Eight years ago, in a speech at Harvard University, I predicted that the United States was on the verge of a renaissance in nuclear power.  Today, we see signs of that renaissance both in the United States and throughout the world.  Modern advances allow us to produce new nuclear power more cheaply than was possible even 15 years ago. This means countries around the world that couldn’t afford nuclear power 20 years ago can now seriously consider this newly-affordable energy and clean energy.

 A recent study in Japan identified nuclear and hydroelectric power as the cleanest of all sources of energy. This study evaluated total life-cycle carbon emissions from many power stations and found that nuclear power is even cleaner than wind and solar power.   The world is beginning to realize that a modern nuclear power plant in their region is more environmentally friendly than coal or even natural gas. 

  As everyone in this room knows, new advanced nuclear reactors are under construction in Europe, Finland and France. Two other countries -- China and India -- have recently announced plans to aggressively pursue nuclear power to support growing energy needs.  India alone currently has 9 nuclear power plants under construction scheduled to be completed by 2010 and plans for 20 more in the decade following.   China is exploring the construction of several but construction has not begun. These countries are home to billions of people and have traditionally used dirtier energies to power their economy. China’s move to nuclear power alone offers meaningful promise for a cleaner global environment.

In this era of growing concern over climate change,  I believe the U.S. will turn to nuclear energy just as Japan, France, Finland, Sweden, and now China and India have done.  

We accomplished a major milestone in August of this year when President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  The energy bill includes incentives to help new nuclear power plants get started in the United States.  It does three important things: It provides government incentives for electricity produced by new nuclear power plants, it deals with the potential for regulatory or judicial delays, and it provides for reactor research and development to promote alternative options for transportation fuels. 

Joint ventures have been formed to license, construct, own and operate nuclear power plants here.  

 
With the recent passage of the Energy Policy Act, utilities are deciding that the time is right to build nuclear power plants in America. In fact, as of last week, eight utilities across the United States have announced plans to take the first step in building 13 new nuclear power plants that, combined, will produce at least 15 gigawatts of new power in the next 15 years.  These eight utilities are taking these first steps by starting the licensing process for a new plant.

If all 13 plants are built, the construction and operation of the plants would create approximately 18,000 construction jobs and 6,000 high-paying, high-tech jobs.

I believe Congress has shown vision and leadership in making our nuclear renaissance a reality. To those who say the government has not done enough to address climate change, I would counter that the extraordinary congressional commitment to new nuclear power has been driven in large part by a deep and abiding concern for our environment and our climate.

 However, a challenge remains. Our work to foster new nuclear power has added new urgency to an old question: what should the U.S. fuel cycle be to support long-term, sustainable nuclear power?

And while we tackle that challenge, what do we do with our spent nuclear fuel?

For years, Yucca Mountain was the answer. But Yucca Mountain evolved from the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.  In 1982 the industry was in “status quo.”  The nuclear plants that existed at the time would run to their projected lifetimes and be decommissioned.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission became the nursemaid that would watch over the industry until the last plant turned off. 

Yucca Mountain was created to be the final resting place of the spent nuclear fuel from these plants – and frankly, the resting place of nuclear energy in the United States.  The intent was to move fuel to the mountain, fill the mountain and close it. At that point, we would simply haggle over what kind of sign to hang over the locked front door.

But it’s no longer 1982.  While some plants have shut down, the vast majority of nuclear power plants in this country still operate, providing clean and reliable electricity that’s cheaper than all other sources except hydropower. Operating licenses and plant lifetimes are being extended to extract the most from these investments. And now, 13 new power plants are being discussed.

In this new environment, the current U.S. policy regarding Yucca Mountain should be that it will not do enough by itself.  I believe we must look anew on our policy on spent nuclear fuel and I think that re-evaluation is under way.

I believe we must bring the scientific passion and creativity to the fuel cycle that we have brought to creating smaller, safer and more powerful nuclear reactors. What we have done globally with advanced nuclear reactors in the last 20 years amazes me. I believe what we can do with the fuel cycle in the next 20 years can amaze the world.

But that’s me. I have always been a fan of what I call Big Science – science that improves modern life. I am the man you expect to advocate a renewed commitment to fuel technologies.

But the interest in exploring solutions beyond Yucca Mountain is coming from other quarters now. Let me give you a few examples.

• We appropriated  $50 million for spent fuel recycling in the current energy and water appropriations bill. The recommendation for this funding came first from the House, not my subcommittee.

• I note with interest a series of discussions within the Administration on long term solutions to reprocessing.

• Even the courts and regulatory agencies are weighing in. The current legal and regulatory debate or disposal standards has raised the question about whether it drives to fuel treatment.

These issues are complex.   I believe technology provides more than one answer – what we are beginning to see is a dance between what is technically possible and what is socially necessary and acceptable.  It will be a long discussion, but we have decades.

 In my book, released late last year, I talk about my vision for nuclear power.  I am convinced that our great nation cannot be self-reliant, prosperous and green without more nuclear energy.

 Like all of us, I want my grandchildren to enjoy a better quality of life than we enjoy today. I want them to live on a cleaner, safer and more technologically-advanced planet. I want them to live in a society where they do and enjoy things I've never dreamed of. I don't think my dreams for my grandchildren or your dreams for your grandchildren can be fully realized without a rebirth of nuclear power.

 The title of my book is A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy.  I went with that title because the editors didn’t like “A brighter, cleaner, safer and more prosperous tomorrow.” They thought it was too long. But that’s really what we’re talking about here.  I look forward to working with all of you to bring that tomorrow not just to the United States, but to the whole world.

Thank you.