Skip to main content

From a Position of Strength: NEI on the Energy Bill

bg_headhill We’d be remiss not to note an exceptionally good op-ed from NEI’s President and CEO, Marv Fertel, over at the Hill. He actually returns focus to the energy bill, which has been hibernating after passing the House while health care took center stage, and proposes some ideas that bolster the nuclear energy industry without breaking the bank at Monte Carlo. The timing’s about right – energy will return to view in the next few weeks – so let’s look at the bullet points:

• Ensure that the volume of loan guarantees available for new reactors is comparable to other carbon-free electricity sources and refining the Department of Energy loan guarantee program in key areas that are slowing implementation of the program;

• Provide new tax stimulus for investment in new nuclear energy facilities, new nuclear component manufacturing and workforce development;

• Expand the existing production tax credit to all new reactors that produce electricity by 2021;

• Reduce the time to market for advanced reactors to six years from nine to 10 years by enacting clarifications to ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process works as intended; and

• Mandate creation of a blue ribbon commission to re-examine management options for used nuclear fuel, and establishing incentives for state and communities to develop consolidated storage facilities for used nuclear fuel.

And he takes it for granted that the industry provides a plethora of benefits beyond low cost, no emissions electricity. We’ll let you read all that over at The Hill. Well, we will include this:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in its analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, found that the contribution of low- or zero-carbon energy technologies to electricity supply must increase to 38 percent by 2050 from the current 14 percent. An additional 180 nuclear power plants (104 operate today) will be needed to meet the legislation’s emissions targets, the EPA said.

Just in case you wondered how the United States can plausibly achieve ambitious carbon reduction goals and why government should materially acknowledge the nuclear energy industry to achieve those goals.

It also helps explain why Fertel’s bullet points are more aggressive than we’ve seen from other commentators (though, really, no more so than any other energy source advocates, justified or no, would like to see.) Nuclear power is, perhaps somewhat unexpectedly, working from a position of some strength these days. Flexing the muscles seems a plausible exercise in policy building.

Okay, okay, we know we’re engaging in a bit of log rolling here, but good is good and This Is The Best Op-Ed Ever. (We’ll take that bonus in small bills.)

Comments

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 …