Bill Overview
Title: Fission for the Future Act of 2022
Description: This bill supports the commercial deployment of advanced nuclear reactors. Specifically, the Department of Energy (DOE) must establish a program that provides financial assistance for the commercial planning, licensing, development, and construction of (1) advanced nuclear reactors, or (2) supply chain infrastructure associated with such reactors or related technologies. In addition, the bill reauthorizes through FY2027 and revises a DOE program designed to strengthen university research and training in nuclear science and engineering.
Sponsors: Rep. Doyle, Michael F. [D-PA-18]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in and affected by the advanced nuclear reactor and related infrastructure developments
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill targets the development of advanced nuclear reactors, which involve a range of stakeholders, including utility companies, technology developers, and engineers.
- Supply chain infrastructure developments will affect manufacturers, suppliers, and logistic chains connected to nuclear technology and materials.
- University research and training programs in nuclear science and engineering are directly impacted, affecting students, faculty, and university infrastructure at institutions offering such programs.
- The planned licensing, development, and construction opportunities could lead to job creation in engineering, construction, and technology fields.
- The financial assistance and funding could impact companies and regions directly involved in the nuclear sector and those transitioning to nuclear energy solutions.
Reasoning
- The target population primarily includes individuals working in sectors directly linked to nuclear energy and advanced nuclear reactor technology.
- There is a positive potential for job creation and enhanced educational opportunities within nuclear science and engineering programs, thus benefiting students, researchers, and faculty.
- Some residents in communities near new construction sites may face environmental and safety concerns, thereby affecting their wellbeing in a different manner.
- Within the budget constraints, only a fraction of the full population will initially benefit significantly, mostly determined by regional proximity to funded projects and involvement in particular career sectors.
- The limited $2 billion budget in the first year implies that only initial research, planning, and a few pilot projects will be funded, touching a smaller cohort directly in year one.
Simulated Interviews
Nuclear Engineer (Illinois, Chicago)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is great as it directly supports the infrastructure I work on, boosting research and potentially creating more career opportunities.
- Funding could speed up project timelines, meaning job stability and growth in the sector.
- There's a need for continuous funding post-FY2027 for sustained impact.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Graduate Student in Nuclear Engineering (California, Berkeley)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act provides more scholarships and research funding, which could advance my studies and increase available resources.
- However, it could also lead to more competition as more students are drawn to nuclear studies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Manufacturer (South Carolina)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If new reactors are built nearby, it might increase demand for my products, but initial contracts often go to major players.
- Supply chain developments could filter down over time.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Utility Company Executive (Alabama, Birmingham)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The financial aid for reactor planning and development would help us pivot towards more sustainable energy solutions.
- Though implementing such large-scale projects is complex and not without regulatory hurdles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Developer (New York, Rochester)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about the safety and environmental impacts of more nuclear sites despite potential energy benefits.
- It doesn't impact my job currently, but these considerations affect my view overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Environmental Activist (Texas, Austin)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn’t address my priority of reducing reliance on centralized and potentially hazardous energy systems.
- Decentralization and renewable energy funding are more aligned with my beliefs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Retired Industry Consultant (Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds good for reinvigorating industry with advanced reactors, but I've seen projects stall without longer-term financial support.
- The long-term gain might still outweigh short-lived boosts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Government Policy Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fission for the Future Act could significantly advance nuclear tech's role in clean energy but needs strong regulatory frameworks.
- Careful implementation will be critical for its success.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Professor of Nuclear Physics (Colorado, Boulder)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reauthorization of DOE programs strengthens the links between academia and industry, enhancing research.
- It could attract more students to nuclear programs, which is positive for the field's future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Logistics Coordinator (Ohio, Columbus)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's potential to see increased logistics needs due to supply chain developments funding.
- Initial uncertainty around involvement could delay any personal impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $2050000000 (Low: $1550000000, High: $2550000000)
Year 3: $2101250000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2600000000)
Year 5: $2207362500 (Low: $1700000000, High: $2700000000)
Year 10: $2433351593 (Low: $1872000000, High: $2970000000)
Year 100: $5806651881 (Low: $4478880000, High: $7113900000)
Key Considerations
- The significant costs associated with the initial setup of advanced nuclear reactors, considering infrastructure, regulatory, and technological hurdles.
- The potential for long-term savings in energy costs and environmental impacts, given the cleaner and more efficient nature of advanced nuclear technology.
- The importance of ensuring robust safety and waste management practices to mitigate risks associated with nuclear energy.