America’s Energy Policy Challenge
Evaluate energy from a common framework foundation

Congress must consider all energy options for value contributing to energy needs. We must evaluate sources as varied as those harkening back to sources powered by the wind to current cutting-edge options, including nuclear and clean coal. The fickle nature of wind or cloud cover incurs costs for availability like those faced by sailing ships of yore. Recovering investment for infrastructure is just that much larger, depending on multiplier. However, we must spend our funds diligently so Americans get the best deal possible for their precious tax funds.

1. Set electric infrastructure availability goals of 5% GDP growth/year (90%). Rank public energy for financial tax aid support by cost measures, based on contributions.
2. Increase public awareness of practical generation limits and costs. Amortize generation costs projections uniformly, based on availability, connection, utilization and cost. Gain acceptance for fact-based energy investments, driven by investment recovery on state of the art systems.
3. Decrease regulatory burden using non-carbon energy forms by 80%. Set national goal to increase non-carbon energy use 80% by 2060 to reduce CO2 emissions
4. Drop construction costs to $5 billion for a 1000 MWe reference light water reactor (LWR)
5. Guarantee non-carbon energy loans while other goals are achieved ($1600/kw -- $7500/kw, based on wind/solar – up to $5 billion/unit)
6. Overhaul regulatory framework to make nuclear safety more cost-effective. Authorize nuclear regulation’s cost-effectiveness role in Atomic Energy Acts of 1954 and 1974, creating commercial nuclear power and the NRC.
7. Construct new nuclear plants in 5 years or less under with current licensing methods - just as constructors do in China and Japan. Have100 new nuclear units operating by 2025, reducing oil dependence 25% from current levels.
8. Assess process improvements for nuclear design and regulation using the Commerce Department’s Baldrige Award Process. Establish customers and performance targets for energy development and regulatory control at agencies, like DOE, NRC, and EPA. Return design preeminence to the U.S. energy industry, like it was in 1954. Establish new nuclear MHR, LMBR designs that can support the hydrogen economy. Reduce solar and wind energy system costs to 50% of current levels for construction.
9. Make private financial support viable by reducing regulatory uncertainty and delays. Provide nuclear equity subsidies equivalent to those of other forms alternative energy forms. Close energy cycles economically - solar, wind, water and nuclear.
10. Provide long-term nuclear waste solutions: sell it to France (for reprocessing), provide permanent onsite storage, place it in Yucca Mountain while developing a national nuclear reprocessing facility. (France has one already.) Have a viable fuel reprocessing solution approved no later than 2015 as a national goal.


Nations with strong active nuclear programs include:

Japan
Korea
Taiwan
France
Spain
Finland
Russia

Many nations are reconsidering nuclear energy in their national energy portfolios, returning to the nuclear option based on low carbon emissions, “passive-safe” low-risk design and energy independence. These include:

Sweden
Italy
UK
Canada
India
China
U.S.
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria

Years without construction inflated US nuclear power generation costs with obsolete equipment and designs. Compared with state of the art equipment in China, France, or Japan US nuclear plant designs offer no digital controls. Regulatory approval is pending with completion projected for new nuclear construction, about 2015.

If stimulus options for renewable non-carbon energy don’t consider nuclear energy, who excluded its authorization, and what were their goals? Why doesn’t nuclear get factored into America’s future energy mixture with the same considerations as other stimulus? America’s best option for energy independence is nuclear technology developed right here at home? Nuclear power remains a viable option to reduce carbon emissions significantly, at low overall cost.

Total ownership costs of various generation forms and their energy. Spreadsheet cost/utility factors comparison.