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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...