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.
Anonymous said…
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

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...

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...