On December 15th, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee held a hearing on two pieces of legislation aimed at boosting taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear industry—The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009 ( S. 2052 ) and The Nuclear Power 2021 Act ( S. 2812 ).  The first bill would spend $50 million a year researching how to make new nuclear facilities less expensive while the latter bill would focus on federally subsidizing demonstration small modular reactors. Small modular reactors are nuclear power plants, usually with less than 350 MW of generating capacity.  The Nuclear Power 2021 Act calls for the government to help fund two demonstration projects, one under 50 MW, and the other under 300 MW.  In addition to cost concerns, these reactors can be as small as a room, making them easier to transport while raising significant national security risks.

Committee members attending the hearing largely spoke in support of both bills, with little discussion of taxpayer costs, technology risks, or problems with implementation.  Testimony was heard from Pete Miller , Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy (DOE), Dr. Tom Sanders , President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), Tony Pietrangelo , Senior Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and Michael Johnson , Director of the Office of New Reactors for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

In general, the costs and the impact the legislation would have on federal taxpayers was omitted from the hearing.  Although Dr. Sanders (ANS) did mention the “large up-front costs” of building new nuclear reactors, it was given little attention.  Demand for modular reactors, on the other hand, was one topic that did spark some debate.  Dr. Sanders suggested that US companies should profit from the international demand for modular reactors.  Mr. Miller (DOE) suggested that there is already domestic and international demand for modular reactors and argued that nuclear reactors are more marketable than currently proposed projects (i.e. nuclear power plants), because they are less capital intensive, transportable, and easier to decommission.  However, in response to Ranking Member Murkowski (R-AK), Mr. Pietrangelo (NEI) stated that the market for modular reactors is still unknown and will depend on how expensive they are to produce.

Overall, the Senate panel’s enthusiasm for modular reactors side-swept the more critical questions about costs and technology risks. Congress has already spent billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing the nuclear industry, with little to show for our investment.  A new nuclear power plant has not been successfully commissioned since the 1970’s, with cost-overruns and technology problems causing continual delays and project cancellations.  Congress is already offering $18.5 billion in Treasury-backed loan guarantees to finance risky new nuclear projects, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates have a 50% default rate.  Congress should not jeopardize further taxpayer dollars with modular reactors.   If modular reactors have a promising new market, as Mr. Miller and Dr. Sanders testified, they will be attractive to private investors and should be built without taxpayer subsidies.