Bill Overview
Title: To prohibit the importation of uranium from the Russian Federation.
Description: This bill prohibits the importation of uranium from Russia.
Sponsors: Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals dependent on industries that import uranium from Russia
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill will affect countries or entities that currently import uranium from Russia for energy and other nuclear-related purposes.
- Any industry that relies on uranium imports from Russia, such as nuclear energy plants, nuclear medicine, and industrial uses, may face supply challenges or increased costs.
- The bill might push countries and industries to seek alternative suppliers, possibly leading to changes in global uranium trade dynamics.
Reasoning
- The population most affected by this bill will likely be workers and entities within industries reliant on uranium imports from Russia like nuclear energy plants and nuclear medicine. However, there are broader potential impacts on energy prices and supply that might indirectly affect everyday consumers.
- Given the budget constraint, assistance might be offered to transition sectors (e.g., subsidies for alternative uranium sources) or to offset increased costs in impacted industries.
- Not all individuals in nuclear-related industries may be equally affected; some may work in sectors with diverse suppliers or alternative energy sources, reducing the impact of this specific policy.
Simulated Interviews
Nuclear engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the rationale behind reducing dependence on Russian uranium, but this could lead to significant operational challenges initially.
- I expect our plant will need to invest in new supply chains, which might strain our budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Nuclear medicine technologist (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in uranium sourcing could affect the supply and cost of isotopes we need for medical imaging.
- I'm concerned about potential disruptions to patient care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Policy analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This move might increase energy independence but could also result in short-term energy cost increases.
- It's critical to balance geopolitical objectives with domestic economic impacts.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Construction manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New policies could delay projects if materials become harder to source.
- We may see increased costs, requiring budget adjustments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired energy sector worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's essential for the US to explore more self-sufficient energy policies.
- Retired, so any impact will be more on watching industry shifts than personal impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Environmental scientist (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing reliance on foreign uranium can be a step towards cleaner energy policies.
- Concerned about potential shifts towards more carbon-intensive energies in short term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Electrical engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone interested in renewable energy, this could push more investments into renewables.
- Concerned about grid stability if nuclear supply is impacted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Uranium trader (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our operations will need re-evaluation as Russian imports halt.
- Might create new opportunities with other suppliers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Electric utility manager (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in uranium supply might require re-strategizing power plant operations.
- Economic effects will depend on our ability to find alternative suppliers swiftly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Government regulatory official (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will necessitate updates to safety protocols as uranium sourcing changes.
- A broader focus on safety during this transition is crucial to avoid any mishaps.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 3: $115000000 (Low: $95000000, High: $135000000)
Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 10: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $150000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Key Considerations
- Security of domestic energy supply may improve as a result of diversification.
- Coordination with international allies will be crucial to manage global uranium supply and pricing.
- The domestic nuclear industry's ability to adapt and find alternative suppliers will determine the full economic impact.