Senators Question Why Biden’s ‘Rush to Green Energy’ Is Leaving Nuclear Power Behind

Cooling towers from the Limerick Generating Station, a nuclear power plant in Pottstown, Pa. STAN HONDA/AFP via Getty Images

President Joe Biden is steering U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) investments and inducements into “green energies” to meet his goals of a 100-percent “clean electricity grid” by 2035 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Much of the DOE’s $52 billion Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) budget request implements or enhances carbon-free energy development funded through programs established in 2021’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and 2022’s $437 billion Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The proposed budget and landmark bills, adopted when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress during Biden’s first two years in office, flatten allocations for oil and gas infrastructure and permitting while promoting “renewable energies” such as solar, wind, hydroelectricity, hydrogen, geothermal, and biomass.

But one form of carbon-free energy which already generates nearly 20 percent of the electricity produced in the United States—nuclear energy—appears to get short shrift in DOE’s proposed spending plan.

Nuclear power constitutes half of the carbon-free electricity generation in the United States, according to the DOE, but its FY24 $1.56 billion budget request cuts spending on nuclear power development by more than $210 million, or 12 percent, from this year’s $1.77 billion budget, and nearly $100 million from two years ago.

During a May 3 hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Energy & Water Development Subcommittee, Sens. John F. Kennedy (R-La.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) quizzed DOE Deputy Secretary David Turk about the Biden administration’s tepid support for an energy source it lauds in website statements as a significant component of the nation’s carbon-free future.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) says if the Biden administration is serious about a carbon-free 2050, why is it not funding nuclear power development the same way as renewables? Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times

No Money for ‘Most Reliable Energy Source’

“What you do is what you believe, and in government, what you do and what you believe is where you spend your money,” said Kennedy, noting that DOE’s proposed spending plan boosts funding for fossil fuel energies by 2 percent and for renewables by 39 percent, while slashing funding for the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy.

Investments and breakthroughs in the commercial viability of “green energies” are intriguing and should be pursued, he said.

“We should use technology to make all forms of energy more available, cheap, and abundant,” Kennedy said. “I support green energy. I support nuclear. I support hydrogen. I support hydroelectric energy, geothermal, oil and gas. In terms of trying to provide for a cleaner environment, it is worth pursuing.”

He pulled up the DOE’s nuclear power webpage and read: “Nuclear power is the most reliable energy source and it is not even close.”

Turning to Kirk, Kennedy said, “Says it right on your website, and that is true— especially when it comes to capacity. So how come you are not funding it that way?”

“Because there was a significant amount of funding” in the BIL and IRA for nuclear power programs, [and] “we made thoughtful choices and thoughtful decisions to make sure we had a balanced portfolio across” the energy spectrum, Turk replied.

Hagerty, noting the DOE has determined nuclear energy is two times more reliable than oil and gas, and three times more reliable than wind and solar, asked Turk if the department “considers nuclear power to be clean, sustainable, and carbon-free?”

“Absolutely, and we’ve got a lot of funding, thanks to Congress” in the BIL and IRA for nuclear power development, Turk repeated.

Attendees interact at the Thorium Energy Alliance Conference at the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History in Albuquerque, N.M., on Oct. 13-14, 2022. Scott Medwid

Proposed Bills Could Change Everything

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), the number of nuclear power plants in the United States declined from 104 in 2012 to 55 in December 2022.

Despite this loss of nearly half the number of operating plants in a decade, nuclear power has contributed a steady 20 percent share of the nation’s collective electrical output since 1990.

The 55 nuclear power plants across 28 states include 93 operating commercial reactors and are, on average, 40 years old, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In 2016, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee became the first new U.S. reactor to come online since 1996.

“Why aren’t we building more nuclear power plants?” Hagerty asked.

Turk said the BIL includes a $6 billion Civil Nuclear Credit Program “to extend lifetimes of existing nuclear [plants].”

“My concern is this administration seems to be more focused with pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into wind and solar when we have a serious situation where China controls a lot of the natural resources and a lot of supplies as opposed to a competitive advantage for the United States” in nuclear power, Hagerty said.

There are at least two legislative campaigns matriculating through Congress that could, if adopted, dramatically alter DOE’s budget plans, boost funding for nuclear power development, and revive the nation’s uranium mining and processing industry.

Kennedy is lead sponsor of Senate Bill 947, the Senate companion bill to House Bill 1, the ‘Lower Energy Costs Act’ introduced by House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), and adopted in a partisan vote by the House March 30.

SB 947/HB 1 incorporate more than a dozen legislative proposals from House Republicans to “increase domestic energy production, reform the permitting process for all industries, reverse anti-energy policies advanced by the Biden Administration, streamline energy infrastructure and exports, and boost the production and processing of critical minerals.”

The Senate version has been read twice and referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chaired by Biden critic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

Manchin and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo,) have co-filed a proposed Nuclear Fuel Security Act (NFSA), which calls for creation of a national effort to extract, stockpile, and process domestic uranium to secure a “mine-to-market” supply chain within the United States and establish a national reserve of uranium.

The NFSA would authorize $3.5 billion over 10 years for nuclear fuel security and calls upon the DOE to “expeditiously increase domestic production” of both low-enriched uranium (LEU) and high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) to “ensure the availability of domestically produced, converted, enriched, de-converted, and reduced uranium.”

Part of a NuScale small modular nuclear reactor at DOE's Idaho National Lab.  NuScale

Big Small Reactor Opportunity

Noting that nuclear power was invented in the United States, Hagerty said the nation leads the world in nuclear research and innovation, but not so much in actual development and thoughtful use of the energy.

“It’s an area where the United States does possess a lead, an area where [it] can build its own supply chain,” he said, although it will take billions to revive the uranium industry and build more plants.

Right now, American universities and energy corporations are spearheading innovations in small modular reactors (SMRs), which promise to revolutionize energy generation in the coming years.

Kennedy,  Murkowski, and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said DOE’s support for SMR advancement is also lukewarm.

“These advanced small modular reactors have enormous potential. The Department agrees,” according to website statements, Kennedy said, but again is not putting its money where its mouth is.

“Your proposal for funding falls millions upon millions upon millions short” in advancing SMRs.

DOE has been “very supportive of SMR projects across the country,” said Turk, noting the BIL funds SMR demonstration projects.

DOE’s Oak Ridge Lab “has been a leader in this space for quite some time. The quicker we can get these technologies available, the better for Tennessee, the country, and the world,” Turk said.

In an April 3 budget outline, the DOE breaks down the $1.56 billion proposed for its Office of Nuclear Energy into five priorities. Supporting BIL-funded SMR research and development among them.

DOE is requesting $10 million to support NuScale Power’s SMR project at the Idaho National Laboratory. The 50 megawatt-electric power module is the first SMR design certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NuScale Power expects it to be operational by 2029.

There is also $54 million in the budget request for expanded capabilities at DOE nuclear labs to support SMR research, including at Oak Ridge in Tennessee.

Heinrich said those allocations are for preparing labs to work on SMR projects but the budget includes “zero funding for the SMR program” itself.

“The administration should be more aggressively funding this opportunity that is before us,” he said.

“This is an area where we can, and should, be leading,” Murkowski agreed.

DOE is “working as quickly as we can in the small modular reactor program,” Turk said.