Bill Overview
Title: A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to establish a Nuclear Fuel Security Program, expand the American Assured Fuel Supply Program, and submit a report on a civil nuclear credit program, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill establishes new programs and expands existing programs to increase domestic supplies of certain types of low-enriched uranium. First, the Department of Energy (DOE) must establish a program to increase the production of certain types of low-enriched uranium by U.S. nuclear energy companies. Second, DOE must expand the existing American Assured Fuel Supply Program to ensure the availability of certain types of domestically produced uranium in the event of a supply disruption. Third, DOE must establish a demonstration program to make certain types of low-enriched uranium available from its inventories, stockpiles, or allies to meet the needs and schedules of advanced nuclear reactor developers until such time that commercial enrichment and deconversion capability for the uranium exists in the United States at a scale sufficient to meet future needs.
Sponsors: Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on nuclear energy for electricity
Estimated Size: 10000000
- Nuclear energy is a significant part of the energy infrastructure in many countries, providing a considerable portion of electricity worldwide, hence impacting a global population.
- The bill focuses on expanding the supply and security of nuclear fuel, which has implications for energy security, economic stability, and energy prices globally.
- The development and availability of low-enriched uranium are essential for the functioning of nuclear reactors, which, in turn, impact electricity supply and services that depend on electrical energy.
- Countries that rely heavily on nuclear power for electricity will be directly impacted by any changes in nuclear fuel supply chains or cost structures due to U.S. legislation.
Reasoning
- The population that will be directly affected by the policy are those involved in or relying on nuclear energy for electricity either directly or indirectly, spanning energy sector stakeholders, employees working in nuclear facilities, local communities near these plants, and the general public whose electricity comes from nuclear sources.
- Given the budgetary limits in year 1 and over 10 years, the policy would primarily focus on securing and enhancing the production of low-enriched uranium, which is expected to stabilize and possibly decrease energy costs over time, thus impacting wellbeing.
- Different individuals have varied stakes in the policy's implications. Nuclear energy workers and local community residents may experience direct impacts, while others may notice changes only as comprehensive impacts, like price adjustments in their energy bills.
- Understanding how this policy translates into well-being scores requires considering the level of awareness and perceived long-term benefits or drawbacks.
- The long-term nature of energy production changes, especially via policy that impacts infrastructure, means that effects might not be immediately visible but can grow over time to affect energy supply stability, economic assurances, and job security.
Simulated Interviews
Nuclear Engineer (Idaho, USA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems beneficial because it should secure the supply of uranium, which could lead to long-term job security in our plant.
- I believe that having domestically sourced fuel reduces our reliance on foreign supplies and safeguards jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Energy Policy Analyst (New York, USA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the policy because it promotes energy security, but I'm skeptical about its environmental impacts.
- If managed well, it could inspire more investments into clean energy, though timelines for such projects can be long.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Illinois, USA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lower energy costs are essential for retirees like me, the policy seems hopeful but long-term focused.
- Safety and environmental concerns remain pivotal, trusting the advancements in technology might address them.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Software Developer (California, USA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't feel directly impacted by nuclear policies since I focus on renewable energies.
- Potential indirect benefits could mean better electricity rates, but I prefer direct investment in solar/wind technologies.
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 Energy Safety Inspector (Texas, USA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased domestic uranium production could streamline compliance visits and safety checks by ensuring supply standardization.
- Safety remains paramount; such policies may elevate safety as supply chain risks diminish.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Energy Consultant (Tennessee, USA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If effectively managed, this policy could enhance broader energy security, affecting prices positively.
- It's critical to align these policies with global environmental commitments.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Georgia, USA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Community-level communication about uranium supply matters can greatly influence public opinion.
- This policy might support local infrastructure development, though community concerns must be addressed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired Nuclear Physicist (Florida, USA)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is promising for cutting dependency on foreign uranium which is crucial for both national security and scientific advancement.
- Expectations should be set for the time needed to build this capability effectively.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Nuclear Plant Technician (Virginia, USA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The supply assurance part of this bill could stabilize plant operations which benefits job security.
- Union positions will need to consider how domestic sourcing impacts labor dynamics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Science (Washington, USA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a significant shift towards energy security, but I'd like to see more emphasis on renewables alongside nuclear advancements.
- From what I've read, such mixtures of policies can stimulate broader innovation.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 3: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 5: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 10: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $360000000)
Key Considerations
- The initial costs are high, but the long-term goal is to secure energy supply chains for future growth and stability.
- Coordination with international partners will be crucial for the demonstration program's success.
- Economic and geopolitical factors could significantly impact nuclear energy markets and influence costs.
- Technological advancements in nuclear fuel production can potentially reduce costs over time.