Bill Overview
Title: NO RUSSIA Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides statutory authority (and reallocates funding) for the Office of Nuclear Energy to establish a strategic reserve of uranium to ensure the availability of domestic supplies of uranium. The bill also requires the office to establish another program to support domestic production, conversion, and enrichment of uranium for nuclear reactors and eliminate reliance on Russian uranium. The office may not source uranium for the reserve or the program from companies that are controlled by, owned by, or otherwise affiliated with China or Russia.
Sponsors: Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in the uranium and nuclear energy sectors
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill aims to establish a strategic reserve of uranium and support domestic uranium production, meaning it will primarily affect those involved in the nuclear energy sector.
- As it pertains to reducing reliance on Russian uranium and demands domestic sourcing, this impacts domestic companies and workers in the uranium extraction and processing industry.
- The bill could also affect the energy sector, specifically those companies operating nuclear reactors, by changing their supply chains and potentially their costs.
- Secondary impacts could be felt by regions with uranium deposits due to an increase in economic activity and employment opportunities.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically targets the nuclear energy sector by incentivizing domestic production and reducing reliance on foreign uranium sources, particularly from Russia and China.
- Workers in mining, processing, and related industries such as equipment manufacturing are likely to see direct effects.
- Indirectly, regions with uranium deposits may experience economic boosts from increased mining activity, possibly improving employment rates and regional income levels.
- The created strategic reserve and program might induce changes in market dynamics, potentially affecting prices and operational costs for companies reliant on uranium, including nuclear reactor operators.
- Given the budget constraint, the policy may have limited initial impact, focusing on specific projects and foundational laying. Longer-term impacts are contingent on successful implementation and scaling of domestic production.
Simulated Interviews
Uranium Miner (Casper, Wyoming)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could lead to job security and potentially better pay if domestic production increases.
- It's encouraging for the long-term sustainability of our jobs, eliminating dependency on foreign sources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Nuclear Scientist (Los Alamos, New Mexico)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased domestic uranium is crucial for new reactor models to become more economically feasible.
- This policy helps align the supply chain with our technological innovations.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about potential environmental impacts of increased mining activity.
- The policy should ensure strong environmental controls to mitigate negative effects.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Nuclear Plant Operator (Charlotte, North Carolina)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Securing a stable domestic supply can lead to more predictable operational costs.
- Eliminating reliance on Russian uranium is strategically wise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Policy Analyst (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a step towards energy independence, which could be beneficial for national security.
- We must balance domestic production with environmental considerations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Uranium Processing Technician (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more investment in our plant, leading to job stability and growth opportunities.
- I am cautiously optimistic about what this means for my career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Community Leader (Hobbs, New Mexico)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our community could benefit from economic growth and job creation.
- We must ensure these benefits are sustainable and environmentally cautious.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Energy Policy Educator (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The move towards domestic uranium production could spur industry innovation.
- There needs to be a comprehensive approach considering various socio-economic factors.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Advocate (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial the policy includes strict environmental regulations and oversight.
- Increased uranium production could pose significant ecological risks if not managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Uranium Market Analyst (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to market stability and reduced price volatility in the uranium supply chain.
- Strategic reserves are pivotal for buffering against geopolitical market fluctuations.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 3: $320000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $370000000)
Year 5: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The initial setup costs for new facilities and supply chains are significant.
- Reallocation of current funding might not entirely offset the additional costs.
- Uncertainty in existing global uranium markets could influence the cost estimates.
- Success depends on the ability of domestic companies to efficiently scale up operations.