The Ex-Im Bank and Nuclear Energy

The Senate approved reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank this week. This made the first page of the Washington Post, but largely because it showed a level of comity not always seen in the Senate. As a subject, the Ex-Im bank is a little dry for many.

So what does the bank do?

The bank, which takes no money from taxpayers, last year provided export-financing support for about 2 percent of U.S. exports, about $32 billion in loans, loan guarantees and credit financing. Some $11 billion of that supported Boeing sales of large commercial aircrafts.

Countering critics who say it is “Boeing’s bank,” the bank says that 87 percent of its transactions last year directly benefited small businesses and that its financing supported 290,000 jobs, including 85,000 in the aerospace industry.

I’ll let you read about the Boeing-Delta dustup at the link – not really our brief – but the bottom line is that bank can enhance, well, the bottom line by easing the financial aspects of exporting goods and services. One can argue about the bank’s efficacy, but consider: all countries that maintain a global presence have the equivalent of an export-import bank.

So the news that it won reauthorization – and by a lot, 78-20 – in the face of some opposition, won exceptionally broad praise and some sighs of relief.

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons said that “the Senate stood up for jobs” by passing the legislation:

“Manufacturers have been at the forefront of this debate, meeting with lawmakers and sharing how important the Bank is to growing exports, especially for small and medium-sized manufacturers.”

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue on the importance of the bank:

“When other countries are providing their own exporters with an estimated $1 trillion in export finance—often on terms more generous than Ex-Im can provide—failure to reauthorize Ex-Im would amount to unilateral disarmament and cost tens of thousands of American jobs.”

More locally, NEI added its support. “The Senate’s reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank will yield positive policy and economic impacts for many years to come,” said Richard Myers, NEI’s vice president for policy development, planning and supplier programs.

Myers explained the importance of the bank to the industry.

“Absolutely critical for U.S.-based suppliers of commercial reactors and components,” Myers said, “the Ex-Im Bank enhances the position of U.S. suppliers competing for international business by offsetting the advantage provided by other countries’ export credit agencies.”

The global nuclear energy business could provide as much as $740 billion in potential business over the next ten years, Myers said, and that by capturing a share of this growing market, the United States can extend its influence over nonproliferation policy and nuclear plant safety.”

I suspect many ignored this particular story, but it got outsized attention – as it should have – from industry and its representatives – and from many individual industries – such as nuclear – and its representatives.

And all for a good outcome.

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog