Bill Overview
Title: International Nuclear Energy Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses cooperation with ally or partner nations on nuclear energy-related issues. For example, the bill requires (1) the Department of State to meet with ally or partner nations with the aim of enhancing nuclear energy cooperation, (2) the Department of Energy to establish a program to increase the production of certain types of low-enriched uranium by U.S. nuclear energy companies, and (3) the State Department to provide financial assistance to qualifying countries that are developing civil nuclear programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Clyburn, James E. [D-SC-6]
Target Audience
Population: People in countries impacted by changes to nuclear energy policy and infrastructure
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill aims to boost nuclear energy cooperation between the United States and ally or partner nations, impacting countries that are willing to engage in nuclear energy cooperation and development.
- By increasing the production of low-enriched uranium through U.S. companies, the legislation will affect U.S. companies and any workforce involved in nuclear energy production.
- Countries that qualify for financial assistance from the U.S. to develop civil nuclear programs will be directly impacted as it may increase their nuclear energy capabilities and infrastructure.
- The promotion of nuclear energy can impact a country's energy policy, and thus indirectly affect populations depending on how energy policies shift.
- The legislative initiative expands international relations in terms of energy policy between the U.S. and other countries.
Reasoning
- The population impacted will primarily consist of individuals working within nuclear energy production, specifically in companies involved with low-enriched uranium, as well as allied nations benefitting from U.S. efforts.
- Financial resources are limited, with the ten-year budget capped at $770 million USD, which constrains the scope and pace of policy implementation.
- Most individuals will experience low to medium impacts unless directly involved in or benefiting from policy-driven resource allocation or cooperation programs.
- Direct U.S. job creation or changes in industry dynamics may require several years to materialize visible well-being improvements due to the complexity and duration of nuclear project developments.
Simulated Interviews
Nuclear Engineer (New Mexico)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think increasing production of low-enriched uranium is a good move for our energy independence.
- This policy could bring stable job opportunities and career growth in our sector.
- It could bolster international cooperation, enhancing global nuclear safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington State)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy seems crucial to remain competitive in nuclear energy globally.
- It's positive for both job security and geopolitical stability.
- Potential risks in nuclear proliferation need careful attention.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Nuclear Plant Operator (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could modernize the nuclear workforce and infrastructure in the U.S.
- It signifies long-term investment in nuclear, which is reassuring.
- More training will be needed to handle increased production demands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Energy Sector Investor (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is likely to open up new investment opportunities in nuclear tech.
- It can potentially increase returns in nuclear startups.
- There might be long lead times before financial benefits are realized.
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 | 7 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have concerns about nuclear safety and waste management that this policy might exacerbate.
- While it might reduce carbon emissions, other renewable energies should be prioritized.
- It's essential these programs include strong environmental measures.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Manufacturing Worker (Georgia)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased production could mean more shifts and stable work for us.
- There's potential for career advancement with this policy.
- I hope safety protocols will be prioritized with any scale-up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Software Engineer (Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy will affect my daily life.
- I hope it positively influences energy prices and reliability.
- Nuclear energy is a complex field far from my expertise.
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 |
High School Science Teacher (Florida)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might create educational opportunities for students interested in nuclear careers.
- It could integrate well into STEM programs in schools.
- I hope increased industry growth reflects positively on education budgets.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Nuclear Safety Inspector (Pennsylvania)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- High standards of safety need to be integral to this policy's implementation.
- Increased production requires more rigorous inspections and possibly regulations.
- The job growth in nuclear could be a positive, but not without due diligence.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Nevada)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could mean changes to local energy infrastructure planning.
- It’s likely to bring in more regional partnerships and possibly funding for local projects.
- Balancing urban growth with energy supply is crucial to my role.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 2: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 3: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Coordination between the Department of State and the Department of Energy will be critical to achieving the policy objectives efficiently.
- Monitoring and transparency regarding financial assistance to foreign nations are crucial to ensure funds are used effectively and within intended parameters.
- Economic impacts on American companies and the job market need to be reviewed regularly to maximize benefits.