Skip to main content

No Movement/Movement on the Hill

Graham-080106-18270- 0035 We were all prepared to pounce on the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham energy bill earlier this week – it should include a very interesting nuclear title, if leaks to the press are accurate – but one of its sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) bailed out at the eleventh hour due to his concern about moving the immigration issue ahead of energy in the Senate.

We’ll have to wait to see if this resolves itself. Both issues are important, of course, but Graham and his colleagues have legislation ready to roll – it’s the bird in the hand, so to speak, and it already has a bipartisan profile. Depending on the funding mechanism, this is also the kind of thing with which both parties can roll into election season that won’t cause awkward meetings with constituents – immigration reform, not so much.

So here’s where we are today:

Graham has said for days that he's dropped out of climate/energy talks, but pressed tonight, he said that he will filibuster his own bill if Reid tries to bring it up without tabling immigration altogether.

"If they can do this without me, go ahead.... I am not going to be part of an energy-climate process that has no hope of success," Graham said. "I am not going to let that happen with my vote."

Well, you could say, The Senate as usual, but we suspect that immigration popped because of current events and will go back in the queue when cooler heads prevail.

In the meantime, we have to get back into crouch position and see if we get to pounce on energy legislation next week.

---

Calling nuclear energy “key to strengthening America’s energy security,” a bipartisan group of 19 Congressmen introduced legislation to promote research and development of small nuclear reactors, those that generate up to 350 MW of electricity, noting that they have the potential to “help bring nuclear technology to new regions of the country.”

Formally introduced by Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Penn.), the intiative comprises two bills:

  • The Nuclear Power 2021 Act, purposely named to evoke the Nuclear Power 2010 program, directs the Department of Energy to enter into public-private partnerships to design and license two small reactors by 2021.
  • The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act directs DOE to develop a five-year strategy to lower the cost of constructing and licensing nuclear reactors, including small reactors.

Altmire said, “Investing in the development of safe and reliable reactors of all sizes will both increase our nation’s energy security and create good paying jobs here at home.”

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the two bills, said that “It is clear to both the Republicans and Democrats supporting these bills that expanding the use of nuclear energy is key to strengthening America’s energy security,”

Barton continued, “By facilitating the development of small nuclear reactors, this legislation could help bring nuclear technology to new regions of the country.

The legislation mirrors Senate bills introduced late last year, including the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009 (S. 2052), introduced by Sen. Mark Udall, and the Nuclear Power 2021 Act (S. 2812), introduced by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). Both are being considered by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which Bingaman chairs.

This is original reporting and we have nothing to point you to – well, you can look at our coverage of the Udall and Bingaman bills and the links provided there.

Sen. Lindsay Graham.

Comments

Jack Gamble said…
I met Congressman Altmire at the NAYGN Conference in 2009 and I was impressed with his willingness to make waves within his own party or on his home court. To be a so staunchly pronuclear Democrat from a heavily coal district is impressive and shows he is willing to stick to his guns even if it's politically inconvenient.
gunter said…
You havent heard, this bill is DOA.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…