[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 25 (Monday, June 25, 2007)]
[Pages 837-842]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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. 
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 
there'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

[[Page 838]]

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--until 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. There is a lot of 
discussion about the environment, as 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.

[[Page 839]]

    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 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 common-sense 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

[[Page 840]]

and operating licenses for up to 30 new reactors. In other words, we're 
beginning 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 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,

[[Page 841]]

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 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, if 
you're 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 
and 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 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 switch grasses. That would 
be nice for some of the people from my State. Switch grass 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--
have got dry country, and they can grow some switch grass.
    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, 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

[[Page 842]]

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 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. Thank you all.

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.