Skip to main content

Nuclear Power On the Hill, Day 2

On Tuesday it was the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources holding a nuclear energy-related hearing, yesterday the Committee on Environment and Public Works served as Senate host.

The webcast of the hearing, “Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Licensing and Relicensing Processes for Nuclear Plants,” can be seen here.

Appearing before the committee:
  • Dr. Dale Klein - Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Dr. Gregory B. Jaczko - Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Dr. Peter B. Lyons - Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Ms. Kristine L. Svinicki - Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Mr. Hubert T. Bell - Inspector General, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Mr. David A. Christian - President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Dominion
  • Mr. Anthony R. Pietrangelo- Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute
  • Mr. Richard Webster - Legal Director, Eastern Environmental Law Center
  • Dr. Joseph Romm - Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
  • Mr. H. John Gilbertson Jr. - Managing Director, Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Tony Pietrangelo wasn't the only NEI employee discussing nuclear energy in DC yesterday: Carol Berrigan, NEI's Director of Industry Infrastructure, appeared at a U.S. Energy Association forum at the National Press Club. C-SPAN's video of the event can be seen here.

Comments

David Bradish said…
The EPW hearing had some interesting discussion on new nuclear plant costs at the third hour and fifth minute of the video. Most of the panelists and committee members were completely aware that new nuclear plants are still very economical despite the significant rise in projected capital costs.

The Goldman and Sachs panelist was very supportive of nuclear which goes against many of the claims antis use to say "Wall Street won't finance new nuclear plants."

Also, Dominion's David Christian explained that Dominion is always evaluating costs of electricity from new power plants and that they find new nuclear to be economical.

It was really promising to hear that the commenters understood the big picture of our energy situation and that they didn't look at nuclear's costs in a bubble, contrary to what Joseph Romm did on the panel. Needless to say, I didn't hear anyone ask Romm a question.

The hilarious part of the Q&A was when Senator Voinovich called the notion that wind and solar could provide baseload electricity "poppycock."
Anonymous said…
The Goldman and Sachs panelist was very supportive of nuclear which goes against many of the claims antis use to say "Wall Street won't finance new nuclear plants."

Just proves that everyone hears only what they want to hear. Check out Gilbertson's prepared testimony, which carries a number of caveats and market concerns.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=0a44d3c6-802a-23ad-46ee-8d6b0b283265
David Bradish said…
Check out Gilbertson's prepared testimony, which carries a number of caveats and market concerns.

Name me one energy technology that doesn't have a market concern or caveat.

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …