President Barack Obama has charged his first secretary of
energy, Steven Chu, with an ambitious agenda. At a recent speech at
the Department of Energy (DOE) to promote his stimulus bill, the
President called on Dr. Chu to reduce America's reliance on foreign
oil, create jobs, and spur innovation.[1] Interestingly, nuclear
energy-the one technology that could help the President and his
secretary meet these objectives-was mentioned in neither the
President's speech nor his stimulus package. This is unfortunate
because with the right policy reform, nuclear technology could help
the nation meet each of the President's important energy
objectives.
Meeting the President's Energy
Objectives with Nuclear Power
Nuclear energy is a jobs creator. According to the Nuclear
Energy Institute, the nuclear industry has created some 15,000 jobs
in recent years.[2] These include jobs in the sciences,
manufacturing, and construction that private-sector investors have
created as they prepare to meet future construction demand. Once
construction begins, up to 2,000 workers will be required to build
each plant and approximately 500-600 will be needed to operate
it.
Furthermore, while primarily used to produce electricity today,
nuclear energy's versatility could allow it to be used for other
applications in the future, which would mean using less fossil
fuel.
Finally, innovation is at the heart of the nuclear industry.
Nuclear reactors come in all shapes and sizes. They range from
large 1,600-megawatt facilities that provide electricity for up to
a million homes to small 25-megawatt plants that power rural
communities or specific industrial activities. While the backbone
of the nation's nuclear infrastructure will likely remain large
light-water reactors, there are other reactors that can help
transform America's energy future.
What to Do
To bring about these benefits, Secretary Chu should implement
the following policy changes:
- Set an end-game for Nuclear Power 2010 (NP
2010). NP 2010 began in 2002 as a public/private
partnership to develop a roadmap to bring an advanced light-water
reactor on line by 2010. This is obviously not going to happen, but
the program has made significant progress toward addressing the
technical and regulatory challenges that faced the industry at the
program's inception. Its mission to define the arduous
plant permitting and design certification process was needed, but
its justification is beginning to wane. The submittal of permit
applications to construct 30 new reactors demonstrates that the
program is close to meeting its primary objectives and should be
wound down. While it should not end immediately, it should be
phased out as new reactor construction begins. At that point, the
government's role in bringing advanced light-water reactors to the
market place should come to an end.
- Accelerate the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program
(NGNP). The Next Generation Nuclear Plant is a
public/private cost-sharing technology development program. The
high-temperature gas cooled reactor (HTGR) technology being
developed by NGNP is critical to the future of nuclear energy.
While large light-water reactors are very good at producing
base-load electricity (the power used for everyday living), other
technologies like the HTGR will make nuclear technology available
for other energy-intensive applications, such as refinery
operations, fertilizer production, and the plastics industry. The
problem is that the U.S. needs an efficient regulatory process to
support the introduction of new technology into the marketplace as
soon as possible. Unfortunately, the DOE and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's (NRC) NGNP strategy uses a nine-year licensing
timeline that would not allow for a new HTGR reactor to come on
line until 2021.[3] This is too long. The DOE and NRC should
revisit their licensing timeline with the purpose of accelerating
it substantially.
- Create an Office of Nuclear Entrepreneurship. Innovation
in the nuclear sector has burgeoned in recent years. The problem is
that the system of policies and regulation used to govern
commercial nuclear power in the U.S. is built around support for
existing technologies. America's regulatory system not only
reflects this technological bias but is in many ways a product of
the 1970s anti-nuclear and post-Three Mile Island mindset. The
regulatory burden that this creates essentially prevents any new
technologies from entering the marketplace in a reasonable time
frame, which reduces their value for potential customers. Without
customers, the NRC is reluctant to invest the resources to build
the necessary regulatory framework to bring these new designs to
the market. Indeed, many companies are investing in new
technologies now without the help of the federal government. If
these companies are continually slowed by systemic obstacles, they
will be discouraged from investing, and innovation will be stifled.
An Office of Nuclear Entrepreneurship could help innovators
overcome these obstacles by developing policies and regulatory
guidance that promote private-sector technological innovation.
- Stay out of the commercial spent fuel recycling
business. The Bush Administration's plan to construct a
national reprocessing facility was not a good idea. Dr. Chu and his
team are lucky not to have been handed another bloated DOE
construction project. Chu should ensure that he passes that dignity
onto his successor by clearly stating that his department is not
interested in pursuing any government-run reprocessing
activities.
- Transfer responsibility for commercial used fuel
management to the private sector.It is not coincidental
that the front end of the fuel cycle and operations are both
privately operated and functional. On the other hand,
back-end activities (waste management) fall under the purview of
the federal government and are completely dysfunctional. If nuclear
power has any chance at a sustainable comeback, this must change.
The best way to ensure that process is economically rational and
sustainable is to transfer responsibility for waste management to
the private sector.[4]
- Ensure a science-based outcome for Yucca
Mountain. President Obama has stated he does not support
the Yucca Mountain project. He believes that the people of Nevada
do not support the project and that its safety has not been
scientifically proven. Fortunately, deciding such an outcome is
neither his nor Dr. Chu's concern. Instead, the NRC is charged with
that responsibility. The DOE submitted a license application to the
NRC to construct and operate the repository in 2008. It is now the
NRC's responsibility to consider the application and issue a
judgment one way or the other. Dr. Chu has said that he supports
allowing the NRC to continue reviewing the Yucca application but
cautions that President Obama does not support the repository.[5] The
best policy would be to recognize the authority of the NRC to carry
out its review and respect its conclusions.[6]
Go Nuclear
Official Washington is starting to recognize that President
Obama will not be able to meet his energy objectives without a
strong nuclear industry. The question for Secretary Chu is what the
Department of Energy's role should be. The policies outlined above
are at least part of the answer.
Jack Spencer is Research
Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Show references in this report
where the consequences of non-marriage
are more severe.
And he should press Congress to reduce the anti-marriage
penalties still remaining in welfare programs such as food stamps,
Medicaid and public housing, where getting married can reduce
eligibility or benefits.
Sometimes we actually do things right in America. The national
debate about welfare dependency in the 1980s and 1990s led to a
landmark change that partly fixed a broken welfare system -- one
that was actually harming those it was supposed to help. Now we
must complete the task by fixing a broken marriage system.
Stuart
Butler is vice president for domestic policy issues
for the Heritage Foundation.