Bill Overview
Title: National Nuclear University Research Infrastructure Reinvestment Act of 2021
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2026 and expands the Nuclear Energy University Program within the Department of Energy (DOE) that supports university research and training in nuclear science and engineering. For example, the bill expands the program to provide support to universities for revitalizing and upgrading existing nuclear science and engineering infrastructure that support the development of advanced nuclear technologies and applications. In addition, the bill establishes an Advanced Nuclear Research Infrastructure Enhancement Subprogram under which DOE must establish four new research reactors as well as new nuclear science and engineering facilities.
Sponsors: Rep. Gonzalez, Anthony [R-OH-16]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or dependent on university nuclear programs and associated industries
Estimated Size: 100000
- The bill focuses on university research and training in nuclear science and engineering, specifically impacting students, faculty, and staff in these programs.
- By enhancing infrastructure, the bill affects universities offering nuclear science and engineering programs, encouraging more research and development.
- The development of advanced nuclear technologies and applications will indirectly impact industries related to energy and nuclear technology.
- Expansion of nuclear research can have broader impacts on communities around research facilities due to economic opportunities and educational partnerships.
Reasoning
- The bill primarily impacts individuals and institutions involved in nuclear science and engineering programs, such as university faculty, researchers, and students. These individuals are likely to see increased support, potentially enhancing their research capabilities and career prospects.
- While the budget is substantial, it is targeted toward enhancing infrastructure and providing specific support. Most direct impacts will be within the academic and research communities, with some indirect effects on industries related to nuclear technology.
- Some of the common citizens, especially those not involved in nuclear-related fields, will see little to no impact.
- The policy intends to advance nuclear technology, which could have long-term benefits for energy sustainability and national security. These potential benefits will influence communities and industries beyond the academic sector.
Simulated Interviews
Nuclear Engineering Professor (Berkeley, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly enhance our research capabilities.
- More funding will bring state-of-the-art facilities that have been long overdue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Nuclear Science Student (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am excited about the new opportunities this policy brings.
- Access to better facilities could open up more career options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Nuclear Industry Consultant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could lead to more robust partnerships between industry and academia.
- It will be interesting to see if this leads to tangible advancements in nuclear technology.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
High School Science Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will inspire more students to pursue nuclear engineering.
- Benefit in terms of educational enrichment is indirect but noteworthy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Renewable Energy Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see little direct impact personally, but hope that advancements in nuclear technology aid in climate solutions.
- Resource allocation here may affect renewable sectors funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical of expanding nuclear infrastructure due to environmental concerns.
- Would prefer investment in renewable energy sources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
University Administrator (Ann Arbor, MI)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding aligns with our goals to expand research facilities.
- Helps the university remain competitive in attracting top-tier talent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Nuclear Policy Analyst (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could dramatically shift how nuclear science is integrated into energy policies.
- Expecting in-depth discussions on safety and security enhancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired Nuclear Engineer (Oak Ridge, TN)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Welcomes the policy for its potential to revive interest in nuclear engineering among the younger generation.
- Hopes to see improved safety technologies as part of advancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Community College Dean (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although it's a positive move for nuclear research, it doesn't affect my institution directly.
- Encourages collaborations to include practical skills training.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $480000000 (Low: $430000000, High: $580000000)
Year 3: $460000000 (Low: $410000000, High: $560000000)
Year 5: $430000000 (Low: $380000000, High: $530000000)
Year 10: $210000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $240000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The success of the program depends on collaborations between universities and the DOE.
- Long-term cost efficiency hinges on technological advancements developed through this initiative.
- The program's expansion must align with regulatory standards for nuclear safety and environmental impact.
- Focused outcome tracking is essential to optimize investments and adjust funding priorities.