US Senators Alexander, Webb Introduce $20B Energy Legislation with Emphasis on Nuclear Energy Investment
17 November 2009
US Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Jim Webb (D-VA) introduced “The Clean Energy Act of 2009”, a bill to promote further investment and development of non-fossil-based energy technologies, including nuclear power and other resources.
“The Clean Energy Act of 2009” spends $20 billion over the next 10 to 20 years to fund a series of loan guarantees; nuclear education and workforce training assistance; research into nuclear reactor lifetime-extension; and the development of solar power, biofuels, and alternative power technologies. The bill follows the urging of Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to increase funds available for the development of nuclear power facilities and technology.
The legislation directs the Department of Energy to conduct five “Mini-Manhattan Projects” to study carbon capture technologies, non-ethanol biofuels, electric vehicles and electricity storage, cost-competitive solar power, and Generation IV reactors and technologies that will ultimately reduce nuclear waste.
This initiative is also designed to keep the United States competitive in a global marketplace that has accelerated the development of nuclear power.
“The Clean Energy Act of 2009” provides a framework that focused on reviving nuclear power and expanding renewable energies in the United States, including:
A $10 billion appropriation that can leverage up to $100 billion in government backed loans for the development of carbon-free energy to bring in investors and project developers to jump start efforts that are otherwise too capital-intensive up front.
$100 million per year for 10 years toward nuclear education and training. A nuclear revival cannot take place without a workforce and for that reason the bill provides much-needed support to educate and train craftsmen, engineers, operators and other workers.
$200 million per year for 5 years for a cost-sharing mechanism between government and industry to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to review new nuclear reactor designs such as small and medium reactors and help bring those technologies from concept into the market place.
$50 million per year for 10 years for much needed research to extend the lifetime of our current nuclear fleet and maximize the production of low-cost nuclear power.
$750 million per year for 10 years for research and development of low-cost solar technology, battery technology, advanced bio-fuels, low-carbon coal, and technologies that will reduce nuclear waste. Each of these will be funded at $150 million, annually.
Before introducing the legislation, Senators Alexander and Webb addressed an audience of 1,500 assembled for the American Nuclear Society’s winter conference.
1. $10 billion appropriation for the development of carbon-free energy.
2. $1 billion over 10 years toward nuclear education and training
3. $1 billion over 5 years for the NRC to review new nuclear reactor designs.
4. $1/2 billion over 10 years for research to upgrade our current nuclear fleet.
5. $7.5 billion over 10 years for R & D for low-cost solar, battery, bio-fuels, low-carbon coal, and reduction of nuclear waste.
That does not sound like the “The Clean Energy Act of 2009 provides a framework that focused on reviving nuclear power”.
It sounds like it INCLUDES nuclear power and we are expected to interpret #1 per our own desires.
Does #1 get it past the nucleophobes or pacify the nucleophiles?
The claim as to emphasis may be just for the audience:
" .. addressed an audience of 1,500 assembled for the American Nuclear Society’s winter conference."
Posted by: ToppaTom | 17 November 2009 at 03:42 AM
Have Americans reached a point where they recognize their moral authority has diminished in the world, particularly with respect to nuclear energy? For example, I think the mentality among many has been if the US rids itself of nuclear energy (and reduces or eliminates its own nuclear weapons stockpile) it could influence the rest of the world to rid itself of nuclear energy. Is the nuclear energy "investment" a recognition that America cannot influence the rest of the world on this issue, so it shouldn't deprive itself of this incredible energy source either?
Posted by: ejj | 17 November 2009 at 05:12 AM
i said 2 weeks ago to not use nuclear at all .
Posted by: Gorr | 17 November 2009 at 09:48 AM
Good point ejj...
Its about time to move on new (up-to-date) nuclear plants to fill future energy needs.
Ten $B may not cover it but industry should put up at least 3 to 4 times more.
Posted by: HarveyD | 17 November 2009 at 09:51 AM
Nuclear will never fly. It is just more pork barrel politics to thow money out and satisfy Dr. Strangelove voters. The economics are not there.
Everyone wants the Government to foot the bill and the risks for nukes, but investors (major companies and individuals) are investing in wind and solar NOW.
Posted by: JMartin | 17 November 2009 at 11:37 AM
carbon-free??????? uuuugh??????? Isn't everything carbon based????????
Light is not made of carbon.....
What ever 'burned' to create the light, was.
I've lived 30 miles form Palo Verde since the day it was built. No, I don't glow, in fact I'm in better health than most my age.
Posted by: JosephT | 17 November 2009 at 11:52 AM
I am not sure that we ever had much moral authority by FORSAKING nuclear energy.
Ridding ourselves of nuclear energy may gain some superficial respect but was probably offset by an equal amount of amused distain.
It is similar to believing that ONE auto company could stop all EVs, just by crushing it’s OWN EV.
Abandoning nuclear power in the face of the obstructionists was unfortunate.
I am sure it did slow the growth of world wide nuclear power.
No, not a crime against humanity but a very harmful misdemeanor.
The EV1 was a bust - 10 years too early.
Nuclear power was a huge missed opportunity that could have eliminated truly massive amounts of CO2, world wide, for more than 20 years if we had persevered and provided the proper leadership in nuclear power.
1971 - Twenty-two commercial nuclear powerplants are in full operation in the United States. They produce 2.4 percent of U.S. electricity at this time.
1990 - America's 110 nuclear powerplants produce about 20 percent of U.S electricity and set a record for the amount of electricity generated, surpassing what all fuel sources combined provided in 1956.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 17 November 2009 at 08:27 PM
Hey guys, I don't think getting rid of nuclear weapons means getting rid of nuclear energy.Energy and Weapon are not synonymous.
Posted by: Ben | 17 November 2009 at 08:59 PM
You're quite right Ben, and therefore ....?
Posted by: ToppaTom | 17 November 2009 at 09:24 PM
Look what the flaming tree-huggers at Citigroup are saying
New Nuclear - the Economics Say No
Posted by: dursun | 17 November 2009 at 11:30 PM
ToppaTom,what I'm saying is this, if nuclear energy makes economic sense and could be harnessed safely,why aren't more investments going in that direction? Well, nowadays ,common sense seems to be a thing of the past.Too many special interest groups looking out just to line their own pockets,and don't care what's good for the society as a whole. I live in Canada right now, the country where I came from have for long depended on hydro-electricity and coal powerplants.The government now realizing that they couldn't keep up with the demands for energy are talking of exploiting nuclear.Guess what is happening?. Some special interest groups are runnings ads claiming that nuclear energy will destroy jobs in oil sectors,destabilize the oil industries,and will eventually kill the residence of wherever it's located.
Posted by: Ben | 18 November 2009 at 12:49 AM
so, instead of looking at the pros and the cons; people are resulting into scare tactics.
Posted by: Ben | 18 November 2009 at 12:52 AM
Next gen nukes should be included in the alternative energy portfolio going forward.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 18 November 2009 at 09:57 AM
Ben et al,
The different between nuclear weapon and nuclear energy? Only in the rate of energy release. The principles are the same. The raw fuel source is the same, and the training of personel involved in the handling of all related nuclear materials is the same. This means that the more widespread use of nuclear energy will increase the risk of nuclear proliferation. Would Iran and N. Korea be able to make nuclear bombs without having nuclear reactors in their own countries? NO. Why take this risk?
Solar, wind, waste biomass, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy can satisfy all our energy demand.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 18 November 2009 at 02:10 PM
I agree Ben.
It is not unexpected that special interests will resist nuclear power.
Unreal and exaggerated safety fears are hard to separate from reality and give their arguments much undeserved strength.
Saying the risks of nuclear weapons and power plants are similar is like saying 50 pounds of dynamite or gasoline or fire wood have the same energy and the same risk.
Or that the more widespread use of nuclear energy in the US will increase the risk of nuclear proliferation in the world.
Confused logic involving the nuclear power plants in Iran and N. Korea and their ability to make nuclear bombs, with more nuclear reactors in the US.
This complete breakdown in common sense is being overcome as we run out of power due to oil shortage and CO2 fears – but the delay is costing us dearly.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 19 November 2009 at 05:20 AM
Good points Ben.
Eventually, most nations will know how to produce nuclear weapons. However, it does not mean that they will all do it and those that do, may never use those weapons.
Let's not forget:
1) that 50+ countries already have the knowhow required to produce nuclear weapons but less than 20% elected to do it.
1) that 10 countries already have nuclear weapons but only one ever used them.
The world will learn how to separate peaceful nuclear power plants from nuclear weapons. A total worldwide ban on the use of nuclear weapons may be possible by the end of the century.
Posted by: HarveyD | 19 November 2009 at 06:02 AM
The number of nations able to produce nuclear weapons should be minimized.
Absolutely - No matter what (And before it gets said; "fair" is irrelevant).
I think there are many peaceful nuclear power plants now. And if a country has nuclear weapons, and can make more, there is much less concern with regard to how their Power Plants might support weaponry.
I think there is a total worldwide ban on the use of nuclear weapons now.
I am sure it is considered more than unfriendly to nuke another country.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 19 November 2009 at 09:26 AM
"I think there is a total worldwide ban on the use of nuclear weapons now.
I am sure it is considered more than unfriendly to nuke another country."
Well, say that to the foreign terrorists and suicide bombers, as well as home grown terrorists such as the Una bomber and the Nichols brother. I'm sure that it would be illegal to bomb buildings like the Oklahoma Federal building bombing, or the 9-1-01 event. Just imagine the magnitude of calamity if a nuclear bomb was detonated instead of a conventional truck bomb or airplane bomb!
Let's realize that it would only take one mistakenly launched nuclear device to trigger a barrage of nuclear exchanges that would wipe out many civilizations.
The more widespread use of nuclear energy, the easier it would be to recruit nuclear-trained conspirators to terrorists' cause, and the easier to divert nuclear fuel for illegal purposes. Even an US-borne, US Army-trained psychiatrist is not immune to the terrorist's recruitment of suicide killing! Terrorists need not even have to make a bomb. Just release the highly radioactive materials into the environment and food and water supply would accomplish their purpose!
Be afraid, very afraid! Once the horse is out of the barn, there is no going back!
Posted by: Roger Pham | 19 November 2009 at 11:21 PM
In reality it was always futile and it is far too late - there are already many horses in and out of many barns world wide.
Making our barn bigger (with more horses) will not affect other nations horses or barns.
The real question is domestic:
Can we eliminate much of the obstructionist cost and provide enough affordable support to make the growth of nuclear power economically attractive?
Posted by: ToppaTom | 21 November 2009 at 07:26 AM
@ToppaTom,
Your complacent attitude is the same of that of US intelligence community before 9-1-01. Do you realize how much 911 has cost us? Probably trillions of USD and may be 10,000 US lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and even more in Afghanistan, and a shattered economy...
Now, imagine what happened if the entire NYC was wiped out by terrorists' nukes? I would imagine that the entire Afghanistan will be wiped out from our nuclear bombs, tens of millions of lives will be lost in a flash...then would Pakistan send Nukes to our direction? Then, Pakistan would be wiped out too...? The stakes are too high. Too many suicide bombers in the world still!
Why acquire additional nuclear risks when solar, wind and biomass have proven potential to supply all our future energy needs?
Posted by: Roger Pham | 21 November 2009 at 11:45 AM