NEI Nuclear Notes

Ever since last week's announcement of the closure of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station , we've been seeing a spate of stories in the press questioning whether or not nuclear energy has a future as part of the nation's energy mix. Here at NEI, the answer is a resounding yes, and part of the confidence springs from the fact that we've passed this way before. Back in the 1990s, we saw 10 reactors shut down for a variety of different reasons, and it wasn't uncommon for the press to wonder if the only growth part of the business was in decommissioning reactors. So what happened? Well, the industry got back to work figuring out how to do our jobs better than before. Over the course of a decade or so, the industry's average capacity factor rose from the high 70s to near 90% across the entire fleet. And thanks to a number of companies performing plant uprates, the U.S. nuclear fleet actually produces more electricity today from fewer reactors. So reports of our...

The other day, we listened to the hearings for the NRC commissioners - there are three open slots - but did not follow up with the TVA candidates later that afternoon. Maybe we should have : During the hearing, each of the nominees gave a statement and was questioned by the committee members about their suitability for the role. Each nominee said that they backed TVA's use of nuclear energy. You can read all the quotes - and who said them - at the links but here's a taster: "In the short run, additional generation needs to come almost surely from new nuclear." "I am pro-nuclear and I do think it needs to be part of the solution." To support economic growth, I think we have to have low-cost power, and that additional power may have to be through nuclear." "We've got some old dirty coal plants and, even if we were to miss the call for increased demand, I think nuclear must be part of our solution." And that's a clean swee...

We can’t really call yesterday’s passage of the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee tainted, because the bill itself is almost pristine. No amendments were added to it, nothing was removed. But the process lacked a – certain – something: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out a climate change bill on Thursday despite a boycott by Republican members, who had required a complete analysis of the measure before participating in the committee debate. The Republicans bailed out because they wanted a full EPA analysis of the bill before proceeding. Neither Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) nor ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) have put up press releases about Boxer’s maneuver yet. However, Inhofe did issue a statement: "The Republicans offered a clear path forward to a bipartisan markup, but it was summarily rejected by Chairman Boxer.[Boxer] decided to ignore the entreaties of all 6...

As you might expect, the second of three days of the hearings on the climate change bill saw some themes emerge. First, the tenor more-or-less avoids talking about specific energy generators even when representatives of relevant companies are present. Natural gas probably picked up the most traction and even that was fairly muted. Second, many of the participants worry that Congress will not act and carbon reduction will be mandated instead via Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Some say waiting for either a legislative or regulatory remedy causes enough uncertainly to forestall investment. Here’s Ralph Izzo, Chairman, CEO and President of the Public Service Enterprise Group  (PSEG), on this issue (our transcipt): Some companies are now making low-carbon investment choices, particularly those like PSEG that are already subject to carbon regulation. But uncertainty about a national program slows our transition to a green economy, complicating investment decisions a...

Just in case you thought we’d have to wait a bit for some comment on the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill introduced yesterday, think again. Here’s Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): “We’ve got to be honest with ourselves if we are truly going to decrease emissions,” Murkowski said.  “Nuclear energy must be a part of our energy mix if we are going to do so.” We guess some of our readers consider that Republican boilerplate, but remember that the bill itself is very friendly in its preamble to nuclear energy. Since Murkowski is on a committee that gets a crack at this – Energy and Natural Resources - look to her (among others, of course) to push for the nuclear imperative. --- And she’s not the only one. Here’s Sen. John McCain (R—Ariz.): The bill introduced Wednesday by Sens. John Kerry , [D-Mass.], and Barbara Boxer , [D-Calif.], has "nothing about nuclear power," McCain complained in the interview, which was part of the "First Draft of History" forum ...

To give a sense of the impact of Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.)insistence on nuclear energy, as noted below, consider the response of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in our Twitter feed to your right. Here’s the whole quote – it ran longer than 140 characters: You are suggesting a command and control: We order you to build 100 nuclear power plants. $700 billion cost to the ratepayers. No tax credits for them whatsoever. And you come up with other ideas, some of which I support, but costly to taxpayers. All I’m saying is, it is our belief that, if we do this right, we’re going to have those plants built – more plants than you want – and believe me, I’m not the biggest fan of nuclear energy. I believe it has to be part of the solution. Boxer offers enough pushback to establish bona fides, but she yields to reality in the end. Boxer also seems to have picked up on Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.) comment last week: You put a price on carbon, what you end up doing is sending a ver...

Not all was lost in the Lieberman Warner bill debacle; Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has publicly stated her support for nuclear energy. From MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday, Scarborough :...Let me ask you, this is one that you may disagree with me on, but France, a [sic] 75% of its energy coming from nuclear power. Europe is moving in that direction and they are doing it because they believe that's the best way to cut carbon emissions. Why can't we figure out a way to safely regulate nuclear power so we could cut all those greenhouse gases overnight? Boxer : There's no question that nuclear is going to be part of the solution. The thing is, we have got to get an answer to disposing of the waste. That is a big question mark. But I went to France to see what they do and Joe, it's amazing. Because they have no other way to get energy, you are right. They rely on this. They have put the whole power of the government behind the safety question. Here, we don't do that...

Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) much-anticipated " Boxer substitute " to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act has just been released (sub. req'd). To no one's surprise, the nuclear industry does not get much play. However, according to Congress Daily 's Darren Goode , Senator Boxer "may be amenable to provisions regarding training of workers, keeping production in America and nuclear safety." In the coming days, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent Democrat-CT) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) are expected to unveil an amendment that "would aim to increase nuclear engineers and other workers and improve the financing and purchasing of [nuclear power plant] equipment." From CongressDaily , Warner said the nuclear section “will be the focal point of a lot of attention.” He said their plan will serve as a “building block” for others to work on during the floor debate. Lieberman said he and Warner are not addressing the speeding up of nuclear facility...

The following statement comes from NEI's Media Relations Department: The U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works held a hearing today on the federal government’s program to dispose of used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. defense programs at a geologic repository planned for Yucca Mountain, Nev. The Nuclear Energy Institute’s chief nuclear officer, Marvin Fertel, made the following comments about the program. “As the Department of Energy moves steadily closer to the submission of a license application for the planned Yucca Mountain repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, today’s hearing was an opportune time to note that there is some 20 years of solid science undergirding this program. Over the past two decades, billions of dollars have been spent on analyses of the repository site by many of our nation’s leading scientific experts. This analysis will continue during construction and operation o...