a job on time and on budget.

    [[Page 781]]

    And I congratulate you all for your hard work, and thank you for the
    contribution you're making to the United States of America.
        I'm going to talk a little bit about nuclear power today, and it's--
    no better place to do it here--than with a group of folks who understand
    the great benefits of nuclear power to our country. I believe that it is
    essential that we have a comprehensive energy policy to be able to deal
    with the challenges we're going to face in the 21st century, whether
    that be energy independence or economic security or good environmental
    policy. And at the core of such policy must be electricity generated
    from nuclear power.
        I'm also here to nudge Congress along. They're working on a bill--
    [laughter]--that I hope that they can get to my desk, that is a good
    bill, a balanced bill, a reasonable approach to making sure we continue
    to be wise about how we use energy in the United States.
        I do want to thank Bill for his
    leadership, and I thank the members of the board of the TVA. I thank Tom
    Kilgore for taking time to visit today. He's led
    me on a tour with R.G. Jones. Some of you may
    have heard of R.G. R.G. and I discovered we're both 60. [Laughter] We
    were born in 1946, which is a fine year to be born, at least as far as
    R.G. and I are concerned. [Laughter] I reminded him, 60 is not as old as
    it used to sound--till I climbed up all those stairs to get to the
    control room. [Laughter] I also want to thank Brian O'Grady, the vice president here.
        We put a good man who understands nuclear power as the head of the
    Energy Department--Sam Bodman. And he's
    with us today. Mr. Secretary, thank you for traveling with us;
    appreciate you coming. Also with us is Dr. Dale Klein, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's
    an important position. It's a position that's going to expedite the
    regulations so we can get more plants up and running. And I'll talk a
    little bit about his intentions and our intentions to help increase
    nuclear power here in the United States.
        I'm traveling with a fine United States Senator in Jeff
    Sessions, as well as the
    Congressman from this district, a man awfully proud of the work you do
    here, and that's Bud Cramer.
    Finally, we let a fellow from Mobile tag along with us, Congressman Jo
    Bonner. Appreciate you coming,
    Congressman.
        I thank all the employees who work at this plant. Thanks for what
    you're doing. Thanks for being skillful. Thanks for working hard. And
    thanks for helping the country.
        The world is seeing the promise and potential of the peaceful use of
    nuclear energy. I emphasize that word, ``peaceful use,'' because one of
    my predecessors, Dwight David Eisenhower, in 1953, called on the world's
    scientists and engineers to find a way to produce peaceful power from
    atomic energy that would serve the needs, rather than the fears, of
    mankind. And that's exactly what we're doing here. You're serving the
    needs, rather than the fears, of mankind. You're helping implement the
    vision of President Dwight David Eisenhower.
        Nuclear power is America's third leading source of electricity. It
    provides nearly 20 percent of our country's electricity. I don't know if
    a lot of our citizens understand that, but nuclear power is a key
    component of economic vitality because it provides 20 percent of the
    electricity.
        Interestingly enough, nuclear power provides 78 percent of
    electricity for France; provides 50 percent for Sweden; 30 percent for
    the entire European Union. China has nine nuclear reactors in operation
    and has ambitious plans to build many more over the next two decades.
        Nuclear power is prevalent, and it's recognized as a necessary power
    source, not only here in the United States but around the world. Nuclear
    power is clean; it's clean, domestic energy. It's--there is a lot of
    discussion about the environment, as

    [[Page 782]]

    there should be. We certainly want to leave the environment better for
    the next generation that comes along. There's a lot of discussion about
    greenhouse gases, which I believe is a serious problem.
        And therefore, I remind those who share my concern about greenhouse
    gases that nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases. If you are
    interested in cleaning up the air, then you ought to be an advocate for
    nuclear power. Without nuclear power here in the United States, there
    would be nearly 700 million additional tons of carbon dioxide in the
    atmosphere every year. There is no single solution to climate change,
    but there can be no solution without nuclear power.
        Nuclear power is safe. The nuclear sector is one of the safest
    industries in the United States. Advances in science and engineering and
    plant design have made nuclear plants even safer than the last
    generation of plants. In other words, technology has advanced; knowledge
    has advanced; engineering has advanced. This is a safe plant, and the
    people in the United States must understand that.
        They've also got to understand that NRC inspectors are stationed
    full time at these plants to provide daily inspections, and I appreciate
    the NRC inspectors who are with us today. In other words, we go extra
    steps to be able to say to the American people: This is a safe place to
    work, and it's a safe facility to have in the area of the country in
    which you live.
        Nuclear power is affordable, and it is reliable. Once a nuclear
    plant is constructed, fuel and operating costs are low. The cost of
    electricity from a nuclear powerplant is stable; it is predictable. The
    cost of electricity from a plant like this doesn't fluctuate the way
    plants fired by natural gas can fluctuate. The flow of power is not
    intermittent like the wind; in other words, this is a reliable source of
    low-cost energy.
        We need nuclear power to play a greater role in our future. That's
    what I want to share with you and the American people as we talk about a
    comprehensive energy strategy, a comprehensive energy plan: Nuclear
    power has got to be a really important part of our future.
        Nuclear power is the only large-scale, emissions-free power source
    that is currently able to meet the growing need for electricity. As our
    economy grows, with additional demands for power and electricity,
    nuclear power can handle those needs.
        In order to keep pace with our nuclear energy needs, experts believe
    it will be necessary to build an average of three new plants per year
    starting in 2015. In other words, it's one thing to talk about nuclear
    power; it's another thing to have--understand the strategy necessary.
        So we are going to need three plants starting in 2015. And as we
    tackle climate change, it may be necessary to have even more plants.
    Here's the problem: Our country has not ordered a new nuclear powerplant
    since the 1970s, partially as a result of constant litigation and overly
    complex regulations. So we're working to overcome those obstacles. I
    appreciate the fact that the TVA is making decisions to move forward
    nuclear power. It's time for our country to start building nuclear
    powerplants again. This is what I want to share with you.
        One thing to restart one--and I congratulate you--it's another thing
    to build the new ones. And that's what we ought to have happen if we're
    interested in a comprehensive, sound, wise energy policy that is
    environmentally friendly. The Federal Government is helping to expand
    the safe use of nuclear power in some important ways.
        First, we've set up what's called the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative.
    We launched the nuclear power initiative, which is a partnership between
    industry and the U.S. Government to reduce regulatory and other barriers
    to the development of new nuclear powerplants. That's why we set it up.
    We

    [[Page 783]]

    want to start building plants, and we recognize that there have been
    some regulatory burdens that prevent the construction of new plants, or
    at least discourage the construction of new plants.
        The 2008 budget I submitted would double the requested funding for
    this initiative to $114 million; in other words, it takes money to get
    this initiative moving. And we're asking Congress to spend money on it
    in order to help us put in a comprehensive energy strategy. It makes
    sense. It's just a commonsense strategy.
        The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working to improve and
    streamline the regulatory process to help accelerate the construction of
    nuclear plants. Under the old system, the permitting process was slow.
    Some of the older hands here might remember that. It was cumbersome
    because it limited builders to completing only one step at a time before
    moving on. You could only do one thing, and then there would be
    regulatory deals and then another thing. And it just took a long time.
    And when something takes a long time to build, that discourages capital
    and discourages people from moving forward--plus you could get sued all
    the time. That would discourage people as well.
        The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is implementing a more efficient
    review process that allows builders to complete several steps at a time
    without compromising safety. They took a good look at the problems. They
    said, we need more nuclear power, and so we're going to streamline the
    process. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission now expects 20 applications
    for combined construction and operating licenses for up to 30 new
    reactors. In other words, we're beginning to have--to make some
    progress. Things are beginning to change. Attitudes are changing, and so
    is the regulatory process, which has enabled me to tell you, we've got
    20 applications for nearly--for up to 30 new reactors. That is good news
    for the American consumer.
        And we think that we ought to be--America ought to--should be able
    to start construction on additional nuclear plants by the end of this
    decade. That's not all that far away. That's why I've got the Chairman
    of the NRC here; I want him to hear what I
    just said. [Laughter] He's doing some good work. He's got more work to
    do.
        I signed an energy bill in 2005 that included important incentives
    to support the development of nuclear power, including Federal risk
    insurance for builders of new nuclear plants, loan guarantee
    eligibility, and production tax credits. In other words, to get this
    industry started, put some incentives out there for people that would be
    spending the money to get the plants going.
        We're working to settle the issue of storage for nuclear waste.
    That's an issue. More than 55,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and
    high-level waste are stored at a hundred sites in 39 States. I've
    submitted a budget of $495 million to continue progress on licensing
    Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent fuel.
        There's also another idea that I want you to--I know you know about
    it, but I want Americans and Congress to consider: We ought to do
    something about reprocessing. We ought to bring that technology to bear;
    we ought to bring new technologies to bear to help us all deal with the
    spent fuel. So we proposed the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work
    with nations with advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as
    France, Japan, China, and Russia. And the reason why we proposed this
    partnership is, we want to use technologies, new technologies--develop
    and use technologies that effectively and safely recycle spent nuclear
    fuel.
        Reprocessing spent uranium fuel for use in advanced reactors will
    allow us to extract more energy and has the potential to reduce storage
    requirements for nuclear waste by up to 90 percent. I am confident that
    we can have the technological breakthroughs necessary to deal with the
    fuel. Congress needs to spend the money in

    [[Page 784]]

    order to do the research. And when we do, we will be able to answer a
    lot of the charges of our critics that say, ``What are you going to do
    with the fuel?''
        Well, here's a good answer: Recycle it, reburn it, and reduce the
    amount of the problem. And that's what the United States needs to be
    doing.
        Nuclear power is part of a broader strategy. I want to spend a
    little time on the broader strategy before we all pass out in here.
    [Laughter] There's enough hot air in the room as there is. [Laughter]
        We're too dependent on oil. And you know, in 1985, about 27 percent
    of our oil came from other countries; today, about 60 percent does. And
    that's a dependency that creates economic and national security problems
    for us.
        On the national security side, our dependence on oil leaves us more
    vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists. If you can blow up oil
    facilities overseas, it will affect the price of oil here at home. When
    you're dependent on something and somebody disrupts the supply on which
    you're dependent, it will affect you. It affects international politics,
    to a certain extent, to be dependent on oil.
        When the price of oil goes up for whatever reason overseas, it
    affects the price of gasoline here in northern Alabama. So there is an
    economic issue for being dependent on oil. And, of course, when oil is
    burned as a fuel, it affects the environment. So we've got to change our
    dependency.
        One way to do so is to spend some of your money on new technologies
    that will change how we live in positive ways. So we spent $12 billion
    since I've been the President to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more
    reliable energy sources. I think that's a wise use of your money, to
    encourage research and development on new ways to drive your cars, for
    example.
        One such example is: that we're spending your money on is for clean
    coal technologies. We've got to do something to make sure that when we
    have electricity generated by coal, that we can say to future
    generations of Americans, ``We're going to protect the environment as
    well.'' We've got a lot of coal. If you want to be less dependent on
    foreign sources of oil, you ought to use the energy sources you've got
    here at home. Not all electricity is going to be generated as a result
    of nuclear power. We're going to be burning coal, and so we are spending
    a lot of money. And I believe that we'll have the emission-free coal
    plants that will capture and remove virtually all air pollutants and
    greenhouse gases from burning coal. That's what the experts tell me.
        So some of your money--some of your hard-earned money is going to
    encourage that kind of research. I think it's worth it. And I know it's
    necessary if we want to be less dependent on oil and be good about how
    we deal with the environment.
        And we're also spending money and--to help others research wind and
    solar power. That's a nice alternative. It's certainly not going to--
    wind power is not going to be nearly as effective and efficient as
    nuclear power, but it can be a part of the mix.
        If you want to affect dependency on oil, then we've got to figure
    out how to use--put different power sources in our cars. Gasoline is
    oil. So when you say, ``I'm using gasoline,'' you really are using oil.
    Because that's how--that's where gasoline comes from. And so one idea
    that we're working on is to encourage ethanol, which works. See, you be
    driving your automobile based upon something a farmer grows here in
    northern Alabama, as opposed to something as a result of buying from
    overseas. Makes sense to me.
        If you've got your farmer growing something that powers your
    automobile, I think it puts us in a much better position economically,
    from a national security perspective. And we're spending a fair amount
    of your money to make sure that we can use something other than corn
    from which to

    [[Page 785]]

    make ethanol. If you're a hog farmer, you're getting tired of seeing the
    corn prices go up. If you're a corn farmer, it's a nice feeling to see
    the prices go up. [Laughter]
        But we believe we can come up with technologies that will enable us
    to use wood chips to make ethanol that you can put in your automobiles
    to help us become less dependent on oil--or switchgrasses. That would be
    nice for some of the people from my State. Switchgrass grows in a nice,
    dry environment. And I understand you're dry here, by the way. The
    Senator and the
    Congressmen are working hard on me about the drought that
    you've got here. [Laughter] But some parts of our country need to--got
    dry country, and they can grow some switchgrass.
        The whole idea is to come up with different ways to power our
    automobiles. And along those lines, I think it's not going to be long
    before you're going to be able to drive an automobile with new battery
    technologies that you can just plug in your garage. And your automobile
    won't look like a golf cart; it will be a normal size pickup truck.
    [Laughter]
        So I laid out a goal that said, we're going to reduce our gasoline
    usage by 20 percent over 10 years as a part of our energy
    diversification strategy. And I think we can achieve that. I also know
    we need to change our fuel economy standards, just like we did for
    trucks, and I want to work with Congress to do that as well.
        In other words, it's part of a comprehensive strategy. I call it the
    20-10 goal. And I commend Congress for pursuing the framework for the
    20-10 proposal. It's a promising start. However, the--as this bill's
    getting written, it's being frustrated by special interests and, of
    course, all the politics that takes place in Washington, DC.
        The current plan being debated in the Senate falls far short of the
    ambitious goal I laid out. But it's a realistic goal. It's a necessary
    goal if we want to become less dependent on oil from overseas. The
    Senate's proposed fuel mandate, for example, calls for just a 10-percent
    reduction in gasoline usage by 2017. We can do much better than that, we
    really can. We've got to be optimistic about what America can do when we
    put our mind to doing something.
        And so I urge the Congress to be realistic about the bills they're
    talking about and get it done. Get it to my desk so that we can all say,
    ``We've done a good job of representing the people.''
        By the way, as we talk about these new technologies, we're still
    going to need oil and gas. And we can explore for oil and gas in
    environmentally friendly ways. I strongly believe that we ought to open
    up more Outer Continental Shelf area as well as ANWR in Alaska. You
    know, there's a big debate about whether or not you can drill and find
    oil and gas that's good for you without ruining the environment. I'm
    telling you we can; technologies have changed.
        By the way, when they're debating the bill up there, they've also
    got to fill up--add to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If you're
    worried about a terrorist attack which could affect the price of oil, we
    ought to have oil in the ground that we can use to protect the American
    consumer. And they need to expand the Petroleum Reserve against natural
    disasters--protection against natural disasters as well as a potential
    attack.
        By the way, the Supreme Court--I don't know if you follow the
    Supreme Court at all, but they've ruled that the EPA must take action
    under the Clean Air Act regarding greenhouse gas emissions from motor
    vehicles. That's what the Court said. And when the Court says something,
    then the executive branch of Government says: ``Okay, you said it; now
    we'll listen. We'll do what you asked us to do.''
        And so I directed the EPA and the Department of Transportation,
    Energy, and Agriculture to take the first steps toward regulations that
    would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gases using the

    [[Page 786]]

    plan I just described to you. So Congress can pass the law, which I hope
    they do, but if they don't, we're moving forward because the Supreme
    Court told us to move forward. And either way, in either case, we're
    going to become less dependent on oil, and that's good for the United
    States of America.
        So I appreciate you letting me come by and talk a little energy. You
    live it; I'm talking it. [Laughter] I thank you for what you're doing
    for the country. I thank you for your hard work. I thank you for your
    skill. I thank you for your prayers. I thank you for being good
    Americans.
        And may God bless you, and may God bless our country.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:38 p.m. at the Browns Ferry Nuclear
    Plant. In his remarks, he referred to William B. Sansom, Chairman of the
    Board of Directors, Tennessee Valley Authority; and R.G. Jones, general
    manager, and Brian O'Grady, vice president, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.