[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION IN A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL ENERGY
POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-364 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia DIANE E. WATSON, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York TOM LANTOS, California
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
Dave Solan, Professional Staff Member
Lori Gavaghan, Clerk
Richard Butcher, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 28, 2005................................... 1
Statement of:
Jones, Donald, vice president and senior economist, RCF
Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc.; Marvin Fertel,
senior vice president for business operations, Nuclear
Energy Institute; and Patrick Moore, chairman and chief
scientist, Greenspirit Strategies LTD...................... 8
Fertel, Marvin........................................... 17
Jones, Donald............................................ 8
Moore, Patrick........................................... 42
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Fertel, Marvin, senior vice president for business
operations, Nuclear Energy Institute:
February 2005 public opinion............................. 116
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Constituent survey....................................... 105
Study of University of Chicago........................... 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
President Bush's remarks of April 27, 2005............... 97
Jones, Donald, vice president and senior economist, RCF
Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc., prepared statement
of......................................................... 11
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 35
Moore, Patrick, chairman and chief scientist, Greenspirit
Strategies LTD, prepared statement of...................... 46
Watson, Hon. Dianne E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 39
Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Georgia, prepared statement of................ 58
THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION IN A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL ENERGY
POLICY
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Westmoreland, Watson,
Higgins, and Kucinich.
Staff present: Larry Brady, staff director; Lori Gavaghan,
legislative clerk; Dave Solan, Ph.D., Steve Cima, and Chase
Huntley, professional staff members; Richard Butcher, minority
professional staff; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Issa. Good morning. My opening statement always says,
``A quorum being present.'' It takes two for a quorum here, so
we will skip that line. I have an opening, and I am going to
put it in the record and be very brief. If the ranking member
arrives before we begin testimony, that would be better.
However, I don't want to abuse you of your time, and I
definitely want to very much hear what you have to say and get
to questioning. I can assure you we have had enough members
respond that they will be here for Q&A, which seems to be the
direction that Members prefer. So we will get to that as
quickly as possible.
The reason for this hearing today is that our Nation's
electricity demand continues to rise while, in fact, production
from nuclear sources does not. According to the Department of
Energy, 41 new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants will be needed by
the year 2025 just to maintain nuclear power's 20 percent share
of our Nation's electricity generation. However, there hasn't
been a new nuclear power plant built in three decades. There
are none presently licensed to be built, and without re-
licensing, or essentially extensions of their lives, a
significant amount of capacity will go offline by 2025.
The growth in electricity demand, coupled with the
retirement of older generation plants, means the Nation will
need 281 million kilowatts, to put it in kilowatt terms, of new
generation capacity--enough to power the State of California,
which, of course, is the world's sixth largest economy if it
were a separate nation. I always get that into every one of my
opening lines, as a Californian.
I think it is important that we hear from you today about
the role that nuclear power should play in America's future
because we have oversight and because we are steering ourselves
into a train wreck. And I think if there is any message that I
would like to hear today, it would be what are the
ramifications of our not acting. And as each of the
distinguished individuals and I were talking about earlier, I
think we also touched on the areas of global warming and our
participation in it, and I hope that that will also come up.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.005
Mr. Issa. Now, if I can just briefly introduce our guests.
Donald Jones is vice president and senior economist at RCF
Economics, a financial consulting firm in Chicago. In 2003 and
2004, he co-directed the study at the University of Chicago on
the economic future of nuclear power in the United States. It
couldn't have been more timely. Marvin Fertel is senior vice
president of business operations and chief nuclear officer at
the Nuclear Energy Institute. Mr. Fertel has over three decades
experience--which means you actually remember when they last
built a nuclear power plant--in consulting through electrical
utilities on issues related to designing, siting, licensing,
and managing both fossil fuels and nuclear power plants.
Last, and very important to me personally, and I thank you
for being here, Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the
international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a
founding member of Greenpeace and served 7 years as a director
of Greenpeace International. In 1991, Dr. Moore founded
Greenspirit Strategies, a consultancy focusing on environmental
policy and communications.
With the indulgence of the minority staff, what we will do
is return to the ranking member's opening statement upon her
arrival, according to the rules.
With that, Mr. Jones, I would really appreciate if you
would lead off.
For all the witnesses, your testimony will be put into the
record. And as is this policy of this committee, if I could ask
you each to raise your hands and be sworn, if that is
acceptable.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Issa. Please indicate that all have said I do. Thank
you.
Mr. Jones.
STATEMENTS OF DONALD JONES, VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR
ECONOMIST, RCF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONSULTING, INC.; MARVIN
FERTEL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS OPERATIONS, NUCLEAR
ENERGY INSTITUTE; AND PATRICK MOORE, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF
SCIENTIST, GREENSPIRIT STRATEGIES LTD
STATEMENT OF DONALD JONES
Mr. Jones. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources of the House Committee on
Government Reform. I am Donald W. Jones, vice president of the
RCF Economic and Financial Consulting, an economic research
firm in Chicago which conducts analysis of energy and
environmental issues, as well as other economic topics.
Together with Dr. George S. Tolley, professor emeritus of
economics at the University of Chicago, I co-directed the
University of Chicago study of the economic future of nuclear
power in the United States. My comments today are based on the
findings of that study.
I have been asked to address the issue of policies that
would be needed to foster the development of nuclear power and
maintain a 20 percent nuclear share of electricity generation
by 2020.
Because no construction has begun on a new nuclear plant in
the United States since 1973, a number of uncertainties
surround the construction of the first few new plants: the
success of the new licensing procedure, the construction time,
and the delivered cost of the new reactor designs. Uncertainty
in an investment raises the cost of capital to a risky project
so as to keep the expected rate of return at a level required
by the capital market.
These uncertainties raise the cost of generating
electricity from these plants above levels that would be
competitive with electricity generated by coal- and gas-fired
plants. Our calculations indicate that the first new nuclear
plants could deliver electricity at costs of $53 to $71 dollars
per megawatt hour, depending on reactor design and capital
cost, while coal- and gas-fired plants would cost from $33 to
$45 per megawatt hour.
The majority of these uncertainties could be resolved after
the construction of the first several plants, and assuming they
are resolved satisfactorily, the nuclear costs would fall well
within the range of fossil-generated costs by the fourth or
fifth new plant of a given design.
Table 1, to my right front, shows the progress of nuclear
generation costs over the first eight plants of a reactor
design with a capital cost of $1,500 per kilowatt of capacity.
Learning and construction is assumed to reduce capital costs by
3 percent for each doubling of plants built, which is a
conservative estimate of this learning effect according to
United States and international experience. The generation
costs in the right-most column of the table indicate that by
the fourth or fifth new plant of this design, generation costs
fall to $34 to $36 per megawatt hour, which is competitive with
fossil-fired generation costs of $33 to $45 per megawatt hour.
The nuclear plant's cost reductions derive from pay-off of
first-of-a-kind-engineering [FOAKE], costs borne only on the
first plant, shortening of construction time, investors'
gaining the confidence needed to eliminate the risk premium and
permit higher portions of debt financing, and learning in
manufacturing and construction.
The first problem to be solved is getting from the first
plant to the fourth plant. The Chicago study examined four
financial assistance policies applied separately and in various
combinations: a production tax credit equivalent to that
currently offered to renewable energy development, an
investment tax credit, accelerated depreciation, and loan
guarantees. Table 2, to my left, reports the generation costs
on a first plant achieved by each of these policies.
An effective combination is a 20 percent investment tax
credit and a production tax credit of $18 per megawatt hour for
8 years with a cap of $125 million per plant per year. These
would bring the cost of the first plants within the competitive
range of coal- and gas-fired plants. Policies such as these
should be needed only for the first four or five plants because
of the cost reductions that can be expected after the first
plant.
An important policy influencing the cost of new nuclear
plants is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing
procedure. The new process codified in 10 CFR Part 52 permits
resolution of many of the uncertainties surrounding the
construction and commissioning of a new nuclear plant prior to
the times when major financial commitments must be made. Hopes
are high for its successful implementation, but the system
remains to be tested.
Several comparisons of generation costs illustrate the
importance of this new procedure. Licensing that shortens
construction time by 2 years and gives investors the confidence
to reduce the risk premium on nuclear financing to the level on
fossil-fired projects could reduce the generation cost of eight
plants by 25 to 48 percent. Eliminating construction delays
also has a significant effect on costs: a 2-year delay in the
middle of a construction period would raise generation costs by
11 percent, while a similar delay at the end of construction
would raise costs by 23 percent. The methodology of these
calculations is reported in detail in the published report of
the study, the Economic Future of Nuclear Power; A Study
Conducted at the University of Chicago, dated August 2004.
Although it was not part of the formal study, our study
team reviewed the subcommittee's question regarding what would
be required to maintain the 20 percent contribution nuclear
energy makes in meeting over electricity demand by 2020.
According to projections of the growth of electricity
generation capacity needed to satisfy demand growth, two to
four new nuclear plants could need to come on line each year
between 2015 and 2020 if the nuclear share of electricity
generation is to remain at 20 percent.
This could amount to a total of 15 to 24 new plants, of
1,000 megawatts each, over a period of 6 years. One important
point emerging from these numbers is that the number and pace
of new plants is large enough to permit 5 to 10 percent cost
reductions from learning by the fourth and fifth plants of a
given type, which would be of considerable value in making
those plants competitive.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members.
This concludes my written statement, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.011
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Fertel.
STATEMENT OF MARVIN FERTEL
Mr. Fertel. Thank you, Chairman Issa. I am Marvin Fertel. I
am senior vice president and chief nuclear officer at the
Nuclear Energy Institute. And on behalf of our members, I thank
you for the opportunity to be here today.
NEI is responsible for developing policy for the U.S.
nuclear industry. Our organization's 270 member companies
represent a spectrum of interests, including every U.S. energy
company that operates a nuclear power plant.
America's 103 nuclear power plants are right now the most
efficient and reliable in the world. Our nuclear energy is the
largest source of emission-free electricity in the United
States and our second largest source of electricity overall
after coal. Nuclear power plants in 31 States currently provide
electricity for one of every five U.S. homes and businesses.
Given these facts and the strategic importance of nuclear
energy to our Nation's energy security and economic growth, NEI
encourages Congress to maintain policies that ensure continued
operation of our Nation's operating plants, and to provide an
impetus required to expand emission-free nuclear energy as a
vital part of our Nation's diverse energy mix.
Last week, the House of Representatives demonstrated strong
support for nuclear energy's role when it passed H.R. 6.
This morning, I would like to address three major areas:
first, the strategic value of nuclear power plants as a source
of safe, reliable, and stable electricity; second, industry
initiatives to ensure continued operation of today's nuclear
plants; and, third, the importance of strong congressional
oversight to ensure effective and efficient implementation of
the Federal Government's responsibilities that affect nuclear
energy programs.
As I mentioned, nuclear power represents 20 percent of U.S.
electricity power today. It did 10 years ago also. And
basically over that period we have increased demand for
electricity in our country by 25 percent.
We are able to maintain our market share thanks to dramatic
improvements in reliability, safety, and productivity of our
current fleet of plants, which today operate at about 90
percent capacity, which means they are on line and operating 90
percent of the time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Improved
productivity at our plants have satisfied 20 percent of the
growth in electricity demand over the last decade.
Nuclear power serves a number of other important national
needs. First, nuclear power plants contribute to the fuel and
technology diversity that is the core strength of the U.S.
electricity supply system. Our position is that we need
nuclear, coal, renewables, gas, and any other source, and you
just have to have the right mix and use them for the right
purposes.
Second, nuclear power plants provide future price stability
that is not available from electric generating plants fueled,
say, with natural gas and, in today's market, with coal.
Intense volatility in natural gas prices over the last several
years is likely to continue thanks partly to unsustainable
demand for natural gas from the electric sector. Nuclear plants
reduce the pressure on natural gas supply, thereby relieving
cost pressures on other non-electric uses for natural gas where
you don't have alternative fuel sources.
Third, nuclear power plays a strategic role in meeting U.S.
clean air goals and the Nation's goal of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. Without our current nuclear plants, greenhouse
gas emissions from the electric sector would be 30 percent
higher today. New nuclear power plants reduce electricity that
otherwise would be supplied by oil-, gas-, or coal-fired
generating capacity, and thus avoid the emissions associated
with that fossil-fueled capacity.
Overall, we believe nuclear power represents a unique value
proposition. It provides large volumes of electricity cleanly,
reliably and safely, and, most importantly, also affordably; it
provides future price stability and serves as a hedge against
price and supply volatility; and nuclear plants have valuable
environmental attributes and they help preserve our Nation's
energy security. These demonstrated characteristics of why
nuclear power has such strategic importance in our overall U.S.
energy policy.
The 103 operating plants are valuable today. The chairman
mentioned renewing licenses, and what I would like to say is we
are actually making very good progress on that. Two-thirds of
the 103 units have either renewed their license, announced they
are going to renew their license, or are in the process of
getting reviewed, and our expectation is that every 1 of the
103 plants will renew their license. They are licensed for 40
years. The NRC can renew the license for another 20 years after
their reviews, and, to be honest, they can renew it for 20
years after that if you wanted to do that.
Despite the dramatic gains in reliability and productivity
at our operating plants, there are obvious limits to how much
additional electricity they can produce, so meeting the
Nation's growing demand for electricity, which according to the
Energy Information Administration will require between 230,000
and 330,000 megawatts additional by 2025, we believe will
require the construction of new nuclear plants in this country.
New plants would provide Americans with low-cost, safe, and
reliable electricity; would bring long-term price stability to
electricity; and prevent the emission of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases. In addition, new plant construction would
create thousands of skilled, high-tech jobs and help us rebuild
our manufacturing facilities in this country, which we have
lost.
A program of a new nuclear plant construction is absolutely
necessary for the United States to regain its technological
leadership in this high-tech field. The nuclear energy industry
and the Department of Energy launched a program several years
ago that will position the industry to build new nuclear plants
when needed and when the business conditions are right. This is
a comprehensive program designed to achieve the business
issues, including licensing and regulatory issues mentioned by
Dr. Jones, development of new plant designs and financing that
could be roadblocks to new nuclear plant construction.
The overall objective for this joint industry-government
initiative is to ensure that new nuclear plants can be
operational in the 2010 to 2020 timeframe in this country.
Industry and government will be prepared to meet the demands
for new emission-free base load plants in that timeframe only
through a sustained focus on the necessary programs and
policies between now and then.
As it has in the past, strong congressional oversight will
be necessary to ensure effective and efficient implementation
of the Federal Government's nuclear energy programs, and to
maintain America's leadership in nuclear technology development
and its influence over other important diplomatic initiatives
like nonproliferation.
Nowhere is this more important than with the Department of
Energy's program to manage the used nuclear fuel from our
nuclear power plants.
Continued progress toward a Federal used nuclear fuel
repository is necessary to support nuclear energy's vital role
in a comprehensive national energy policy.
Since enactment of the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, DOE's
nuclear fuel management program has overcome many challenges,
and challenges remain before the Yucca Mountain facility can
begin operations. But as we address these issues, it is
important to keep the overall progress of the program in
context.
First, there is international scientific consensus that a
deep geologic repository is the best solution for long-term
disposition of any waste from any nuclear power facility, that
is, whether you recycle it or you do a once-through fuel cycle.
You still need a deep geologic repository.
Second, the Bush administration and Congress, with strong
bipartisan support, affirmed the suitability of Yucca Mountain
for a repository in 2002. Over the past 3 years, the Energy
Department and its contractors have made considerable progress
providing yet greater confirmation that Yucca Mountain is an
appropriate site.
Third, during the past year, Federal courts have rejected
significant legal challenges by the State of Nevada and others
to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the 2002 Yucca Mountain
suitability determination.
In the coming year, Congress will play an essential role in
keeping this program on schedule by taking steps necessary to
provide increased funding for the project in fiscal year 2006
and years beyond.
The industry urges the Congress to support the
administration's proposal to change the funding mechanism for
the Yucca Mountain program so that consumer payments to the
Nuclear Waste Fund can be used only for the project and
excluded from traditional congressional budget caps. Although
the program should remain subject to congressional oversight,
Yucca Mountain appropriations should not compete each year for
funding with unrelated programs when Congress directed a
dedicated funding stream for the project.
Industry also believes that it is appropriate and necessary
to consider alternative approaches to the Yucca Mountain
project. These alternatives could include an extended period
for monitoring operation of the repository for up to 300 years
or longer, other things as far as retrievability, and concepts
like waste treatment and conditioning. What should be done is
what is necessary to enhance safety and public confidence in
the safety of the repository.
Congressional oversight can also play a key role in
maintaining and encouraging the transparency and stability of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulatory process. Such
stability is essential for our 103 operating nuclear plants and
equally critical in licensing new nuclear plants.
Congress played a key role several years ago in encouraging
the NRC to move toward a new oversight process for the Nation's
nuclear plants, based on quantitative performance indicators
and safety significance. Today's reactor oversight process
focuses industry and NRC resources on equipment, components and
operational issues that have the greatest importance to safety.
The need for regulatory stability is particularly acute
today in the area of nuclear plant security.
The NRC and the industry have worked hard to identify and
implement new and extensive security requirements at our
plants. In the 3\1/2\ years since September 11, the NRC has
issued a series of requirements to increase security and
enhance training for security programs. The industry has
complied fully and rapidly.
The industry has spent more than $1 billion enhancing
security since September 11. We have identified and addressed
potential vulnerabilities. Today, 3\1/2\ years after September
11, the industry is at almost the practical limits of what a
private industry can do to secure these facilities. We need to
fully incorporate the new significant changes into our
operations and emergency planning programs, and increase our
proficiency in executing the programs to meet the high
expectations of the NRC.
Both industry and the NRC need congressional oversight to
support and encourage this kind of stability.
In conclusion, the public sector, including the oversight
committees of the U.S. Congress, can help maintain the
conditions that ensure Americans will continue to reap the
benefits of nuclear energy in the years ahead.
The passage of comprehensive energy legislation that
recognizes nuclear energy's contributions to meeting our
growing energy demands, ensuring our energy security, and
protecting our environment is an important step.
Equally important, however, is the need to ensure effective
and efficient implementation of existing laws, like the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, and to provide Federal agencies with the
resources and oversight necessary to discharge their statutory
responsibilities.
The commercial nuclear power sector was born in the United
States, and nations around the world continue to look to the
United States for leadership in this technology and in the
issues associated with nuclear power. Our ability to influence
critical international policies in areas like nuclear
nonproliferation depend on our ability to maintain a leadership
role in prudent deployment, use and regulation of nuclear
energy technologies here at home, and on our ability to manage
the technological and policy challenges, like waste management,
that arises with all advanced technologies.
This is a broad responsibility and, in the case of nuclear
energy, rests equally on the shoulders of industry, government
agencies like the Department of Energy and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and the appropriate committees of
Congress.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to say this.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fertel follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.023
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
And, as promised, our ranking member and others have
arrived, so we will go to opening statements before Dr. Moore.
I would like to recognize Representative Westmoreland from
Georgia, who has arrived. Representative Kucinich had to
apologize, he has left his opening statement, and it will be
put in the record. He had another conflict and will try to
return.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.025
Mr. Issa. With that, I would like to recognize our ranking
member, Ms. Watson, for her opening remarks.
Ms. Watson. I want to thank the Chair for holding this very
important subcommittee hearing on the role of nuclear power.
Most importantly, I have with me a young student. It is bring
your daughter or son to work with you day. Megan Tarr is in the
back. And it is important for these young people--and I have
some interns from my office--to hear a discussion on power use
for the future; how we can generate it, how we can care for it,
how we can maintain it. So the subject of this hearing, the
nuclear power generation, is a comprehensive national energy
policy that is so essential, and I am very pleased that these
young people will start getting themselves informed.
No nuclear plants have been ordered in the United States
since 1978 and more than 100 reactors have been canceled.
However, the rising costs of electricity generated from natural
gas and coal-fired power plants may make nuclear power and
renewable energy sources relatively more competitive.
It has been argued that expanded nuclear generation could
help substitute for some of the demand for natural gas.
Electricity is a major contributing source to the increased
demand for natural gas. In contrast to oil, uranium, the key
fuel source for nuclear reactors, is domestically available and
supplies are not vulnerable to disruption by political
instability overseas. Is this a reasonable viewpoint?
In addition, a significant aspect of reduced fossil fuel
consumption is a reduction in carbon dioxide emission. Nuclear
energy does not produce substantial air pollution; therefore,
it could help reduce air pollution problems such as smog,
particulate matter, and global warming. The United States is
responsible for about one-fourth of the world's total
greenhouse gas emissions. Americans must do better. How much
fossil fuel electric generation must be replaced to make a
difference? Is nuclear generation the answer? I am hoping that
we will have the input so we can continue that dialog.
Nuclear power generation has many downsides. Nuclear power
produces large quantities of waste that remain highly
radioactive for thousands of years. The Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982, as amended in 1987, requires the Department of
Energy to manage Yucca Mountain, NV, as a permanent repository
for high-level waste.
The United States must commit the scientific manpower and
monetary resources needed to educate the public and provide the
appropriate protection to the Nation's environmental and
physical health. If the Government develops a high-level
nuclear waste disposal site, then the proper precautions must
be in place to safeguard the transportation of spent fuel from
across the country and to protect the area surrounding the
repository from radiation exposure. What is the status of Yucca
Mountain?
The over-arching issue of nuclear proliferation has been
around for decades. The United Nations and other world
organizations have been vigilant and aggressive in monitoring
non-civil applications of nuclear energy. The United States
should remain responsible and conscientious in this regard.
On another thought, this is an issue regarding uranium and
plutonium in domestic use. What about the accidents that could
come about or a terrorist attack? The potential catastrophic
nature of an accident at a nuclear power plant makes this a
very serious concern and needs much debate. The last major
accident in the United States was at Three Mile Island,
Pennsylvania, in 1979.
The general feeling of improved safety and acceptable
standards in current operations is commendable. However, in
March 2002, leaking boric acid produced a large hole in the
nuclear reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in
Ohio. The corrosion left only a quarter-inch-thick stainless
steel inner liner to prevent a potentially dangerous loss of
reactor cooling water. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must
hold the nuclear industry to the highest standards in order to
prevent such problems. How safe is the industry, especially
with no new construction in the last 30 years? These are issues
that have to be debated.
All commercial nuclear power plants licensed by the NRC
have a series of physical barriers to accessing the nuclear
reactor area and are required to maintain a trained security
force to protect them. America presents a prime terrorist
target on a site that contains radioactive materials. Following
the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, the NRC began a
review to improve defenses against terrorist attack. What has
been done to prevent terrorism? And is it enough?
So, Mr. Chairman, it is very foresighted of you to call
this hearing today, and I look forward to hearing from the rest
of the witnesses. I am sorry I was late, but I am sure that you
can address some of the questions that I raise. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dianne E. Watson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.028
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
And I would note that Representative Brian Higgins of New
York has joined us, and each has said that they will
incorporate their opening statements into the round of
questioning.
So with that, Dr. Moore, we look forward to hearing your
remarks.
And I will remind all the members, I guess for the next
panel, too, your entire written statement will be put into the
record, so you may use it or abbreviate it or add to it as you
see fit. We know that your wealth of knowledge is not on that
piece of paper, but in your years of experience.
Thank you, Dr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK MOORE
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am a Canadian citizen born and raised on
Northern Vancouver Island, in a tiny fishing and logging
village, and was sent off to boarding school in Vancouver at
age 14, where I soon learned city ways, and ended up at the
University of British Columbia eventually, studying the life
sciences. I studied biology, biochemistry, genetics, forestry,
agriculture. But then I discovered ecology, a subject that not
many people knew about at that time, in the late 1960's, and I
realized that I had discovered something that was going to
change my life. And, as I put it, I became a born again
ecologist, because it taught me how all living things are
interrelated and how we are related to them.
While doing my Ph.D. in ecology in 1971, I joined a small
group of people in a church basement in Vancouver, and we
planned a protest voyage against U.S. hydrogen bomb testing in
Alaska. The United States was conducting underground hydrogen
bomb tests at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians.
We sailed a leaky old boat across the North Pacific and
provided a focal point for media attention to opposition to the
tests. When that H-bomb was detonated in November 1971 at
Amchitka, it was the last hydrogen bomb the United States
exploded. There were more atomic tests after that, but
President Nixon, at the height of the cold war and the height
of the Vietnam War, canceled the remaining tests in the series
due to overwhelming public opposition. This was the birth of
the organization Greenpeace.
I spent the next 15 years full-time in the top committee of
Greenpeace, as we took on campaigns around the world: against
French atmospheric nuclear testing in the South Pacific; we
confronted the Soviet factory whaling fleets in the North
Pacific; we confronted the Canadian seal slaughter off the East
Coast of Canada; we took on toxic wastes and nuclear wastes;
and uranium mining; and kangaroo slaughtering; an amazing
number of issues over a 15-year period, at the end of which, of
the 15 years I was in Greenpeace, we had grown from the church
basement to a group with $100 million a year coming in and
offices in 21 countries. I felt we had largely accomplished our
task by this time, the mass public awareness of the importance
of the environment, and for me it was time to make a change. I
had been against about three or four things every day of my
life for 15 years. I decided I would like to be in favor of
something for a change.
I made the transition from the politics of confrontation,
telling people what they should stop doing, to trying to figure
out what we should do instead, because, after all, over 6
billion of us wake up every morning on this planet with real
needs for food, energy, and materials. Sustainability, which I
believe is the next logical step after environmental activism,
is about continuing to provide for those needs, maybe even
getting some more things for the people in the developing
countries, while at the same time reducing our negative
environmental impact. I believe this is one of the most
important points around how we move forward in continuing to
provide our civilization with the things it needs to survive
every day: that we can continue to have civilization and reduce
negative impacts.
A lot of environmental thinkers, Paul Ehrlich and his
school of thought, they contend that automatically the more
people there are and the more stuff they use everyday, the more
negative impact there will be on the environment. This is not
the case. It is possible to change the way we obtain the
material and energy we need, while at the same time reducing
our negative impact. That is basically the definition of
sustainable development in many ways.
Back in the mid-1980's, not all my former colleagues saw
things that way as I moved into sustainability and consensus.
Environmental extremism arose at that time for two distinct
reasons. First, because most of the public now agreed with all
of the reasonable things we were saying in the environmental
movement, the only way to remain adversarial and anti-
establishment was to adopt ever-more unreasonable positions,
eventually abandoning science and logic altogether in zero
tolerance policies that we see today, nuclear energy being one
of them, genetically modified foods being another one. Policies
of zero tolerance in areas where there is actually tremendous
potential for environmental and human welfare improvement.
So I diverged from this approach, which ended up, in my
estimation, with a movement that is, to a considerable extent,
just plain anti-civilization. They are anti-globalization; they
are basically anti-capitalist; they are anti-business, anti-
science, anti-technology. There is too many antis for me. As I
say, I was against things for a long enough time that I wanted
to be in favor of something.
There is this kind of naive vision of returning to some
kind of utopian Garden of Eden, that actually never existed in
the first place, conveniently forgetting that just 100 years
ago the average person's life was 35 years in this world. And
the tremendous advances that have been made in all areas since
then is why our life span is so much longer now, and one of
those, of course, is in energy.
What does environmental extremism have to do with nuclear
energy? I believe the majority of environmental activists--and
I would include Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Rainforest
Action Network, the NRDC, and many of the others--have now
become so blinded by their extremist policies that they fail to
consider the enormous and obvious benefits of harnessing
nuclear power to meet and secure America's growing energy
needs. I believe these benefits far outweigh the risks.
As mentioned earlier, nuclear supplies 20 percent of U.S.
electrical energy today. If no more nuclear plants are built,
that will be cut in half just in the next few years. And it is
virtually certain that the only technically feasible path, if
nuclear is not built, is greater reliance on fossil fuels than
we have today. I can't see any analysis that shows any other
way than that we would have more reliance on coal, oil, and
natural gas in the future than we do today, and I believe it is
becoming a rather untenable position even at the present time.
In a ``business as usual'' scenario, that is, no more
nukes, a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
would be impossible. An investment in nuclear energy could go a
long way to reducing this reliance on fossil fuels, and could
actually result in reduced CO2 emissions.
According to the Clean Air Council, annual fossil fuel-
fired power plant emissions are responsible for 36 percent of
all the CO2 emitted in the United States, and coal-
fired plants account for 88 percent of the CO2 being
emitted from the entire power industry.
One of the most interesting events that is occurring now is
that a number of prominent environmentalists are changing their
position on nuclear energy.
I have to say, Mr. Chairman, in my whole time in
Greenpeace, and since then to date, over 30 years, I have never
changed my position on a single major policy area other than
nuclear energy. I am portrayed sometimes as someone that has
gone over to the other side, the dark side or whatever. It is
not as if I am advocating the resumption of hydrogen bomb
testing or whale slaughtering. I still hold true to all the
positions I held when I was in Greenpeace. Those positions that
I disagree with them on today are either ones that they have
adopted since I left, in 1986, or they are nuclear issues like
this; it is the only one I really changed.
But I am not the only one who is changing their opinion.
Stewart Brand, a prominent philosopher and thinker, the founder
of the Whole Earth Catalog that we all used as a bible when we
went back to the land in the 1970's, has come out with a very
important essay in the May 2005 issue of Technology Review, in
which he says the environmental movement has to change their
position on nuclear energy, among other things.
My acquaintance and friend, James Lovelock, the Gaia
theorist, has also come out saying that nuclear is the only
solution to reducing CO2 emissions. He says,
``Civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear,
the one safe available energy source, or suffer the pain soon
to be inflicted by our outraged planet.''
While I might not be so strident as my friend, Lovelock, it
is clear that whatever risk there is from increased
CO2 levels in the atmosphere--and there may be
considerable risk--it can be offset by an emphasis on nuclear
energy.
Nuclear energy is a proven alternative and now provides
over 75 percent of the U.S.' emission-free generation. The bulk
of the other emission-free generation is hydroelectric.
Again, back to environmental extremism. If you poll many of
these environmental groups, including Greenpeace, you will find
that they are against coal-fired power plants, they are against
nuclear plants, and they are against building new hydroelectric
projects, and are even proposing to tear some of the existing
ones down. If you take coal, nuclear, and hydro, and add them
together, you have nearly the whole energy supply for the
United States. So, therefore, it is completely unrealistic to
be against all of these things. We do have to choose winners.
I must say, just in concluding, that even though I have
said and have been quoted on numerous occasions, I believe
this: ``Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas emitting
energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and
satisfy global demand.'' That said, however, I want to make it
very clear that there should also be a much greater emphasis on
renewable energy production.
I believe the two most important of these, along with
hydro, which is already established as an important source, are
wind energy, which actually has far more potential than hydro
on a global basis for electrical production; and ground source
heat pumps, also known as geothermal or GeoExchange. In
particular, when non-CO2-emitting electrical
sources, such as wind, hydro, or nuclear, are tied with ground
source heat pumps for heating and cooling and providing hot
water in all of our buildings, tremendous reduction of
CO2 and fossil fuel consumption can be realized.
A combination of nuclear, geothermal, and wind could
actually bring the United States in line with the Kyoto
Protocol, whether or not the United States signs that treaty.
I think that concludes my remarks.
Oh, just one more thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Issa. Absolutely.
Mr. Moore. Just on the issue of accidents. It is true that
Chernobyl was a terrible accident, but I characterize it as the
exception that proves the rule that nuclear energy is generally
safe. There are 434 reactors operating around the world as we
speak. Chernobyl is the only really bad accident that has ever
happened, and it was an accident waiting to happen. It had no
containment structure, it was badly designed, it was badly
operated, and badly maintained.
And Three Mile Island, which has been mentioned, I actually
consider a success story, because the radiation was contained
even in the event of what was nearly the worst possible thing
that could happen in there, which was a partial meltdown of the
reactor core. The radiation from the core was contained in that
reaction and did not come out like it did in Chernobyl. Of
course, since Three Mile Island we have learned even more. So I
don't think the safety issue is an obstacle to moving ahead.
One other point: the nuclear proliferation point. These
have to be taken as two separate issues, the issues of nuclear
energy and the issues of nuclear proliferation. It is apparent
that actually the main technologies that have resulted in the
most combat deaths in this world in recent years are machetes,
rifles, and car bombs. No one would seriously suggest banning
machetes, guns, cars, or the fertilizer and diesel oil that are
used to make the explosives in car bombs. These have to be
looked at as separate issues; we can't simply say no nuclear
power because the byproducts of it can be made into deadly
weapons.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.036
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Dr. Moore.
As is my policy, I will waive my opening questions until
all the other panel members have theirs, but I will tee up the
discussion with just two items: one, in concert with yours, Dr.
Moore, no person in the United States has ever died in a
civilian nuclear power accident, period, including Three Mile
Island, which cannot be said, obviously, for everyone driving
gasoline, oil, and all the other petrochemicals down the road;
nor can it be said either of liquified natural gas or
refineries, all of which have had fairly spectacular loss of
lives over the years.
Last, it is estimated that had the United States built all
the nuclear power plants which were on order in the late
1970's, when they all became canceled directly as a result of
Three Mile Island, we would presently be in Kyoto compliance.
And I personally strongly suggest that had we already been in
Kyoto compliance, the willingness of Congress to ratify Kyoto
might have been dramatically greater than when we were on a
collision course for no such opportunity.
With that, I would recognize the ranking member for her
questions.
Ms. Watson. Dr. Moore, I certainly appreciate your
viewpoint and your input. There are several questions that come
up in my mind. We certainly are interested in alternative
energy power and fuels. I just returned from Qatar a few weeks
ago, the emir told us that we have enough natural gas to
furnish every single home in America for the next 100 years.
And I thought if they have our natural resources, they have the
power. And their question, the week-long that we were there,
was we want to be treated like equals; and they were talking
about democracy and so on and so forth.
But what strikes me is that our energy needs rest in other
places. So I am very interested in what we can develop as
energy sources here that would not pollute our environment and
destroy our planet. I believe in global warming; I have seen
the climate change in Los Angeles, my home. We had the largest
rainfall ever in the last few months, larger than what we have
in a cumulative 15 years or so.
In saying all that, I heard you speak of your background
with Greenpeace. I think what they do is one thing; what they
believe in is another. I don't like their tactics; I don't
think you have to destroy to get the point over. I am hoping
that you can share with us what they believe are other sources
of energy, rather than the fossil fuel that we have been so
dependent on that comes from the Middle East, where we are
having tremendous problems at the current time, at a tremendous
cost. What is it that we can use?
I heard you talk about wind power and so on. I really am
looking at nuclear energy and, as you say, it has been a real
tsunami of a change with you, and just by the fact that I am
saying this it is a real change with me too. But we are going
to have to have some source of energy where we don't have to go
change a whole nation's politics to get what we need. Then I
look at Greenpeace, who is trying to save the environment and
save the planet.
What is it that you see, what is it that they see, what is
it that we can see as sources of fuel for the future? Can you
go into that? What are their winning proposals? I don't like
their destructive ones. What are their winning proposals?
Mr. Moore. Thank you. Unfortunately, one of the great
distractions in the debate around renewable energy is the focus
on solar voltaic panels, the solar panels that go on a roof.
They are all show and no go in many ways. They are very techy
looking, they give the impression that you are a green person.
They show up because they are on top of your roof.
Whereas, just to give a couple of facts, $20,000 invested
in solar panels in this part of the world brings about $100 to
$120 worth of electricity into your house per year. So you get
a $120 return per year on a $20,000 investment. This is why
they have to be so heavily subsidized before anybody will put
them on the roof.
If you invest that same $20,000 in a ground source heat
pump for your home, you get $1,300 equivalent worth of energy.
But it is in your basement, where nobody can see it, and the
pipes that it uses to get the energy out of the ground are
buried in the ground where no one can see them, so it is not a
symbol of your commitment to renewable energy and it doesn't
have the same appeal. It is sort of the same thing as with
automobiles, where 90 percent of it is psychological about what
kind of car you want to drive.
So solar has really distracted people. I have a solar
system in a little place I go to down in Mexico because there
is no electricity into this little town, and it does make
sense, when you are off the grid, to use solar energy. But it
costs about 10 times as much as normal electrical power does;
whereas, wind energy is now becoming reasonably close, in terms
of competitiveness, with conventional electrical production. So
we should be focusing on wind.
Between the two of them, Germany and Denmark produce 50
percent of the world's wind energy. Now, they certainly don't
have 50 percent of the world's wind in those two little
countries.
Now, some people would argue that they put too much of it
in, that it is not cost-effective, but General Electric is now
making 5 megawatt wind turbines, individual turbines that
produce 5 megawatts each. It doesn't take that many of them to
start producing a substantial amount of power. And a lot of
coal-fired generation companies are actually investing in wind
as a way of diversifying their energy portfolio. So there is
tremendous potential there.
Back to ground source heat pumps. This is the key to making
our electricity more efficient in terms of heating and cooling
our homes, and getting rid of the peaks and valleys in our
electrical requirements so you don't need so much base load.
See, ground source heat pumps could heat, cool, and provide the
hot water for every single structure in the world. You can get
heat out of permafrost in Alaska in order to heat a building.
This is stored solar energy that is in the top of the earth.
Ms. Watson. How far down do you have to go?
Mr. Moore. You put pipe in the ground 8, 10 feet deep;
sometimes, if you drill down, you go 50 feet or more. But
basically you put pipe in the ground, circulate water through
it, and bring the heat of the ground into your house and
magnify it with a heat pump. It is actually the same technology
as is used in refrigeration and freezing. Your refrigerator is
a heat pump. I don't know if you notice, when you put your hand
at the back of it, there is hot air coming out of it.
Most people don't know where that hot air is coming from,
they think it is coming from the motor. It is actually coming
from inside the fridge. That is how the fridge gets the heat
out of the inside, is by pumping it out and pumping it into the
room.
Whereas, if you think of your house as a big fridge, with
ground source heat pumps, you can take the heat out of the
ground and pump it into your house, or you can take the heat
out of your house and pump it back into the ground. It is
available technology. Actually, many military bases are being
retrofitted with this under the mandate for the 10-year
payback. Lots of people are installing it, but it is nowhere
near as large a program as it could or should be.
And combined with nuclear energy, wind energy, hydro
energy, and all the other non-CO2-emitting sources
of energy, both renewables and nuclear, combined with that, we
could cut CO2 emissions by so much more than even
Kyoto would require. And none of this is pie-in-the-sky. There
are two factories producing over 100 million--a conglomerate.
Two factories, one in Fort Wayne, IN, which is Water Furnace
International, and one in Oklahoma City, Climate Master,
producing these heat pumps on a mass scale in factories, and
people are installing them.
I understand President Bush and Vice President Cheney both
have ground source heat pump systems in their homes. President
Bush's ranch in Texas, I believe. I am told this by the heat
pump people, so I assume it is true.
I wish more emphasis would be put on these technologies
which are actually feasible, rather than so much emphasis--
California nearly passed a mandate for solar panels to be
required on all new residential construction. At least that got
beat back. It is just a big waste of money if you are on the
grid. There are so many other things you can do, whether it is
insulating your home or putting in a ground source heat pump.
There are so many better ways to invest that money--that is a
real waste.
Instead, California has now got, what is it, the million
solar homes program? Now they are subsidizing putting the solar
panels on to such an extent that people will do it. You
practically have to buy these things for people to get them to
want to put them on their roofs. And that is the route they are
going, instead of going in a more cost-effective way.
As I say, solar panels are great for niche applications
off-grid, but I call them the world's most expensive roofing
tiles, and I believe that is a fair description.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Ms. Watson. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. With that, I recognize Mr. Westmoreland for his
round of questioning.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank you for holding this hearing. It is very timely that we
just got through passing the energy bill.
Let me say that, being from Georgia, we get 27 percent of
our power from nuclear plants, and it is not near that
percentage of the coal-fired, fossil fuel plants that we have
in Georgia. And I hope that 1 day, starting today, that we can
look at--because our needs are going to be great. Our economy
is growing, our State is growing. Our needs are going to
greatly increase, and I hope that we can look at doing some
more nuclear facilities in Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my opening remarks, if
I could, for the record.
Mr. Issa. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Lynn A. Westmoreland
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.039
Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Moore, I want to compliment you for
the things that you have said today about the nuclear power. I
am in the building business, and I do agree with you on the
geothermal. But I promise you that before long the
environmentalists will be saying something about having that
much pipe in the ground. Trust me.
And I know we didn't want to get into a geothermal
discussion, but you are dead on with that because of the energy
savings, but heat pumps are becoming more and more efficient.
You can get an 17 to 23 SAER rating now on some of those heat
pumps.
But the windmill, you know, they need to come up with some
other kind of design rather than the windmill type of design,
because I don't know that they would ever be aesthetically
pleasing to have as many as you would need to create the
electricity to supply a neighborhood. I understand that they
are doing it in other countries, but I just don't know if that
would ever be possible, at least in my area, coming from where
I am from.
You are dead on on the solar panels also. That was a big
thing when we were in the building business 20 years ago, and
it just caused a lot of roof leaks is basically what those
solar panels caused.
But I would like to see us look at not only this nuclear
option, but look at doing, on a State-to-State basis--and it
might be something for you to do--giving tax credits for people
who will seal up and use envelope type insulation packages,
geothermal higher SAER rating equipment to cool and heat these
houses, because it takes a tremendous amount of energy.
Mr. Chairman, my last comment is that I have been looking
over the cost of these nuclear plants, but with the amount of
demand that is going to be on electricity and the amount of
increase it is going to take in the infrastructure of our grid
system right now--because I think our grid systems are not in
the best shape that they could be, as evidenced by some of the
blackouts that we had up in the northeast--that when you look
at the amount of work and the new grid that would have to be
put on, I think that we are not that far out of line with the
nuclear additions. And as you have here, as the plants that we
build, we become more and more competitive with them.
Also, the ranking member was talking about the safety
aspects of it. We can learn a lot from the European countries
as far as what they are doing, but I think our technology is so
far advanced now from where it was when we built the original
nuclear plants that it is definitely something we need to do,
and I hope, by the chairman having this hearing, that we will
not only sit here and talk about these things, but we will
actually do something to further the building of these nuclear
power plants.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
I have good news and bad news. The good news is it is only
one vote. The bad news is we will stand adjourned for about 15
minutes, until we go over and come back and renew questioning.
I know our committee structure will support any cost of coffee
or soft drinks you would like to have while we are gone.
With that, we stand recessed.
[Recess.]
Mr. Issa. One nice thing about being chairman, if you can
be patient to get your questions in, you will get your
questions in. I will now recognize myself for as much time as I
will consume--there will be Members coming back here shortly--
and I have a list of them.
First of all, Mr. Jones, would it be all right for us to
include your entire study in the record? You have no
objections? I would like to have it submitted in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.072
Mr. Issa. Additionally, I would like to have yesterday's
remarks by President Bush put in the record, since he helped
set up our meeting with his efforts.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.078
Mr. Issa. I am not sure that officially we coordinated, but
it certainly was timely.
With that, I would like to lead off with my first question.
And probably, Dr. Moore, I suspect I have a lot of questions
for you, but I am going to go to our other two from the
standpoint of equal time. You are looking a little lonely
there. This is both for Fertel and Jones.
The blend of financial incentives that you talked about in
your study that is up here, the President's proposal was for
four nuclear power plants to be funded. When I look at the
eight, I can certainly see where you get down to eight, you are
down to 3.2 cents per kilowatt hour, to put it in the
ratepayer's terms, which means it is competitive with fossil
fuel, without accounting for the advantages to zero emissions
generation.
It seems your study concluded that you needed to get to
eight. Are you and the President talking essentially two
different visions of the same thing, getting us through those
what we used to call non-recurring expenses?
Can you characterize where there may be common ground or
whether there is a difference of four power plants between the
proposals?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. The President and I seem to be
speaking off the same page. In Table 1, right here to my right,
your left, by the time we get down to the fourth or fifth
plant, we are well within the competitive range with fossil
generation. So the President and the Chicago study are in
perfect agreement on that number.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Fertel.
Mr. Fertel. I think, Mr. Chairman, first of all, the
President's discussion yesterday, which we welcome--and this is
about the fifth time since the State of the Union he has spoken
out positively on nuclear energy, which is clearly very
encouraging to us.
Mr. Issa. The first time he did it timely for my hearing,
though.
Mr. Fertel. We thought he did it intentionally for your
hearing. We thought you had orchestrated that, and really
appreciated the timing.
What the President said yesterday, he actually talked less
incentives for these four plants than a risk insurance, which
is something that the chief executive officers, because of the
experience they had in the previous licensing process, have
raised with Secretary Bodman and with the White House a number
of times now as something that they felt was very important.
And to be honest, if you demonstrated the licensing process
worked on four plants--put aside the economic incentives--we
think that you would have a track record that would give both
the financial community and the boards of directors the
confidence that the licensing process is disciplined.
We are actually pretty optimistic the licensing process, as
it is being reshaped, will be not only protective of health and
safety, but actually pretty reasonable in how you implement it.
But it hasn't been demonstrated. So I think that four plants
for that is clearly a very adequate demonstration. And I think
that as Don pointed out, we think you get pretty economic
pretty fast these days.
Mr. Issa. Excellent. I will also ask that a poll done in my
own district, at government expense, which shows approximately
80 percent of my constituents favor adding an additional
reactor where we have two working reactors at San Onofre. And I
will provide that in the next 5 days so it gets in the record.
That doesn't mean that there aren't 20 percent who didn't say
yes, but certainly I don't get 80 percent in my district, so I
always assume it is an awfully good sign when something is more
popular than I am.
Sticking to our nuclear experts, per se, on production, the
President yesterday seemed to be talking about Generation 3.5,
and not Gen 4. Could you characterize the differences and the
advantages? Because I think you are talking Gen 3.5 here too.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.079
Mr. Fertel. Our current reactors, if you sort of just
baselined them and said that the 103 operating reactors we have
today are Gen 3, if you just took that as a baseline--and let
me go first out to Gen 4, which is a program that the
Department of Energy has ongoing right now, and has been
ongoing for probably about 5 or 6 years. It is looking at both
new advanced fuel cycles, liquid metal fuel cycles, high
temperature gas fuel cycles, and reactors that will be
commercial. It may vary in people's minds, but their commercial
timing is probably in the 2030, 2040 timeframe, for really
commercializing the reactors.
So, for instance, our Nation is looking to move ahead in
Gen 4 space to build a very high temperature gas reactor,
helium being the gas that they are talking about. And it has
some very significant advantages if you make it work right.
First, it is a high enough temperature that you can actually
produce hydrogen chemically with it, so it is a good source for
producing hydrogen.
It also is very efficient because of the high temperature,
so rather than the 30 to 32 percent efficiency for producing
electricity today, you might get as high as close to 50
percent. It also has the potential, because of the way you
would design your fuel, that you could never melt the fuel, so
you could never have the type of accident you protect against
from our current reactors, so it moves down that road. But that
is a Gen 4 type reactor, and we are doing that internationally
with other folks.
Mr. Issa. Is it also true--I am terrible with these leading
questions--that helium type production would also be able to be
put completely underground?
Mr. Fertel. Actually, the General Atomics design is below
ground, that is true. That is true. You could design it that
way. Or, again, you could design it aboveground, as they are
looking at for some of what they call pebble bed reactors.
Mr. Issa. I only ask that because obviously in our other
hearings we are constantly dealing with the question of
terrorism and airplanes strikes and so on.
Mr. Fertel. The Gen 3.5 is actually--you can think of Gen
3.5 in two types of designs that basically exist today, and in
fact are operational in some countries. One design is what we
call an evolutionary design; it is taking our current plants
and moving them to where technology is right now. So I have
gone to digital systems rather than analog systems. I have
taken everything I have learned on my current plants and moved
it both from a technology and operational perspective going
forward. I have also done a bunch of things that are smarter in
how I am going to maintain my plant for operational activities,
so what I have learned when I have run into interferences in
lay-down areas, I have now built it in so it is better.
So it is an evolutionary design. It doesn't take the
technology at all, it is still a light/water reactor design, it
works the same as my current plants, it is just moved along in
technology to where we are today or where we think we can be,
and it has taken up all the lessons learned from the operation
of current plants.
The other Gen 3.5 that we have is we have moved to what we
call passive designs. We call both of these advanced light/
water reactors. We did message testing and passive designs,
which the engineers thought was great. Passive design is if I
can move the water by gravity rather than a pump and motor, why
don't I do that? So if I need water to get to here, rather than
pumping it from here to here, why don't I have it flow downhill
to that? Pretty simple.
Mr. Issa. Meaning a pump failure is no longer a
catastrophic failure.
Mr. Fertel. That is right. One, I eliminate equipment, so I
save some money because I don't need as much equipment; and,
two, I decrease the failure modes from a safety standpoint. So
basically you have gone to passive designs for moving water
around or for heat convection.
Now, I was kidding on passive, because the engineers
thought passive was great. We did message testing with the
public, and the public's reaction to passive was it sounded
like it didn't do anything when it got into trouble and, oh my
God, that sounds terrible. So we had to drop passive.
Mr. Issa. So it is now called self-healing?
Mr. Fertel. We will try that one. We just call it advanced.
But that is what you have in 3.5, you have an evolutionary
design, then you have a design that is basically trying to
eliminate failure modes and equipment if I can do it through
any sort of natural processes. And both of those designs right
now are being licensed or have been licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The evolutionary design is actually
operating in Japan; they have two large General Electric
advanced boiling water reactors operating in Japan right now.
Mr. Issa. One followup question on that line, which is we
are known in America for being the most eclectic nuclear
producer; we have no two plants that you can walk into that
look alike. And I know from safety studies that has been one of
the problems. You train for the plant you are at because we
built them one off in most cases. Would this 3.5 provide, if
you will--and this is terrible to say--the airbus type cockpit,
to where people and inspectors would have significant
improvement in the ability to learn one, inspect, or operate
all?
Mr. Fertel. The very short answer is yes. The whole intent
going forward is to sort of implement the French model, which
is standardized families of plants, and basically say if I am
going to build the advanced boiling water reactor or, in this
case, the economic simplified boiling water reactor, which is
what they are marketing in our country, you would build a
family of those, they would be identical.
If I were an operator at one and the chairman was an
operator at another one, it wouldn't matter which control room
we walked into. Same thing on maintenance, and even going down,
if we could, we would like to keep the equipment standardized,
to the degree we could, so that you could basically have common
inventory and safe money on supplies.
Your observation on our industry, which I did grow up in in
a bit, it was sort of the American way, because in France they
had----
Mr. Issa. The American way before Henry Ford.
Mr. Fertel. I mean, in France you had one electricity
company, you had one reactor supplier, you had one fuel
supplier, and they were all owned by the government. So when
the government made a decision you should do something,
everybody kind of marched to the same road. In our case,
basically every utility wanted something slightly different
than their brethren, and every supplier saw those as out of
scopes. So capitalism here created a myriad of different plant
designs.
But, no, the answer to your question is going forward we
are doing to go with standardized designs.
Mr. Issa. Excellent.
One more question that I had which was peripheral, but you
touched on it. The 2025, 2030, 2040, about the time we want to
be a hydrogen economy, the next generation, Gen 4, produces
significant amounts of hydrogen. How significant is that? What
does it really relate to from a standpoint of providing it as a
fuel or for other industrial uses?
Mr. Fertel. You mean as far as the nuclear role in that?
Mr. Issa. Right. If we were to begin rolling out that next
generation, let us just say in 2020, and ramp up to where, by
2050, that was the standard, these more efficient, and it were
producing our entire base load, how much hydrogen would it
produce that theoretically is going to be used for driving
automobiles?
Mr. Fertel. I don't know quantitatively the answer, but
what I can tell you is you won't use the plant for dual
purposes, in all likelihood. You would probably build the high
temperature gas reactors that would produce hydrogen for you,
and you would produce high temperature gas reactors that are
going to produce electricity.
There may be certain times where you might be able to use
it for a dual function, but in talking to at least the
Department of Energy folks and the industry folks that are
looking at it, they are saying that if you really are going to
produce hydrogen in the quantities that you are going to need,
you are going to dedicate the plants to doing that.
Likewise, if you are using the plants for electricity, and
the value of the plants for electricity would be they are
smaller; I can build them in increments in a more competitive
electricity market, as opposed to the large plants we build
right now. But it sounds like you would have separate plants.
Though they would be capable of doing both, you probably
wouldn't build them, or at least most of them, to do both.
Mr. Issa. Is there any other practical way to produce the
quantity of hydrogen necessary to move our entire fleet of
automobiles and trucks on hydrogen? Is there any other
practical way to do it?
Mr. Fertel. The other practical way is you are basically
using fossil fuels to split them to get hydrogen, and then you
are burning. It is sort of counterproductive to produce
emissions to reduce emissions. So we don't think so. There are
honestly people at the national labs who aren't sure that even
using nuclear to produce hydrogen is the right thing, that is
the answer to our problem; not the nuclear, but the hydrogen.
But clearly in talking with folks, if we are going to
produce large quantities of hydrogen, nuclear seems to be a way
that we should seriously look at trying to do it, and I think
that is why our Government has decided that the Gen 4 reactor
they want to look at is the very high temperature, because they
see the dual value, and that is why the Idaho folks want to see
a reactor built there to try and begin to demonstrate its use
in that mode.
Mr. Issa. And, Dr. Moore, as an expert on this whole
sustainability question, how do you see that playing, as far as
looking, to a great extent, beyond our careers, into the 2040
timeframe? Is this sensible or, as you were so good in pointing
out, if not this, then what? Is there an ``or what'' that you
can see on the horizon?
Mr. Moore. Well, again, I haven't done the math thoroughly
on it, but it is very obvious to me that there is no other non-
CO2-emitting form of energy that you could make that
much hydrogen with. I mean, it would take a lot of nuclear
plants to make enough hydrogen to replace all of the fossil
fuel in the transport fleet.
The other option is that hybrid technology will come in and
be with us for 40 or 50 years before there is a change to
another technology from that. That is another possibility.
Another possibility is that someone will eventually invent a
battery or electrical storage device where then you could use
the nuclear energy to charge the vehicle directly, rather than
having to make hydrogen.
It is not just the making of the hydrogen that is
technically difficult with the idea of going to a hydrogen
fleet. Then you have to distribute it. It is very corrosive.
Then you have to figure out how to get enough of it into an
automobile to make it go 300 miles. And they still haven't
figured that out yet. GM is experimenting with 10,000 psi
tanks, and you still can't get enough in there and still have
room for your suitcase in your car. So there are quite a few
technical obstacles besides the manufacturing of the hydrogen.
But once again, as with power generation, there is no other
technology that we know of today that can make the kind of dent
in fossil fuel reliance that we are thinking about in terms of
both CO2 emissions, air pollution, and energy
security, reliance on offshore sources. Nothing else that I
know of could do that.
Actually, in the break we had a discussion about
conservation. I know that subject was mentioned fairly high up
in the President's speech yesterday, and, of course, that has
to be a central part of a comprehensive energy policy. I know
that is not what we are here to talk about today, but just to
go on record----
Mr. Issa. Dr. Moore, we wouldn't have invited you if we
didn't want to be complete in dealing with nuclear versus
alternatives, so please feel free to elaborate.
Mr. Moore. Conservation is an across-the-board thing, it
doesn't matter how you are producing the electricity--and in
all other energy areas as well--it doesn't matter what your
fuel is, the issue of conservation has to do with efficient
use. For example, we could probably turn half the lights off in
here, nearly all of them, and open up the curtains and conserve
the electricity that is being used to light this room right
now.
Mr. Issa. They don't trust Congressmen in the dark.
Mr. Moore. They do in the light?
Mr. Issa. Well, forewarned is forearmed.
Mr. Moore. But suffice it to say that conservation is a
very important part of this whole thing, and that the United
States is not exactly the world's leader in conservation of
energy.
Mr. Issa. Although I will mention that California is the
Nation's leader in conservation of energy.
One question I have, nuclear is a great base load because,
as we all know, it doesn't turn on and off quickly. Geothermal
obviously has a little more flexibility, but it is still
inherently a base load. Wind, you get it when you get it;
solar, you get it when you get it. If I go through all the zero
emissions fuels, it would appear that hydro is the only large-
scale zero emissions that is demand-oriented, turns on and off
very quickly.
And each of you could participate in this. If nuclear were
the answer for 100 percent of what its capacity is, how do you
see it fitting in? What is its maximum? We always hear about
France, for example, that believes they are at their maximum,
which is about 80 percent. Where is the maximum for nuclear
before you simply are in that problem that it is a base load
only and peak has to come from some other source?
Mr. Fertel. First of all, just to put our system in
perspective with the French system, the amount of generation we
have from nuclear power plants in this country, the kilowatt
hours that keep the lights on is larger than France and the
next largest nuclear country after them, Japan, combined. So
going to what Patrick said, we consume a lot of electricity in
this country.
In France, they actually do load follow. Now, they follow a
load, they basically are either at full capacity or they will
go down as the load goes down. They also export a lot of
electricity, their nuclear electricity, to make money off of it
to other European countries.
I think, in our country, the strength of the system
continues to be the fact that you do have a different
technology. I think you will always--probably not always, but
at least in my lifetime--have combustion turbines for peaking.
You operate them a couple percent a year. So they are there;
they burn a lot of gas when they operate.
I was telling Patrick during the break that if you take a
1,000 megawatt plant--we have built 280,000 megawatts of gas
since 1992 in this country. That is why gas is such a problem.
And we built 14,000 megawatts of coal and nuclear since 1992.
That gives you a perspective of what we have been doing. And if
you take a 1,000 megawatt gas plant, combined cycle, and say it
operates its base load, 1,000 megawatt plant uses as much gas
as 1 percent of the Nation's residential use; 1 percent of the
Nation's residential use. It sucks gas if you use it as a base
load plant. But using it for peaking, it only operates a couple
percent.
So I think, Mr. Chairman, what you would have, at least in
the horizon we look out at--and we support conservation and
efficiency. We as a Nation need to do more, and prices help us
do more in this country. Industry leads that and commercial
follows it, and residential customers lag it. But fundamentally
high prices will drive more conservation and efficiency.
But I think we are going to burn coal. We are going to need
clean coal. I mean, we have loads of coal, 250 years worth of
coal, probably, so we will continue to do it. We have just got
to do it smarter and begin to do less of it.
Nuclear is 20 percent right now. If I had my druthers, we
would grow to probably double that or more. But that is a long
time to do, because we have 900,000 megawatts on this grid. I
mean, it is a monster electricity system in this country. I
mean, it is just huge. And it is sort of the lifeblood of
everything we do in the Nation.
So I think you are going to have, at least for the lifetime
of most of the people we care about and know about today, you
are going to need a mix, and you are going to still use gas,
but you shouldn't use it for anything but peaking. And I
wouldn't even use it for intermediate down the road because I
think it has other more important uses in other processes.
I think that we still need to use clean coal and I think we
should increase renewables and we should increase nuclear.
On renewables, I think the critical thing I mentioned to
Patrick is you need to develop storage. Your comment on wind is
right; you only get electricity when the wind blows. And if you
had some storage techniques, you could have electricity longer.
The only storage technique we could come up with was pump
hydro, which used to be a storage technique if you looked it up
with a hydro facility. But we don't have many new hydro
facilities in this country. So I think you still have a mix.
Mr. Issa. Marvin, in the energy bill there is a pump
storage station for 500 kilowatts.
Mr. Fertel. It is probably megawatts.
Mr. Issa. 500 megawatts, thank you. 500 megawatts twin
turbine in my district. It is the fourth time that I have put
it into a bill. We are going to get there but, in fairness, the
FERC has gone through the process and is in a preliminary
stage. But it is one of those areas where I am very familiar
that the 1,500 feet of rise over a very short period of time
doesn't occur just anywhere.
So the ability to produce it in our Lake Elcinor area is a
pleasant opportunity. It happens to also be exactly the point
where the southern California power outage was caused by a lack
of about half of that much power to be available at peak. And I
always try to make that point.
Yes, please, Patrick.
Mr. Moore. Just a couple points on the demand issue versus
intermittent. One of the problems with the word geothermal,
geothermal refers to two completely separate technologies; it
refers to the type of geothermal you have in California, where
you get down into deep hot vents and you are basically
producing steam to run turbines. Iceland has a big system like
that.
It happened when the Department of Energy in Washington
decided to take on ground source heat pumps, and some people
had already started calling it geothermal or earth energy at
that time. They didn't want to create a new department, so they
lumped ground source heat pumps in with the geothermal
department, so they are both called geothermal. And it was a
big mistake in terms of public understanding, because not only
is all this stuff happening, it is invisible; it is in your
basement and under the ground. But now people are thinking
geothermal, I thought that was what they do in California or
New Zealand or Iceland.
Mr. Issa. Noted. I am going to force myself to change. I
will tell you that I was fortunate enough going to ANWR by
ground vehicle at my own expense. We talked about travel
earlier. I took my family up because I wanted to actually drive
the Tundra and experience it and get a real feel, because it is
a serious consideration to expand into that wildlife and
natural refuge.
But the strange thing is decades ago, when they were
putting in the pipeline above ground, they were faced with the
fact that, with heating and cooling, the pipe would have broken
periodically, except they used ground source heat pumps, zero
electricity consumed. I think it is ammonia-based in their
case--don't hold me to that--but they came up with the whole
concept that exactly when they needed cooling for the ground,
they had a heat source in the air, and vice versa.
So they were able to maintain the permafrost year-round on
the Alaskan pipeline. And the environmentalists who took us on
this trip were very proud that this was a zero outside energy
and environmentally probably the most responsible thing that
they could come up with, in addition to all the other success
stories of the pipeline.
If I can switch for a moment, one of the interesting things
I discovered in preparing for this hearing was the old
expression of swords into plowshares, and how that could relate
to next generation nuclear. I have estimates that just the
weapons grade uranium, not plutonium, that is available and
that the Russians would be happy to sell us, would represent
about 5 years of powering all of our nuclear power plants at
the present time, and obviously we have the benefit of taking
it offline.
And then a followup--since I see Marvin going, yeah, I can
answer this one--if we had Gen 4, which can burn plutonium--and
General Atomics I believe is the one that has this--what would
be your estimate of the value based on the separate plutonium
stockpile, that is also massive?
Mr. Fertel. In 1992 President Bush signed an agreement with
the Russians to basically take 500 metric tons of high-enriched
uranium that they had in warheads. This was not surplus sitting
somewhere, which they also have, apparently, but this was
actually coming out of warheads, so it was actually dismantling
warheads and taking high-enriched uranium out and blending it
down. Basically what we use in power plants is low-enriched
uranium, which is somewhere less than 5 percent enrichment; it
cannot blow up. High-enriched uranium for weapons is well above
92 percent. So you blend it down, you get a lot of nuclear fuel
out of it.
Right now, 10 percent of the electricity in this country is
generated as a result of weapons material in Russia being
dismantled. We get about half the fuel for our reactors coming
from Russia, and that has been going on now and it is going to
go through 2013, then this particular trench of 500 metric tons
ends.
And the question from our industry standpoint is do we get
another trench. We know they have much more weapons material.
They are getting paid for this, this is actually a system where
initially, when it started, it was probably one of the largest
revenue sources Russia was getting. Now, they are a lot more
commercial, they are getting money for selling gas to Europe
and oil to others.
But Megatons to Megawatts is a very successful program
being implemented by USEC, which is a Maryland company here
that used to be part of the Department of Energy, and it is a
really good program. Now, we don't know what they will do with
the rest of their material, whether they will sell it to us,
whether they will use it to sell reactors to other people and
throw it in as a fuel deal----
Mr. Issa. Comes with a full tank of gas.
Mr. Fertel. Comes with a full tank of gas, right. Whatever
they can do. But we know they have a lot more stuff, and it is
important just commercially. And I know the chairman being a
businessman would appreciate this: on our side the industry
that mines uranium, when you get weapons material, you are
basically displacing uranium, you are displacing the conversion
to make it into something else, and then the enrichment part,
because you are getting it as a fuel, you are getting it as a
final product.
Mr. Issa. Kind of like emptying out Fort Knox could depress
the gold market.
Mr. Fertel. That is right.
Mr. Issa. If there was anything left at Fort Knox.
Mr. Fertel. That is right. And also, if you were emptying
it, you probably wouldn't be mining for gold, because you would
know that is coming on the market. Well, that is a problem for
our side because the primary producers need to know if it is
coming so they know what kind of production facilities they
need to build. It is a real issue for making business
decisions.
On plutonium----
Mr. Issa. Marvin, I assume, then, your message for us is we
should be, as soon as possible making that commitment, but we
should also recognize that we wouldn't want to provide 100
percent for 5 years and thus lay off a whole industry.
Mr. Fertel. To be honest, you could even do 100 percent for
5 years in this country. I wouldn't recommend that. What you
need for the business decisions--and, again, I am sure you
understand this--is certainty. You need to know how much is
coming when so that the primary producers can make business
decisions on when they can finance stuff and build it. And we
would advocate the sooner we could get a decision from Russia,
the better off we as a Nation would be in not only getting rid
of weapons material, which is certainly the primary objective,
but in assuring adequate fuel supply.
On plutonium, right now there is a program that the U.S.
and Russia have agreed to to look at disposing of surplus
weapons plutonium. And Duke Energy----
Mr. Issa. That is the MOx program?
Mr. Fertel. That is the MOx program.
Mr. Issa. That is disposal, not power generation.
Mr. Fertel. Well, it is power generation. MOx is mixed
oxide fuel, which is mixing plutonium and uranium to make the
fuel so that I use it in a reactor as fuel. The French use MOx
fuel right now; the Japanese are moving to use MOx fuel. And
what we are doing is have a deal with the Russians to get rid
of weapons plutonium.
And actually, I think the last 2 weeks, what we call lead
test assemblies--which are fuel assemblies with a new fuel that
you haven't tried so you want to put it in a reactor and you
want to test its performance before you actually load a full
core in the reactor--arrived at Duke's Catawba plant, and they
are going to be testing the lead test assemblies, and if all
goes right, they would be licensing the facility to be able to
``use MOx fuel,'' which would be getting rid of plutonium that
the Russians have.
I think the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is anything our
country can do to help get weapons material made more benign
and then put into reactors so you are actually getting rid of
it is probably a very, very good thing for not only our Nation,
but for the world, because it is getting rid of stuff that is
not good stuff to have around. And the more we can push it, the
more better off we would be.
The uranium is probably a bigger problem, to be honest with
you, than the plutonium, because there is more high-enriched
uranium around than there is plutonium.
Mr. Issa. And more all the time being enriched, apparently,
over there.
Any other comments on that round of questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Issa. The President, by talking about nuclear
yesterday--and, as you said, repeatedly since the State of the
Union--is touching on an issue in which there may not be a
majority opposed to it, but the minority, including some of
your old colleagues, Dr. Moore, are pretty active.
Where do you think public opinion is on new nuclear power
plants? I have already stated the result of a professionally
done poll, but obviously only in a district that is familiar
with nuclear. Where do you think public opinion is and will
education, properly done--and I don't mean propaganda, I mean
fair education--would it be helpful to move that to a point in
which nuclear power would be more doable?
And, actually, I would like to start with Dr. Moore,
because you obviously know enough about nuclear to have very
strong opinions on it.
Mr. Moore. Yes. And I don't think you can count on certain
of the environmental groups changing their minds on the
subject. It is a winner for them, for one thing, and it is
along the lines of many of the campaigns these days are
unfortunately basically just scare campaigns, and this is one
that fits very neatly into that category of just making people
afraid, whether it is a Frankenstein foods or PCBs in their
salmon or pesticides in their fruit, or all the other things
where there actually isn't much of a basis to the concern, but
it works to make people afraid. So I think you will see the
campaigns against nuclear energy continue.
But I think the key thing is the placement of the reactors.
If they are placed in existing nuclear facilities, I don't
think you are going to see sufficient opposition to stop it
from going forward, providing everything else is in place to
make it go forward. I don't think it will be stopped by public
opinion. If you try and put in a greenfield nuclear facility,
that might be a different case, because there is a whole new
NIMBY comes into it then.
Mr. Fertel. I agree with Patrick on it certainly being
easier at existing sites. I had mentioned two-thirds of the
plants have either gotten license renewal or filed for it, and
the license renewal process involved public hearings at the
site; and the opposition around sites is really very low. There
is opposition at some sites, and you could probably figure out
where that might be, but most sites you get very strong support
because the people that work at the plant live in the area,
they have lived there for years, they know everybody and they
have developed credibility; and also the political environment
around there has gotten to know the plant.
Mr. Chairman, I have with me--just the stuff I had
brought--a February 2005 perspective on public opinion which I
would----
Mr. Issa. We appreciate it. We will include it in the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1364.083
Mr. Fertel. It supports basically--I had not heard the San
Onofree number that you mentioned, but we have been doing
polling for a long time, and we ask the same questions, so you
can either decide you like our question or you don't like our
question, but we don't gain the question each time we ask it,
so you sort of do get some trend. We have asked the question on
``Do you agree or disagree we should definitely build more
nuclear power plants?'' going back a long way, and just to show
the public does change its mind, back in the 1998-1999
timeframe, basically 49 percent said no and 47 percent said
yes.
When you are out in sort of the timeframe of the end of
last year, what you are getting is 60 percent say yes and 34
percent say no. You see a big switch. And that is because
energy was on their screen for a while. Blackouts get people's
attention; high prices for gasoline get their attention.
Or else, to be honest, I think we, as Americans, take
energy for granted. When we have done focus groups when energy
isn't on the screen and you ask where electricity comes from,
the two most dominant answers are the switch and the outlet. So
if I wanted more energy, I used to have a slide that showed
more switches and outlets, and that is how you got it. Now, if
you probe a little, you do get answers, but the initial answer
is that.
Mr. Issa. My son once said if you want money, you can
either earn it or go to the bank.
Mr. Fertel. That was better than go to dad.
Mr. Issa. I am trying to keep it that way.
Mr. Fertel. The other question--I think it goes to what
Patrick said on NIMBY--is since I think about 2000 we have been
asking a question which says ``Given there was a need for more
electricity, would it be acceptable or unacceptable to you to
build a new nuclear power plant at a site where one exists?''
And what we find on that is that you are in the 60's to 70
percent acceptable, because you have kind of dealt with NIMBY.
If I don't have a plant near me, I can say yes, you should
build it because it is not going to be near me, and if I do
have a plant near me, I am probably understanding of the value
of it.
And I think Americans are pretty responsible when they
understand a need. I think in the abstract we are maybe not as
responsible. But I would put this in: I think, counterintuitive
to what people think, there is a lot more support for nuclear
than is generally recognized.
Mr. Issa. Excellent. I will mention that the nuclear power
plant does a whole lot better than existing or future airports
in my district. For some reason, everyone does believe they can
go somewhere else for an airport.
I want to close with just a question that I think tees up
the question of do we need more nuclear or not. I was born and
raised in Ohio. Natural gas is the fuel of choice in Ohio for
heating our homes, as it is in much of the--well, not the
northeast, but the lands of the western reserve tend to be gas
heavy. Ground source heat pumps are very uncommon in that area.
Electric heat pumps are also considered to be losers, because
electricity historically costs more than just burning natural
gas, even if it is in 17 percent efficient furnaces.
If natural gas continues to go up in price, then it is
obvious. But if we just take sort of the base today, if we
achieve 3.2 cents per kilowatt hour, high efficiency heat
pumps, ground source heat pumps, which always tend to be
augmented with some electricity consumption, does it represent
a viable alternative to home heating with natural gas or other
fossil fuels?
Because we are looking today at a load based on the status
quo, which is Ohio heating with natural gas and using
electricity for lights and air conditioning. If we are looking
at dramatically reducing our dependence on fossil fuel other
than on mobile vehicles, which we don't have a great answer for
today, the next greatest use obviously is the home. In various
heating systems it varies from area.
So I will start with Mr. Jones, if you have an answer, and
I will finish up with Dr. Moore.
Mr. Jones. I don't have an answer on natural gas versus
heat pumps.
Mr. Issa. Marvin.
Mr. Fertel. I think that to think about answering your
question you have to think globally. I mean, one of the things
that we are seeing happening is China and India driving the
price for a lot of things right now--oil, for instance; even we
are concerned about nuclear fuel. As China builds a big
program, they are going to tie up a lot of nuclear fuel.
And I think as the developing nations begin to use more
gas, as Japan uses more gas--it is all going to be LNG because
they don't have any domestic supplies--I think what it is going
to do is drive up the price of gas, as the rest of the world
does their thing. And as you drive up the price for gas, what
we are going to find is you need to go--I mean, electricity and
gas have always had this love/hate relationship on home
heating, and I think that it will probably begin to favor
electricity as the gas prices go up per use worldwide. So that
would be my guess.
Mr. Issa. And, Dr. Moore, I must admit I teed this up for
you primarily because it is a question of sustainability.
Mr. Moore. Well, one way of putting it is it doesn't make
much sense to have a 1,200 degree Fahrenheit flame in your
basement to heat your house up to 72 degrees Fahrenheit.
Mr. Issa. Touche.
Mr. Moore. In other words, we are using a very high form of
energy for what can be accomplished with low-grade energy, and
the energy that is in the surface of the earth around and under
your home is a low-grade energy which is there because 50
percent of the sun's energy is absorbed by the earth, and it is
sitting there waiting to be used; and there is 50 times as much
energy under your house than you are ever going to need to
heat, cool, and provide all your domestic hot water.
So my friend David Hatherton, president of Next Energy
Solutions in Ontario, is the largest distributor of ground
source heat pumps in Canada. He also built with his partner the
Fort Wayne Water Furnace International plant. And I have been
working with Dave for over 12 years on this subject now. There
is no doubt now that as gas prices are going up, more and more
people are choosing to put ground source heat pumps in their
homes. His business is growing an average of 50 percent a year
right now, and that is reflected across the board. So high gas
prices are good for ground source heat pumps.
One of the reasons ground source heat pump sales have been
centered in rural areas, and why the rural electrical co-ops
have been very much involved with ground source heat pumps, is
because often there is no natural gas in these rural areas and
people are using propane and oil. And when you compare ground
source with propane and oil, there is just no comparison; the
ground source is more cost-effective. Compared with gas--until
now at least, as gas prices go up and up--ground source has had
a hard argument because the payback is so much longer, even 10
or 12 years, and the average homeowner won't go for something
like that.
Now, in my estimation, this is purely an issue of human
psychology and nothing to do with real economics, because you
do get a payback with ground source; it does reduce your energy
cost tremendously, because you are getting most of your energy
now more or less for free out of the ground, and all you have
to do is buy the electricity that you need to pump that energy
into your house.
For example, many of us will willingly pay $10,000 or
$20,000 more for an automobile than we really need to in order
to get all of the functions of an automobile, if we want a BMW,
for example, instead of buying a Chevrolet. That happens all
across the country everyday; hundreds of thousands of people
making that decision, when there is absolutely no practical
necessity for it, it is all psychological. People will pay
$20,000, $30,000, $40,000 for a home entertainment system when
an i-pod hooked up to a micro-stereo would do just fine.
Mr. Issa. Especially for those of us with older hearing.
Mr. Moore. Right. But it is hard to get people to make the
decision to invest an extra $10,000 in their home heating,
cooling, and hot water supply, even though that allows them to
say I have a CO2 emissions-free home. And what we
have to do is get people to be as proud of having a
CO2 emissions-free home as they are of having a
pretty car. And I don't know how you achieve that, whether it
is just a fundamental problem with human psychology, but I do
know that it has nothing to do with economics.
Mr. Issa. Well, thank you.
I will close by going on the record and saying that I have
both a Lexus and a Toyota Prius. I want to appeal to both
voters any chance I can.
Mr. Moore. That is very political.
Mr. Issa. Actually, I really love the Prius, it is the
ideal car for here in Washington, DC. All kidding aside, it is
the statement--and, Patrick, you alluded to this all
throughout. We have to use all these sustainable alternatives,
nuclear being the subject du jour, but no question at all that
we can't give up on any of these.
I look forward to having you back, if you will come back as
we progress through this process.
And with that, with unanimous consent, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]