Bill Overview
Title: Thorium Energy Security Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy and other relevant agencies to preserve uncontaminated inventories of uranium-233 to foster the development of thorium-based nuclear reactors. The bill also makes funding available for transferring inventories to interim or permanent storage facilities. Additionally, the bill requires various reports, including on the progress China has made in developing thorium-based reactors.
Sponsors: Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]
Target Audience
Population: People engaged in or affected by nuclear energy and thorium development
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill is likely to impact those involved in nuclear energy research, particularly those focused on thorium fuel cycles.
- Thorium-based reactors are considered to have lesser proliferation risks and better waste profiles, impacting global energy security decisions.
- Nations exploring thorium energy solutions, such as India and China, will be affected by the US's stance on thorium.
- The scientific and engineering community working on sustainable and safe energy sources—particularly nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists—will be directly influenced.
- The bill may impact countries with large thorium reserves, like India, Australia, and the US itself, as it might stimulate demand for thorium.
- The legislation will impact environmental policy makers and advocates focused on clean and alternative energy.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts professionals in nuclear energy and thorium energy research due to implications on funding, research priorities, and thorium fuel cycle development.
- Students and researchers in universities focusing on nuclear studies might receive enhanced research grants and project opportunities.
- Environmental advocates tracking non-carbon energy solutions may observe shifts in nuclear energy profiles and engage in further activism.
- Energy sector workers may not be immediately impacted as thorium reactors will take time to mature and integrate into the existing infrastructure.
- General public impact is expected to be low initially, as this is a highly specialized field with long-term impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Nuclear Engineer (Tennessee)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy ensures that we keep critical materials for future energy solutions such as thorium reactors.
- It opens up new project funding, but practical impacts may take years to manifest in real-world applications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Thorium reactors are a step towards clean energy, though they won't reduce carbon emissions immediately.
- Monitoring how this influences the energy policy landscape will be key.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
PhD Student in Nuclear Physics (Massachusetts)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding means more opportunities for research and collaboration.
- Excited to see thorium gaining policy attention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Energy Policy Analyst (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation adds a dimension to US energy security.
- Focus may shift depending on global thorium reactor progress.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nuclear Power Plant Worker (Pennsylvania)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see an immediate impact on day-to-day operations at the plant.
- Thorium could transform the industry but will take time.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Professor of Energy Studies (Colorado)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The move could encourage academic projects in thorium that might otherwise be underfunded.
- It provides a robust teaching case study.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Energy Company Executive (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long-term energy planning could incorporate thorium as a viable option.
- This influences investment strategies and risk assessments.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Government Advisor (Washington D.C.)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A strategic move to maintain a competitive edge in nuclear technology.
- The bill aligns with broader energy security goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Science (Oregon)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Thorium reactors are interesting but their benefits are long-term.
- Will follow policy developments as part of my studies.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Nuclear Engineer (Arizona)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Brings optimism towards the future of nuclear energy.
- This might encourage young engineers to pursue thorium reactors.
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 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $55000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $47000000, High: $57000000)
Year 3: $53000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $58000000)
Year 5: $55000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $65000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The long-term benefits versus upfront expenditures regarding thorium reactor development should be balanced, considering the potential for international cooperation or competition.
- Investments in infrastructure for safe containment and transportation of uranium-233 may have broader implications for nuclear safety practices.
- The policy's broader impact on the development of sustainable and clean energy technologies aligns with global climate commitments.