Congressmen Ed Markey (D-MA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) released
their draft legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act
of 2009, which puts forth a massive energy agenda that they claim
would transform America's economy and create millions of jobs by
promoting a new clean energy economy.
While the bureaucratic-laden approach offered by the legislation
is extremely problematic, the fact that it has virtually no mention
of nuclear power calls the entire green initiative into question.
If reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions, creating jobs, and
promoting domestic energy sources were truly the objective, then
nuclear energy should be central to the legislation.
Nuclear power already provides the United States with 20 percent
of its electricity and 73 percent of its CO2-free electricity. When
it comes to affordable near-term reduction of CO2 and other
atmospheric emissions, the importance of nuclear power cannot be
overstated.
Emissions Free, Versatile, and
Available
Like wind and solar energy, nuclear energy is emissions-free,
which means CO2 free. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear energy can
provide vast amounts of power on a constant basis. Wind and solar
may have a role to play in America's energy mix, but in order to
obtain clean, CO2-free energy, it seems that such a major piece of
legislation should address the regulatory and policy issues that
obstruct new nuclear power in the U.S.
But what makes nuclear energy potentially transformational is
its versatility. Today the nation primarily uses nuclear power for
electricity generation. Electric power production accounts for
roughly 40 percent of America's total energy consumption.[1]
Nuclear accounts for 20 percent of America's electricity. But
clean, affordable nuclear power can also be used to produce energy
for industrial applications and even transportation, which account
for 21 percent and 29 percent of U.S. energy consumption,
respectively.
For example, some reactor types could be used in the chemical
industry, for plastics production, and for refinery operations, all
of which use vast amounts of carbon-based energy to produce heat,
which is necessary for their industrial activities. Nuclear energy
could also be used to produce synthetic fuels that could run
America's cars. While these technologies are not commercially
viable today, they are the types of things that could be possible
if the federal government would develop a regulatory and policy
structure that was more conducive to growth in the nuclear
sector.
Jobs Here, Jobs Now
Nuclear energy is a jobs creator. According to the Nuclear
Energy Institute, the nuclear industry has created some 15,000 jobs
in recent years--all without even beginning construction on a new
plant.[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.[3]
What the American Clean Energy and
Security Act Should Say About Nuclear Power
The Markey-Waxman bill focuses too much on the process of energy
production rather than on the product itself. For example, it
creates so-called renewable energy standards that mandate only
certain types of energy production, such as wind and solar.[4] This
approach artificially eliminates energy sources--including those
that have not even been invented yet--that could help achieve
Congress's goals. The Markey-Waxman legislation should include the
following reforms for nuclear power:
-
Reform the Arduous Permitting Process for New Nuclear Power
Plants. Congress should institute a fast-track program for
granting construction/operation permits for certain new plants. To
qualify, a new plant would have to have a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)-certified design, be located on a site that
already has a plant, and be operated by an experienced nuclear
operator.[5]
-
Modernize Nuclear Waste Management. Congress should
authorize nuclear waste producers to finance and manage their own
spent nuclear fuel however they see fit so long as public health
and safety is protected. This must include repealing the fee paid
to the federal government for waste disposition activities. Fees
already paid to the federal government should either go toward
financing geologic storage or be returned to the ratepayers.
Putting waste-disposition responsibility into the hands of waste
producers would create a market for fuel management services and
allow nuclear power operators to fold the actual costs of nuclear
energy into what they charge for electricity. This would allow the
most cost-effective and efficient methods of waste management to
emerge and encourage entrepreneurs to develop innovative waste
management technologies.
-
Support the NRC's Authority to Determine the Safety of Yucca
Mountain. The NRC should be allowed to review the Department
of Energy's permit application for the Yucca Mountain repository
and determine if it can be constructed and operated safely. If it
is deemed safe, Congress should allow the nuclear power industry to
negotiate the eventual opening of the repository with the people of
Nevada.
-
Implement Programmatic Changes at the Department of Energy
(DOE). A number of programmatic changes at DOE could help save
the taxpayer money, bring promising technologies into the
marketplace more quickly, and help to ensure an innovative and
competitive nuclear industry. Nuclear Power 2010 began in 2002 as a
public/private partnership to develop a roadmap to bring an
advanced light-water reactor on line by 2010. Permit applications
to construct some 30 new reactors have been submitted in recent
years, with construction scheduled to begin in the next few years.
This demonstrates that the program is close to meeting its primary
objectives and is ready to be wound down in the next two years.[6]
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) is another
public/private cost-sharing technology development program, with
the aim of developing high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR)
technology. Unfortunately, the DOE and the NRC's NGNP strategy
would not allow for a new HTGR to come on line until 2021.[7] This
is too long. Congress should revisit this timeline with the purpose
of accelerating it substantially.
And finally, Congress should create an Office of Nuclear
Entrepreneurship. Innovation in the nuclear sector has burgeoned in
recent years, but policies and regulation largely support
commercially existing technologies. An Office of Nuclear
Entrepreneurship could help investors overcome these barriers by
developing policies and regulatory guidance that promote
private-sector innovation.
No Nuclear, No Credibility
If CO2 reduction is truly the objective, then maximizing
America's nuclear resources should be a top priority. This will
require a major restructuring effort from Congress and the
Administration that emphasizes market-based reforms that ensure
long-term regulatory stability and policy predictability. Most
importantly, these reforms can be done without additional cost to
the taxpayers.
Without such an effort, the billions of dollars of private
capital needed to expand America's nuclear capacity will simply not
be invested. These private investments will ultimately be what is
needed for the nation to achieve the goals set forth by the
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.
Jack
Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A.
Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage
Foundation.