Mr. President, I take pride in the fact that our committee has helped transform NRC into one of the best and most respected regulatory agencies in the world. We have worked very hard on placing the right people on the Commission and providing the Commission with the resources and tools necessary to do its job and holding them accountable to the results. In fact, we have held more than 20 hearings involving the NRC in the past 8 years. So it is no accident that we have seen a dramatic improvement in both the safety record and the reliability of the 104 operating nuclear reactors today over the past 8 years. Without the public confidence that these plants are safe and secure, there won't be any nuclear renaissance.
We have spent time and effort to make sure the NRC has the resources--particularly the human capital--it needs to make sure that our 104 nuclear plants are operating safely but also to ensure it can process multiple license renewal applications and combined license applications for the new plants coming on board. We wanted to make sure the NRC doesn't become the bottleneck.
In 2005, we introduced three pieces of legislation as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act to provide flexibility in hiring and employee retention. As a result, the NRC was able to hire over 1,000 highly qualified engineers and scientists over the last 3 years to replace retiring workers and also bring on those new people who are going to be necessary to process the new applications coming in. I am also pleased to note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been rated as the best place to work among Federal agencies for 2 years in a row. They have a great workforce, and they are a top-notch organization.
The good news is that the NRC now has 17 applications for 26 new power reactors under review. All indications are that NRC's review of the applications is progressing on schedule. I haven't heard a complaint from anybody who filed applications. We are expecting that these applications will be approved in late 2010 or in early 2011. Obviously, it is not a done deal, but we have every reason to believe we are on the right track. As a matter of fact, five utility companies today--Southern in Georgia, SCANA in South Carolina, NRG in Texas, Constellation in Maryland, and Progress in Florida--have signed engineering-procurement-construction contracts and are gearing up for construction pending NRC approval and loan guarantees from the DOE. In other words, we are starting to take off in terms of getting some air under our wings.
Mr. President, I have an opinion piece I wrote in the Nuclear News magazine last year, entitled ``Making the Nuclear Renaissance a Reality.'' This paper outlines the need to expand the use of nuclear energy in the carbon-constrained economy and provides a roadmap to overcome challenges faced by the nuclear industry.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read this. Anybody interested can get it on my Web site, voinovich.senate.gov.
As I watch the climate change debate unfold in this Congress, I rise to raise the same concern I raised last year during the debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill: We cannot get there from here without nuclear.
The Waxman-Markey bill that was reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee 2 weeks ago sets the greenhouse gas emission reduction cap at 80 percent by 2050, as did the Lieberman-Warner bill last year, but it continues to ignore the need for much wider use of emission-free nuclear energy in order to make this extremely aggressive goal.
I pointed out then that one of the glaring holes in the Lieberman-Warner bill was its deafening silence on nuclear, while studies conducted by EPA, EIA, and others pointed to an inconvenient truth for some people: More than doubling the number of nuclear plants would be required; that is, bringing online more than 100 new nuclear plants in the next 40 years, in order to meet the emission goals set in that legislation. Around the world, governments are reaching the same conclusion and are turning to nuclear energy as a safe, homegrown, cost-effective, and emission-free solution to increasing energy demand.
This is true in Europe especially, where the nuclear renaissance is in full swing. In France, for example, almost 80 percent of its electricity comes from nuclear power. In fact, France exports a good deal of its nuclear power-generated electricity to its neighboring countries, including Germany. President Sarkozy has announced plans to build five additional plants within the next 5 years, in addition to one currently under construction.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently signaled his intent to rebuild nuclear energy in the United Kingdom, saying:
Whether we like it or not, we will not meet the challenges of climate change without the far wider use of nuclear power.
He went on to note that the International Energy Agency estimates that we are going to have to build 32 nuclear powerplants each year if we are going to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That is more than 1,300 new reactors.
Italy, Finland, and Switzerland have all announced plans to build new reactors after spending the past 25 years trying to phase out nuclear power. These European countries have come full circle in reembracing nuclear after two decades of trying to solve their energy and environmental challenges with conservation and renewables alone. That is significant.
Unfortunately, many proponents of a cap-and-trade scheme, such as Lieberman-Warner or Waxman-Markey, seem to be stuck on fantasies that we can achieve the emission reduction goals with just conservation, efficiency, and renewables. Even those who believe nuclear has a role to play espouse policies that overwhelmingly favor renewables over nuclear.
A case in point: Nuclear energy was conspicuously missing from the $787 billion stimulus package, while approximately $40 billion in various tax credits went to energy efficiency, renewables, and transmission. I am not
opposed to that, but why did they ignore nuclear?
So it was particularly discouraging when the Senate version of the legislative language providing an additional $50 billion in loan guarantee authority in the stimulus bill was stripped from the final package during conference. Who did it? Why? The same thing happened when the Senate version of the budget resolution was passed a few weeks ago. We had it in there. We know we have to increase the Loan Guarantee Program to at least $50 billion, and it got stripped out again. Instead, the majority added the taxpayer-paid $60 billion Loan Guarantee Program allocated solely for renewables--wind, solar, and geothermal--and electric transmission systems to support renewable generation.
If you can do a priority in spending big money, let's do the grid. The grid is not what it should be. It has to be improved so that we can use wind and solar and get energy out across this country.
Unfortunately, many of the supporters of green energy never mention that it is unrealistic to rely solely on wind and solar power. This is something that I think needs to be made clear to every person in the United States, particularly our children, who are being taught in school that windmills and solar power are the way to the future in terms of the energy needs of America, and there is something wrong, and coal is bad, nuclear is bad. I hear it constantly from people when I go back to Ohio. Right now, 50 percent of our electricity is generated by coal; 20 percent by nuclear; 19 percent by natural gas; 6 percent by hydro; 3 percent by wind, solar, and geothermal; and 2 percent by oil. Given this current makeup of U.S. energy use, I don't think these folks are leveling with the [Page: S6159] American people about the reality of what is possible.
They continually tout the need to increase the renewable energies to solve our dependence on foreign sources of energy. They say we need to double our use of renewables. I tell you this: A doubling of the utilization of renewables will bring us to 6 percent, and it would likely take at least 10 years or more to accomplish. Further, it is unlikely that a doubling in renewables would lead to any significant decrease in the use of oil because oil only produces 2 percent of the electricity in the country today.
Particularly, I think it is incredible that some policymakers, such as the newly appointed Chairman of FERC, suggest we can get our energy needs strictly from renewable sources of energy. Give me a break. At only 3 percent of total U.S. electric generation, it is simply intellectually dishonest to suggest that these renewable sources can replace the 70 percent of the base-load electricity currently generated by coal and nuclear in this country.
Don't get me wrong, I do support expanding the use of renewables such as solar and wind, and we see that industry growing in my State. But to just say that is it and not to look at reality is intellectually dishonest. My point is that, realistically, we are not yet in a position to be able to rely upon them for base-load power generation. This is despite receiving government subsidies.
Here is another little statistic people are not aware of. Most Americans are not aware of the fact that, in 2007, nuclear energy only--this is according to the Energy Information Agency--received a $1.59-per-megawatt-hour subsidy while wind received $23.37 and solar received $24.34 per megawatt hour.
Today, there is a huge energy gap between renewable electricity and the reliable, low-cost electricity we must have. We need to look at the way to get the job done. If we want to generate carbon-free electricity, nuclear needs to be a big part of it--I am not saying the only part, but it has to be a big part.
The 104 nuclear powerplants we have operating today, which is 20 percent of the electricity generated, represent over 70 percent of the Nation's emission-free portfolio. In other words, the 20 percent coming from nuclear represents 70 percent of the emission-free electricity in this country.
That means we are avoiding 700 million tons of carbon dioxide each year because of nuclear--700 million tons.
What does that mean to the ordinary citizen? That means 13 million tons is avoided by wind and solar today. That is compared with 700 million in terms of nuclear power. To put this in perspective, 700 million tons of annual carbon emission that is being avoided by our nuclear plants is more than what Canada collectively emits each year. In other words, nuclear nonemitting into the air is the equivalent of all of Canada. In terms of something we may better understand, it is the equivalent of 130 million cars each year. That is what nuclear power is doing for us. In effect, it is the equivalent of reducing emissions of 130 million automobiles each year in this country.
Nuclear power is the best source we have available to meet our energy needs while also curbing emissions of greenhouse gases. People are recognizing the importance of nuclear energy because they understand the facts.
Public opinion widely supports utilizing nuclear energy. According to a recent Gallup poll, 59 percent of Americans support it. We are not going to be able to turn around our economy, meet our energy needs, and enact some of the environmental policies being discussed today without expanding the use of nuclear energy.
I look at nuclear as a three-fer. Without it, we will not reach our goal of reducing carbon emissions. Without it, we are not going to be able to provide the baseload electricity we are going to need for our country. And without it, we are not going to be able to rebuild our manufacturing base in this country.
At a time when we are struggling to regain our economic footing, nuclear energy offers thousands of well-paying jobs in all stages of development and production. Each new nuclear plant will require an average of 2,000 workers during construction, with peak employment at 2,500 workers. If the industry were to construct 30 reactors that are currently planned, well over 60,000 workers would be required during construction. And once constructed, each plant will create 600 to 700 jobs to operate and maintain it.
That is not to mention the ripple effect this undertaking would make in other areas of the economy. Aris Candris, CEO of Westinghouse Electric, and Mike Rencheck, president of AREVA, recently told me that about 12,000 jobs will be created for each new nuclear plant if you include the manufacturing jobs.
This means that more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs will be created to supply the needed parts and components for the 30 nuclear reactors that are currently planned.
And that is not counting the jobs associated with export opportunities to Europe, China, and India.
Organized labor understands expanding nuclear power will create a lot of well-paying jobs. In fact, here is what John Sweeney said at a roundtable discussion on nuclear workforce issues I chaired last year:
This isn't a Republican issue. This isn't a Democratic issue. It's an American issue.
I couldn't agree with him more.
I have met with Mark Ayers, Building and Construction Trades national president, a big union. He and his union members are actively supporting construction of new nuclear plants. They have also partnered with local community colleges and the nuclear industry in training workers. They are already training workers for the renaissance.
I have been working hard to get this message out in the past several years. Ohio and the surrounding Midwestern States have been the backbone of this Nation's nuclear manufacturing base. Ohio's small to medium-size enterprises are poised to lead the Nation's transition back into this market. In fact, hundreds of manufacturing jobs are already in existence in Ohio to support the nuclear industry, and more are to come in light of two announcements that are going to be coming up in the next couple of weeks that Ohioans will be very happy about that again will increase the number of people working in this industry.
I recently gave a speech at the Nuclear Manufacturing Infrastructure Council and had an opportunity to meet with several small manufacturing company executives. Their message was loud and clear: A clear policy statement from the administration and Congress is absolutely critical in acknowledging that nuclear power generation will be a growing part of our Nation's energy mix and investments in programs that will support the nuclear industry's near-term implementation needs are absolutely vital. The No. 1 thing is getting that $50 billion loan guarantee so we can get more of these people off the ground.
They all see the long-term potential growth in nuclear and they would like to invest in nuclear manufacturing, but they need a clear commitment from the government before they make those investments.
I think what these people are saying is we need Presidential leadership to acknowledge what most of us and the rest of the world already know: We cannot get there from here without nuclear.
I am convinced that nuclear power is the only real alternative we have today to produce enough low-cost, reliable, clean energy to remove harmful pollutants from the air, prevent the harmful effects of global climate change, and keep jobs from going overseas.
The biggest challenge remains the financing, particularly in nonregulated States. The deepening global economic crisis is putting additional pressure on the nuclear industry and on utilities.
As I mentioned, we have applications coming in, but right now DOE currently has 14 nuclear projects, representing a total project cost of $188 billion and loan guarantee requests of $122 billion. Basically what I am saying is that unless we can get this $50 billion loan guarantee taken care of, it is going to bring the progress we have been making to a halt.
A very important point that often gets lost in this discussion is the fact that the loan guarantee program authorized under the Energy Policy Act requires the borrowers to pay all the [Page: S6160] required fees, including what is called a subsidy cost and, thus, there is no cost to the government. In other words, if they borrow $5 billion, they are going to have to come up with close to $1 billion to secure that loan so if things do not go well on the loan, we have something to turn to.
The subsidy cost is levied on each loan guarantee, similar to a downpayment on a mortgage, in case of a default. Any potential defaults are covered by fees paid by the applicants.
In my hand, I have a copy of a recent MIT study on the future of nuclear power. The authors of this study include former Clinton administration officials John Deutch and Ernest Moniz. The central premise of the MIT study on the future of nuclear power is that in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate global warming, we must reevaluate the role nuclear power has as part of this country's energy future.
I wish to share the conclusions of this report because I believe it fits rather nicely with this speech:
The current assistance program put into place by the 2005 Energy Policy Act has not been effective and needs to be improved. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.
I commend to my colleagues this MIT report on the future of nuclear power.
Another issue that has plagued the nuclear industry for decades is the U.S. Government's failure to meet its commitment to assume responsibility for spent nuclear fuel. First, let's set the record straight. I have talked with many experts and policy people, including Secretary Chu and NRC Chairman Klein. They all assured me--it is important that everyone understands this--that the current spent nuclear that is being stored today in dry casks and pools are safe--are safe--and are secure for at least 100
years. That is very important because folks are saying you cannot go forward with this because we don't know what to do with the waste; we would like to do something more permanent than what we are doing.
But the fact is that with the dry casks we have, we are in good shape for at least 100 years. The lack of a repository at Yucca should not be something that inhibits us from licensing new reactors.
That being said, we must pursue a long-term solution now. If Yucca is not going to materialize, then we owe the American people a viable alternative. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a nuclear waste fund, a fee paid by utilities to create a fund to deal with nuclear waste. Since its beginning, it has collected $29 billion. So everyone understands this, since that act went into effect, we have collected $29 billion from ratepayers in this country. Unfortunately, the fund is on budget and only about $9 billion was used to deal with waste. The rest of the $20 billion amounts to little more than an IOU to U.S. ratepayers. Even if the administration decided to proceed with Yucca, we don't have the money to build a repository. We spent the money on other things. We will have to borrow over $20 billion to replenish the fund.
The Federal courts have ruled in favor of utilities. This is something else of which most people are not aware. And thus far we have paid utilities $550 million in damages because we have not come up with a permanent repository for nuclear waste. I am sure if we keep going the way we are, it is going to be in the billions.
I recently met with Secretary Chu, and he told me he would convene a blue ribbon panel to study Yucca. Unfortunately, I believe this is just kicking the can down the road for a couple of years. We have been studying this for more than four decades. We need to provide clear direction and certainty on this issue. The time for studying options is over, and the Federal Government must meet its legal obligations and start taking care of the spent fuel problem sooner rather than later.
If the administration is pulling the plug on Yucca without having a viable alternative long-term solution, then I think we owe it to the American people to refund their fees and stop levying fees.
I introduced the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Management Corporation Establishment Act of 2008 in the last Congress, together with Senators Domenici, Murkowski, Alexander, and Dole, to create an independent government corporation to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The bill will also take the nuclear waste fund off budget and give it directly to this corporation without the budget/appropriations process. I am planning to reintroduce that bill with Senators Murkowski, Alexander, and Burr, and I hope we can get additional cosponsors on the bill. It is about time we get serious about mapping out a future course for our Nation.
I firmly believe that utilizing nuclear energy as a key part of a mixed bag of energy sources offers us the best opportunity to truly harmonize our energy, the environment, and economic needs.
As I said before, nuclear energy offers thousands of well-paying jobs in all stages of development at a time when we are struggling to regain our economic footing. It is worth repeating--12,000 well-paying jobs will be created with each new nuclear powerplant. That is 360,000 jobs for the 30 nuclear reactors that are currently planned.
The American people get it, manufacturing gets it, the labor unions get it, and the international community--I have been to London, I have been to Paris, I have been to Austria. I have been around. All of them understand. In fact, I was on a climate change panel about a month ago that was sponsored by the German Marshall Fund when we met in Brussels. I was amazed at the number of people who said: Mr. Senator, we are never going to meet the Kyoto or Copenhagen goals for reducing our emissions without the use of nuclear power.
It is time President Obama and this Congress get it. We have to launch a nuclear renaissance in this country. We just cannot get there from here without nuclear.
