Energy" is likely to be a word much spoken during the next two
weeks
on the Senate floor as Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) strives to
complete work on the long-delayed energy policy bill before the
Senate goes on vacation. One of the provisions of this Senate
legislation would provide federally-backed loan guarantees for up to
half the construction costs of six or seven nuclear power plants.
The workforce to build and operate nuclear facilities was the subject
of a House hearing held last month on university nuclear research and
engineering programs.
The nuclear plant loan guarantee provision was very controversial,
and survived an attempt to remove it from the energy bill on a close
vote of 48 to 50. "No matter how narrow and how hard-fought, it
is a
victory, and it won't get undone," said Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM),
who has worked diligently to promote greater use of nuclear energy.
No nuclear plant has been ordered since the Three Mile Island
accident in the late 1970s, and the Senate vote was seen a major
victory for nuclear energy proponents. Besides the loan guarantees,
S. 14 has other incentives to promote nuclear energy. The
counterpart House bill does not include these provisions. It remains
to be seen if these provisions will make it into the final bill, or
even if there will be a final bill. Democrats are readying hundreds
of amendments for consideration during floor deliberations.
There was far less controversy at a House Science Committee hearing
last month on university nuclear research programs. Energy
Subcommittee Chair Judy Biggert (R-IL) opened this hearing by
declaring, " . . . even as there is renewed interest in nuclear
energy as one of the solutions to the nation's energy problems, there
has been a growing concern that fewer Americans are entering the
nuclear science and engineering field, and even fewer institutions
are left with the capacity to train them." The number of four-year
trained nuclear engineers is at a 35-year low, she said. Up to 30%
of the current nuclear engineering work force could retire in the
next five years. Biggert successfully incorporated a number of
provisions in the House energy bill, H.R. 6, to strengthen
university-based nuclear engineering programs.
The hearing witnesses were drawn from the Department of Energy,
academia, and industry. There was general agreement that the
university programs are important and should be strengthened,
primarily through the support of DOE. Gail Marcus, a Principal
Deputy Director at DOE, acknowledged that university programs and
facilities "do remain at risk," and highlighted a new departmental
program that encourages partnerships between universities, national
laboratories and industry. Another witness commented that electrical
generation from nuclear power could grow from its current national
share of 20% to as much as 60%, and said that the role of university
training is "critical." An industry spokesperson explained
that
there had been a 50% reduction in four-year programs since 1970, with
more than a 50% decline in operating university research and training
reactors since 1980. The news was not all bad, as one witness from
the University of Illinois declared that there had been a "real
turnabout from the low enthusiasm and enrollments of 1990's,"
although another witness spoke of a national shortfall of qualified
faculty.
Other challenges remain. Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) spoke of how he has
fought to maintain funding for the nuclear reactor at the University
of Michigan, "without a great deal of success, frankly. There is
just not a lot of public support." Market concerns are also a
formidable obstacle. Ehlers asked the witnesses if any corporation
was likely to invest $2 billion or more in a new nuclear plant.
While interest was expressed in the Domenici provisions in S. 14, the
witnesses were divided over how likely it would be for private
industry to move forward.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl