Text 4862, 374 rader
Skriven 2007-06-21 23:30:44 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (070621c) for Thu, 2007 Jun 21
====================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Discusses Energy Initiatives in Athens, Alabama
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary June 21, 2007

President Bush Discusses Energy Initiatives in Athens, Alabama Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant Athens, Alabama

˙˙White House News

1:38 P.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming by to say hello. Mr. Chairman, thank you
for your kind introduction, and thanks for the invitation to tour this
impressive facility. The restart of Browns Ferry Unit Number 1 represents
the first nuclear reactor to come online in the United States in more than
a decade. (Applause.) This is a demonstration that one is capable of doing
a job on time and on budget. And I congratulate you all for your hard work,
and thank you for the contribution you're making to the United States of
America.

I'm going to talk a little bit about nuclear power today, and there's no
better place to do it here than with a group of folks who understand the
great benefits of nuclear power to our country. I believe that it is
essential that we have a comprehensive energy policy to be able to deal
with the challenges we're going to face in the 21st century, whether that
be energy independence or economic security or good environmental policy.
And at the core of such policy must be electricity generated from nuclear
power. (Applause.)

I'm also here to nudge Congress along. They're working on a bill --
(laughter) -- that I hope that they can get to my desk, that is a good
bill, a balanced bill, a reasonable approach to making sure we continue to
be wise about how we use energy in the United States.

I do want to thank Bill for his leadership, and I thank the members of the
board of the TVA. I thank Tom Kilgore for taking time to visit today. He's
led me on a tour with R.G. Jones. Some of you may have heard of R.G.
(Applause.) R.G. and I discovered we're both 60. (Laughter.) We were born
in 1946, which is a fine year to be born, at least as far as R.G. and I are
concerned. (Laughter.) I reminded him 60 is not as old as it used to sound
-- until I climbed up all those stairs to get to the control room.
(Laughter.) I also want to thank Brian O'Grady, the Vice President here.
(Applause.)

Put a good man who understands nuclear power as the head of the Energy
Department, Sam Bodman. He's with us today. Mr. Secretary, thank you for
traveling with us. Appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Also with us is Dr.
Dale Klein, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's an
important position. It's a position that's going to expedite the
regulations so we can get more plants up and running. And I'll talk a
little bit about his intentions and our intentions to help increase nuclear
power here in the United States.

I'm traveling with a fine United States Senator, in Jeff Sessions.
(Applause.) As well as the Congressman from this district, a man awfully
proud of the work you do here, and that's Bud Cramer. (Applause.) Finally,
we let a fellow from Mobile tag along with us, Congressman Jo Bonner.
Appreciate you coming, Congressman. (Applause.)

I thank all the employees who work at this plant. Thanks for what you're
doing. Thanks for being skillful. Thanks for working hard. Thanks for
helping the country.

The world is seeing the promise and potential of the peaceful use of
nuclear energy. I emphasize that word, peaceful use, because one of my
predecessors, Dwight David Eisenhower, in 1953 called on the world's
scientists and engineers to find a way to produce peaceful power from
atomic energy that would serve the needs, rather than the fears, of
mankind. That's exactly what we're doing here. You're serving the needs,
rather than the fears, of mankind. You're helping implement the vision of
President Dwight David Eisenhower.

Nuclear power is America's third leading source of electricity. It provides
nearly 20 percent of our country's electricity. I don't know if a lot of
our citizens understand that, but nuclear power is a key component of
economic vitality, because it provides 20 percent of the electricity.

Interestingly enough, nuclear power provides 78 percent of electricity for
France, provides 50 percent for Sweden, 30 percent for the entire European
Union. China has nine nuclear reactors in operation and has ambitious plans
to build many more over the next two decades.

Nuclear power is prevalent and it's recognized as a necessary power source,
not only here in the United States, but around the world. Nuclear power is
clean. It's clean, domestic energy. There is a lot of discussion about the
environment, as there should be. We certainly want to leave the environment
better for the next generation that comes along. There's a lot of
discussion about greenhouse gases, which I believe is a serious problem.

And therefore, I remind those who share my concern about greenhouse gases
that nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases. If you are interested in
cleaning up the air, then you ought to be an advocate for nuclear power.
(Applause.) Without nuclear power here in the United States, there would be
nearly 700 million additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
every year. There is no single solution to climate change, but there can be
no solution without nuclear power.

Nuclear power is safe. The nuclear sector is one of the safest industries
in the United States. Advances in science and engineering and plant design
have made nuclear plants even safer than the last generation of plants. In
other words, technology has advanced, knowledge has advanced, engineering
has advanced. This is a safe plant and the people in the United States must
understand that.

They've also got to understand that NRC inspectors are stationed full time
at these plants to provide daily inspections, and I appreciate the NRC
inspectors who are with us today. In other words, we go extra steps to be
able to say to the American people, this is a safe place to work and it's a
safe facility to have in the area of the country in which you live.

Nuclear power is affordable and it is reliable. Once a nuclear plant is
constructed, fuel and operating costs are low. The cost of electricity from
a nuclear power plant is stable. It is predictable. The cost of electricity
from a plant like this doesn't fluctuate the way plants fired by natural
gas can fluctuate. The flow of power is not intermittent like the wind.
This is a reliable source of low-cost energy.

We need nuclear power to play a greater role in our future. That's what I
want to share with you and the American people, as we talk about a
comprehensive energy strategy, a comprehensive energy plan, nuclear power
has got to be a really important part of our future.

Nuclear power is the only large-scale emissions-free power source that is
currently able to meet the growing need for electricity. As our economy
grows, with additional demands for power and electricity, nuclear power can
handle those needs.

In order to keep pace with our nuclear energy needs, experts believe it
will be necessary to build an average of three new plants per year starting
in 2015. In other words, it's one thing to talk about nuclear power; it's
another thing to have -- understand the strategy necessary.

So we are going to need three plants starting in 2015. And as we tackle
climate change, it may be necessary to have even more plants. Here's the
problem: Our country has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the
1970s, partially as a result of constant litigation and overly complex
regulations. So we're working to overcome those obstacles. I appreciate the
fact that the TVA is making decisions to move forward nuclear power. It's
time for our country to start building nuclear power plants again. That's
what I want to share with you. (Applause.)

One thing to restart one, and I congratulate you. It's another thing to
build the new ones. And that's what we ought to have happen if we're
interested in a comprehensive, sound, wise energy policy that is
environmentally friendly. The federal government is helping to expand the
safe use of nuclear power in some important ways. First, we've set up
what's called the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative. We launched the nuclear
power initiative, which is a partnership between industry and the U.S.
government, to reduce regulatory and other barriers to the development of
new nuclear power plants. That's why we set it up. We want to start
building plants, and we recognize that there have been some regulatory
burdens that prevent the construction of new plants or at least discourage
the construction of new plants.

The 2008 budget I submitted would double the requested funding for this
initiative to $114 million. In other words, it takes money to get this
initiative moving. And we're asking Congress to spend money on it in order
to help us put in a comprehensive energy strategy. It makes sense. It's
just a common sense strategy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working
to improve and streamline the regulatory process to help accelerate the
construction of nuclear plants. Under the old system, the permitting
process was slow. Some of the older hands here might remember that. It was
cumbersome, because it limited builders to completing only one step at a
time before moving on. You could only do one thing, and then there would be
regulatory deals, and another thing -- and it just took a long time. And
when something takes a long time to build, that discourages capital and
discourages people from moving forward. Plus you could get sued all the
time. That would discourage people, as well.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is implementing a more efficient review
process that allows builders to complete several steps at a time without
compromising safety. They took a good look at the problems, they said we
need more nuclear power, and so we're going to streamline the process. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission now expects 20 applications for combined
construction and operating licenses for up to 30 new reactors. In other
words, we're beginning to make some progress. Things are beginning to
change. Attitudes are changing, and so is the regulatory process, which has
enabled me to tell you we've got 20 applications for up to 30 new reactors.
That is good news for the American consumer. (Applause.)

We think that we ought to -- America ought to -- should be able to start
construction on additional nuclear plants by the end of this decade. That's
not all that far away. So I've got the Chairman of the NRC here. I want him
to hear what I just said. (Laughter.) He's doing some good work. He's got
more work to do.

I signed an energy bill in 2005 that included important incentives to
support the development of nuclear power, including federal risk insurance
for builders of new nuclear plants, loan guarantee eligibility and
production tax credits. In other words, to get this industry started, put
some incentives out there for people that would be spending the money to
get the plants going.

We're working to settle the issue of storage for nuclear waste. That's an
issue. More than 55,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
waste are stored at a hundred sites in 39 states. I've submitted a budget
of $495 million to continue progress on licensing Yucca Mountain as a
repository for spent fuel.

There's also another idea that I want you to -- I know you know about it,
but I want Americans and Congress to consider. We ought to do something
about reprocessing. We ought to bring that technology to bear. (Applause.)
We ought to bring new technologies to bear to help us all deal with the
spent fuel. So we proposed a global nuclear energy partnership to work with
nations with advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as France,
Japan, China, and Russia. And the reason why we proposed this partnership
is we want to use technologies, new technologies -- develop and use
technologies that effectively and safely recycle spent nuclear fuel.

Reprocessing spent uranium fuel for use in advanced reactors will allow us
to extract more energy and has the potential to reduce storage requirements
for nuclear waste by up to 90 percent. I am confident that we can have the
technological breakthroughs necessary to deal with the fuel. Congress needs
to spend the money in order to do the research. And when we do, we will be
able to answer a lot of the charges of our critics that say, what are you
going to do with the fuel?

Well, here's a good answer: Recycle it, reburn it and reduce the amount of
the problem. And that's what the United States needs to be doing.
(Applause.)

Nuclear power is part of a broader strategy. I want to spend a little time
on the broader strategy before we all pass out in here. (Laughter.) There's
enough hot air in the room as there is. (Laughter.)

We're too dependent on oil. And you know, in 1985, about 27 percent of our
oil came from other countries; today, about 60 percent does. And that's a
dependency that creates economic and national security problems for us.

On the national security side, our dependence on oil leaves us more
vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists. If you can blow up oil
facilities overseas, it will affect the price of oil here at home. When
you're dependent on something and somebody disrupts the supply on which
you're dependent, it will affect you. It effects international politics, to
a certain extent, to be dependent on oil.

When the price of oil goes up for whatever reason overseas, it affects the
price of gasoline here in northern Alabama. So there is an economic issue
for being dependent on oil. And, of course, when oil is burned as a fuel,
it effects the environment. So we've got to change our dependency.

One way to do so is to spend some of your money on new technologies that
will change how we live in positive ways. So we spent $12 billion since
I've been the President to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable
energy sources. I think that's a wise use of your money -- to encourage
research and development on new ways to drive your cars, for example.

One such example is -- that we're spending your money on is for clean coal
technologies. We've got to do something to make sure that when we have
electricity generated by coal that we can say to future generations of
Americans that we're going to protect the environment, as well. We've got a
lot of coal. If you want to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil,
you ought to use the energy sources you've got here at home. Not all
electricity is going to be generated as a result of nuclear power. We're
going to be burning coal. And so we are spending a lot of money, and I
believe that we'll have emission-free coal plants that will capture and
remove virtually all air pollutants and greenhouse gases from burning coal.
That's what the experts tell me.

So some of your money, some of your hard-earned money is going to encourage
that kind of research. I think it's worth it. And I know it's necessary if
we want to be less dependent on oil and be good about how we deal with the
environment.

And we're also spending money to help others research wind and solar power.
That's a nice alternative. It's certainly not going to -- wind power is not
going to be nearly as effective and efficient as nuclear power, but it can
be a part of the mix.

If you want to affect dependency on oil, then we've got to figure out how
to use -- put different power sources in our cars. Gasoline is oil. You
know, so when you say I'm using gasoline, you really are using oil. Because
that's how -- that's where gasoline comes from. And so one idea that we're
working on is to encourage ethanol, which works. See, if you're driving
your automobile based upon something a farmer grows here in northern
Alabama, as opposed to something that's as a result of buying from overseas
-- makes sense to me.

You've got your farmer growing something that powers your automobile, I
think it puts us in a much better position economically, from a national
security perspective. And we're spending a fair amount of your money to
make sure that we can use something other than corn from which to make
ethanol. If you're a hog farmer, you're getting tired of seeing the corn
prices go up. If you're a corn farmer, it's a nice feeling to see the
prices go up. (Laughter.)

But we believe we can come up with technologies that will enable us to use
wood chips to make ethanol that you can put in your automobiles to help us
become less dependent on oil, or switchgrasses. That would be nice for some
of the people from my state. Switchgrass grows in a nice dry environment. I
understand you're dry here, by the way. The senator and the congressmen are
working hard on me about the drought that you've got here. (Laughter.) But
some parts of our country need to -- have got dry country and they can grow
some switchgrass.

The whole idea is to come up with different ways to power our automobiles.
And along those lines, I think it's not going to be long before you're
going to be able to drive an automobile with new battery technologies that
you can just plug in to your garage. And your automobile won't look like a
golf cart. It will be a normal size pickup truck. (Laughter and applause.)

So I laid out a goal that said we're going to reduce our gasoline usage by
20 percent over 10 years as a part of our energy diversification strategy.
And I think we can achieve that. I also know we need to change our fuel
economy standards just like we did for trucks, and I want to work with
Congress to do that as well.

In other words, it's part of a comprehensive strategy. I call it the 20-10
goal. And I commend Congress for pursuing the framework for the 20-10
proposal. It's a promising start. However, as bills get written, it's being
frustrated by special interests and, of course, all the politics that takes
place in Washington, D.C.

The current plan being debated in the Senate falls far short of the
ambitious goal I laid out. But it's a realistic goal. It's a necessary goal
if we want to become less dependent on oil from overseas. The Senate's
proposed fuel mandate, for example, calls for just a 10 percent reduction
in gasoline usage by 2017. We can do much better than that. We really can.
We've got to be optimistic about what America can do when we put our mind
to doing something.

And so I urge the Congress to be realistic about the bills they're talking
about and get it done. Get it to my desk so we can all say we've done a
good job of representing the people.

By the way, as we talk about these new technologies, we're still going to
need oil and gas. And we can explore for oil and gas in environmentally
friendly ways. I strongly believe that we ought to open up more outer
continental shelf area, as well as ANWR in Alaska. You know, there's a big
debate about whether or not you can drill and find oil and gas that's good
for you without ruining the environment. I'm telling you we can.
Technologies have changed. (Applause.)

By the way, when they're debating the bill up there, they've also got to
fill up -- add to the strategic petroleum reserve. If you're worried about
a terrorist attack which could affect the price of oil, we ought to have
oil in the ground that we can use to protect the American consumer. And
they need to expand the petroleum reserve against natural disasters,
protection against natural disasters, as well as a potential attack.

By the way, the Supreme Court -- I don't know if you follow the Supreme
Court at all, but they've ruled that the EPA must take action under the
Clean Air Act regarding greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
That's what the Court said. And when the Court says something, then the
executive branch of government says, okay, you said it, now we'll listen.
We'll do what you asked us to do.

And so I directed the EPA and the Department of Transportation, Energy, and
Agriculture to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut
gasoline consumption and greenhouse gases using the plan I just described
to you. So Congress can pass the law, which I hope they do, but if they
don't, we're moving forward because the Supreme Court told us to move
forward. And either way, in either case, we're going to become less
dependent on oil, and that's good for the United States of America.
(Applause.)

So I appreciate you letting me come by and talk a little energy. You live
it, I'm talking it. (Laughter.) I thank you for what you're doing for the
country. I thank you for your hard work, I thank you for your skill, I
thank you for your prayers. I thank you for being good Americans.

And may God bless you. And may God bless our country. Thank you all.
(Applause.)

END 2:03 P.M. CDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070621-12.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)