This past week saw two very important conversations about the future prospects of nuclear energy.
- On March 25, the Senate Committee for Energy and Natural Resources called a hearing of industry representatives from the Tennessee Valley Authority, TerraPower, Uranium Producers of America, Uranium Energy Corporation, Atlantic Council’s Nuclear Energy and National Security Coalition, Hogan Lovells, and X-energy.
- On March 26, the American Nuclear Society hosted the “Perspectives from Past DOE Nuclear Energy Officials” with guest speakers including Rita Baranwal, Former Assistant Secretary of Energy for the Office of Nuclear Energy, John Kotek, Former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Peter Lyons, Former Assistant Secretary of Energy for the Office
of Nuclear Energy, William D. Magwood, Former Director of Nuclear Energy for the Department of Energy, and Warren “Pete” Miller, Former Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy.
Senate Hearing
During the Senate hearing, certain buzzwords could be picked from the testimonies and the question and answer portion: cost, reliability, emissions, safety, and global leadership. Included in the questions by nearly every Senator were concerns over the upfront capital costs of the advanced reactors. However, Jeffrey Lyash of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) made a point to distinguish the levelized
costs of nuclear. There may be a high upfront cost, but nuclear reactors have the ability to have a life span of decades, ultimately reducing the cost per megawatt. Lyash even highlighted that the average age of his plants were 40 years with a lifecycle that could be extended to 100 years. This led Chairman Manchin to question why the U.S. nuclear fleet would be decreasing in size when there are theoretically no operational reasons to close emission-free power sources with years left in their
operating capacity. The general response from the witnesses is that nuclear should be recognized as a reliable method to provide affordable and clean power so it should not be backed away from by companies, congress or the public.
Clay Sell of X-energy also answered questions about cost and reliability. Mr. Sell noted that the markets need to recognize the full potential of nuclear, specifically the fact that nuclear is a baseload energy source with emissions-free power generation with longevity of operation.
The emissions-free power generation will also contribute to the next generation having more faith in nuclear as they seek to address climate change, answered Lyash to Senator Hickenlooper. Nearly every witness also made the point that nuclear can, and should, work in conjunction with renewables as nuclear has the added benefit of energy storage, something renewables currently
lack.
Also highlighted in the hearing was the global leadership position and the national security advantages that can be establish by having the U.S. become a leader in nuclear energy technologies. Committee chairman Manchin and other senators highlighted the importance of having a solidified domestic nuclear supply chain that will develop jobs and national security simultaneously. If the U.S. continues to
prioritize nuclear energy development, we can directly aid countries who are looking to build nuclear power plants in a method that strengthens geopolitical ties, answered Roma to Sen. Barrasso’s questions on the importance of U.S. nuclear leadership.
When discussing new nuclear development, nuclear waste must also be considered as noted by Sen. Cortez Masto of Nevada. She is a supporter of consent-based siting and asked that each state be treated equally when addressing waste. Sell of X-energy noted that their waste profile has much improvements to produce less waste per megawatt.
ANS Meeting
The Senate hearing tied directly into the webinar hosted by the American Nuclear Society entitled “Perspectives from Past DOE Nuclear Energy Officials.” Each former NE official noted that the U.S. government, especially DOE and the leader of Office of Nuclear Energy, needs to keep “the shoulder to the plow” as time is limited and challenges are great when addressing nuclear development and waste
disposal. Seeing as waste disposal is such a formidable issue to tackle, many of the former officials advocated removing the waste program from the Office of NE and moving it to either a separated office or an independent organization outside of DOE entirely.
Magwood added that nuclear waste in the U.S. is "not a crisis," and is safe in current storage sites at plants around the country. He also advocated for a consent-based siting process — without which, he said, the process would be doomed. "You may not be doomed today, but you'll be doomed tomorrow," he said.
"I think when you're the head of [the office] and you're the advocate for nuclear energy, it's hard to also be the person who's out there trying to work with the public on the waste issue. So it's a challenge both from a timing standpoint but also sort of a conflict of missions to a certain degree," said John Kotek, acting assistant secretary of energy at the Office of Nuclear Energy and staff director
to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.
The webinar covered many of the challenges faced by the Office of Nuclear Energy but overall there has been a consistent understanding by those who had led the office that nuclear is a tool that can provide affordable, reliable, carbon-free power.
"Now's the time to really push through with those demonstration programs — maybe even launch some more — to ensure that the next generation of affordable, reliable, safe nuclear is available to complement other forms of carbon-free generation," said Kotek.
Conclusion
Taking the two meetings together, there is a clear upswing in the attitude towards nuclear. As advanced nuclear development continues to move forward, the local communities with the experience, knowledge, and workforce should be prioritized. As the push for consent-based siting continues to move forward, the local communities who are directly impacted by waste movement, storage, and disposal should be
prioritized. To get the United States to be dominant in the field of nuclear development and nuclear exports, key relationships at every stage of the fuel cycle and supply chain are crucial.
