Bill Overview
Title: Global Nuclear Energy Assessment and Cooperation Act
Description: This bill establishes requirements concerning international nuclear energy cooperation and safety. Specifically, the Department of Energy (DOE) must develop and carry out a program to train foreign nuclear energy experts and standardize safety practices. DOE must also study the global status of the civilian nuclear energy industry and its supply chain. In addition, the bill prohibits any person from possessing or owning enriched uranium from Russian or China unless specifically authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC may not issue a license to possess or own such fuel if DOE and the Department of State determine that the possession or ownership would pose a threat to national security. NRC must establish an International Nuclear Reactor Export and Innovation Branch within its Office of International Programs to carry out and coordinate certain nuclear reactor export and innovation activities. NRC must also identify in its annual budget justification such activities.
Sponsors: Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on the global nuclear energy industry
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The bill aims to improve international nuclear energy cooperation and safety, affecting global nuclear energy infrastructure and regulations.
- There are currently 32 countries with operational nuclear reactors, plus others involved in nuclear energy research which will be impacted by safety standardization and training programs.
- According to the World Nuclear Association, over 440 nuclear reactors are operational globally and serve about one-third of the world's population in terms of electricity supply.
- The prohibition on enriched uranium from Russia and China affects countries that rely on these supplies for their nuclear energy programs, impacting their energy security.
Reasoning
- The US nuclear energy sector comprises a significant portion of the workforce within energy industries, scientists, engineers, and security experts, estimated at a few hundred thousand workers.
- The prohibition of enriched uranium from specific countries might elicit anxiety within industries dependent on foreign uranium, affecting market stability.
- The DOE training initiatives can offer significant career advancements and skill enhancements for current nuclear energy workers in the US, potentially increasing satisfaction and safety standards.
- Long-term international cooperation would stabilize global nuclear markets, indirectly benefiting US sectors reliant on nuclear energy supply chains.
Simulated Interviews
Nuclear Engineer (Richland, Washington)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could enhance nuclear safety, which aligns with my work values.
- It offers more job stability by emphasizing American nuclear capabilities.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Energy Policy Analyst (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems crucial for global safety but could strain US-Russian/China diplomatic relationships.
- I would like to see more analysis on the economic impacts of excluding uranium from specific countries.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Nuclear Safety Auditor (San Diego, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Standardizing safety practices globally is a positive step.
- It will require significant bureaucracy and funding, which could divert resources from other important areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Nuclear Plant Worker (Knoxville, Tennessee)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about job security if nuclear operations face import restrictions.
- I hope training programs help strengthen the domestic industry and secure jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Retired Nuclear Physicist (Augusta, Georgia)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should have been established years ago for better global safety alignment.
- I'm relieved that specialists are finally getting the standardized training they need.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
DOE Program Manager (Aiken, South Carolina)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase my workload significantly but provides more funding and recognition.
- Assuring safety is paramount, directly improving long-term project outlooks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Energy Economics Student (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the funding and training are promising, long-term prohibition may strain global supply.
- This provides an interesting case study for my thesis.
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 |
Energy Consultant (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act will likely cause shifts in how companies evaluate energy investments.
- Could lead to an uptick in clients seeking guidance on policy compliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Urban Planner (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting safe nuclear energy is critical for sustainable urban development.
- The policy could help shift focus toward safer reactor models beneficial for urban implementations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Nuclear Researcher (Los Alamos, New Mexico)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved international cooperation could enrich our research capabilities.
- Prohibitions might limit material access, challenging certain research areas.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 100: $120000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $130000000)
Key Considerations
- Political considerations or geopolitical tensions may affect cooperation or enactment of prohibitions on enriched uranium.
- Availability of funds for establishing and sustaining the training programs.
- Impact on existing nuclear energy engagements and contracts, particularly with Russia and China.