Skip to main content

The 2014 Election's Impact on Nuclear Energy

Alex Flint
The following post was submitted by Alex Flint, NEI's Senior Vice President of Government Affairs.

Elections have consequences. There will now be closer alignment on legislative priorities between the House and Senate, and the result will be more legislation being sent to the President for his signature. Whether he will enact or veto that legislation is an open question and will depend on whether the Congress decides to pursue a limited, consensus agenda with the President or decides to use the legislative process to highlight differences between the parties.

We expect energy legislation will be considered in the next two years, and it will include nuclear energy and used nuclear fuel management provisions. Certainly in the case of used fuel management, there are a lot of new members whose positions will need to be determined, and stumbling blocks that have hindered enactment of legislation still remain. However, serious consideration of legislation will resume, and NEI will strongly support that effort.

The tone of congressional oversight will also change, with new chairmen in the Senate giving direction more in-line with the direction we’ve seen from the House in recent years. In recent years, Chairman Barbara Boxer has engaged in strong oversight from the committee on Environment and Public Works, but it has tended to focus on the two nuclear plants in California. Under Republican leadership, we expect the committee to take a broader view and focus on the conduct of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the impact of its regulatory programs, especially as it continues its post-Fukushima regulatory work.

Comments

Will Davis said…
Excellent piece, and a good look at what the dawn of a new era could look like. Thanks for the perspective and the demonstration that NEI is ready to help move forward from here.
Rod Adams said…
I have chosen different words to describe Senator Boxer's behavior during her numerous "oversight" hearings of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://atomicinsights.com/?s=%22Barbara+Boxer%22

My hope is that the next majority leader for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has a better understanding of the role of the elected Senate in providing oversight of the independent, technically competent regulatory agency that has been assigned the important mission to "licenses and regulates the Nation's civilian use of radioactive materials to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment."
Tom Clements said…
Interesting that the extra-legal term "used nuclear fuel" is being used. DOE appears to be shifting back to the legally defined term -in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act - "spent nuclear fuel." I assume that "used nuclear fuel" is a code term to show bias to reprocessing, something that is not on the table at all.
@Tom
"used nuclear fuel" : I'll be saying that in future. I hear that South Korea has a pyroprocessing plant now. Dr. Roger Blomquist of ANL said that pyroprocessing would be a seventh the price of PUREX. I guess reusing nuclear fuel will be on the table again soon.
@Tom
"used nuclear fuel" : I'll be saying that in future. I hear that South Korea has a pyroprocessing plant now. Dr. Roger Blomquist of ANL said that pyroprocessing would be a seventh the price of PUREX. I guess reusing nuclear fuel will be on the table again soon.
Given the amount of "used nuclear fuel" available that could be re-process and reused, the fact that we still think burial is the answer goes against EVERYTHING any true Environmentalist would consider. We are sure to recycle a can or a newspaper, but not an expensive, finite resource. We need scientists not politicians to lead on Environmental/ scientific issues. Boxer & Pelosi make me embarrased to be female.
Anonymous said…
LOL, love how it spins off just because of one term, spent or used, then try to spin it into a whole different arena. You sure it's not "undocumented" fuel?
Tim Martin said…
Good summary of what to expect. Please keep us up to date as the cards are turned over in the Senate.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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…