International Financing of Nuclear Energy (U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions)

Hearing	International Financing of Nuclear Energy
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions
Date	January 17, 2024

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Nuclear Power: Most Subcommittee Members, Ms. Korsnick, Mr. McMurray, and Dr. Reinke expressed interest in having the U.S. pursue nuclear power, which they described as safe, clean, and affordable. They highlighted how nuclear energy already accounts for a significant portion of the U.S.’s clean electricity and stated that the U.S. will need to increase its nuclear energy development and deployment to achieve its climate change goals. They also argued that nuclear power constitutes a more effective and cheaper means of addressing the U.S.’s climate change emissions than renewable energy sources and noted that nuclear power does not have intermittency issues. Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) and Dr. Reinke further discussed how nuclear power can provide industrial users with a heat and energy source to support manufacturing processes. Some Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Judson suggested however that the costs and risks associated with nuclear energy make it inferior to renewable energy sources and questioned whether the U.S. should actively promote nuclear energy. Subcommittee Ranking Member Joyce Beatty (R-OH) and Mr. Judson also expressed concerns over the disposal of nuclear waste.
  • Safety of Nuclear Power: Several Subcommittee Members, Ms. Korsnick, and Dr. Reinke asserted that nuclear power is completely safe and that nuclear power facilities do not pose dangers to their surrounding communities. Dr. Reinke highlighted how the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that nuclear reactors be able to withstand a direct impact from a Boeing 747 plane that is fully loaded with jet fuel. He also stated that the nuclear reactors produced by his company, X-energy, are incapable of melting down, even in the worst-case scenario. Full Committee Raking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Mr. Judson remarked however that the U.S. must be vigilant regarding nuclear power’s potential safety risks. They mentioned how Russian President Vladmir Putin had recently bombed nuclear facilities in Ukraine and expressed concerns that nuclear energy facilities targeted in future military conflicts could result in critical infrastructure disruptions and environmental damage. Mr. Judson further cautioned that foreign nuclear energy facilities may become vulnerable to theft of nuclear materials during periods of conflict or civil war.
  • Cost of Nuclear Energy Projects: Mr. Judson argued that nuclear energy remains too expensive to constitute a viable energy solution (especially in developing countries) and expressed doubts that nuclear reactors will become more attractive over time. He mentioned that while the U.S. has previously provided generous incentives to domestically construct new nuclear reactors under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, he indicated that these incentives had failed to result in the construction of many nuclear power plants. He added that the small number of plants that had been constructed using these incentives came in over budget. Dr. Reinke stated however that the advent of small modular reactors (SMRs) has the potential to radically reduce the cost and deployment time of nuclear energy projects. Ms. Korsnick further highlighted how South Korea has been able to reduce the cost of their nuclear energy projects through their repeated deployment of reactors.
  • Potential for Jobs: Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Brittney Pettersen (D-CO), and Ms. Korsnick expressed interest in how the nuclear energy deployment can support the creation of new jobs. These jobs include manufacturing, construction, and professional service jobs. Rep. Petterson also expressed interest in ensuring that these newly created jobs have robust labor protections.
  • Domestic Nuclear Energy Research: Mr. McMurray remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories can improve the U.S.’s competitive advantage within the global nuclear energy market. He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories engage in research and public-private partnerships and commented that this work helps the U.S. nuclear industry to develop new nuclear energy technologies. He also suggested that the U.S. can leverage the internal expertise at the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories to help countries learn about nuclear energy technologies so that the U.S. can export said technologies abroad.
  • Taxation of Nuclear Power: Dr. Reinke stated that the U.S. must remain committed to a technology neutral tax credit system. He applauded the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for providing incentives for nuclear energy that are equal to renewables.
  • Nuclear Fuel Availability: Dr. Reinke also stated that the U.S. must redevelop its nuclear fuel supply chain through ensuring that there exists sufficient funding for the U.S. Department of Energy’s High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) Availability Program. 
• International Financing of Nuclear Energy: Most Subcommittee Members, Ms. Korsnick, Dr. Reinke, and Mr. McMurray called for the U.S. to promote international nuclear energy deployment efforts through financing support. They highlighted how there exists robust international demand for nuclear energy projects given their potential to support emissions reductions and energy independence and argued that the U.S. (rather than adversarial countries) should seek to satisfy this demand. They stated that the U.S. can leverage its own export promotion and international development agencies, such as the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM Bank) and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), to support this deployment (including through funding feasibility studies). They also stated that the U.S. should work with international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank, to promote international nuclear energy projects. Mr. McMurray suggested that the World Bank can create a trust fund to support international nuclear energy projects. Ms. Korsnick remarked that the export of U.S. nuclear energy technology abroad would result in the U.S. exporting its world-leading standards for safety, security, and non-proliferation. She asserted that the best way for the U.S. to raise global nuclear energy standards is for the U.S. to build, operate, and maintain U.S.-designed and NRC-reviewed nuclear power plants. Mr. Judson argued however that the U.S. and IFIs should not prioritize the financing of nuclear energy infrastructure and stated that countries need other types of energy infrastructure. He remarked that nuclear power projects are too expensive, take too long to deploy, and are prone to cost overruns, delays, and cancellations.
  • Chinese and Russian Involvement Within the Global Nuclear Energy Sector: Most Subcommittee Members, Ms. Korsnick, Mr. McMurray, and Dr. Reinke raised concerns over how China and Russia are actively working to export their nuclear energy technologies to foreign countries and stated that the U.S. must compete with these countries to export their nuclear energy technologies. They noted how China and Russia are providing foreign countries with generous financing support to facilitate these exports and stated that China and Russia are using these exports to form long-term strategic relationships with developing countries. They warned that China and Russia may eventually exploit these relationships for geopolitical influence and to gain control over the world’s energy supply. Mr. Judson remarked however that focusing on the U.S.’s competitiveness with Russia and China on supporting nuclear energy projects would prove inefficient in terms of promoting clean energy. He stated that the global nuclear energy market is very small and commented that the global development of renewable energy and related resources is “far outpacing” the global development of nuclear energy. He argued that it is much easier for the U.S. to offer renewable energy technology exports to foreign countries than to compete in the global nuclear energy market. He also stated that renewable energy technology will enable countries to become entirely energy independent and that renewable energy is affordable.
  • Prohibitions on Nuclear Energy Financing at IFIs: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. McMurray, Dr. Reinke called on the World Bank and other IFIs to end their bans and restrictions on nuclear energy financing and argued that this current ban does not comport with their stated goals of addressing climate change. They highlighted how the International Nuclear Energy Financing Act of 2023 under consideration at the hearing would require the U.S. Executive Director at the World Bank to advocate for funding nuclear energy. Subcommittee Republicans also applauded the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) for its reversal of policies that restricted support for international nuclear energy financing.
  • International Efforts to Promote Nuclear Energy: Subcommittee Republicans, Ms. Korsnick, Mr. McMurray, and Dr. Reinke highlighted how the U.S. and 19 other countries had committed to tripling global nuclear energy capacity in December 2023. They noted how this pledge explicitly encourages the World Bank and regional development banks to include nuclear energy in their lending policies. Mr. McMurray asserted that the tripling of global nuclear energy capacity would necessitate the deployment of nuclear power plants domestically and the construction of nuclear power plants using U.S. technologies abroad. Mr. Judson commented however that tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050 would not provide as much electricity as is currently generated by renewable energy.
  • EXIM Bank: Subcommittee Republicans highlighted their work to create the China and Transformational Exports Program (CTEP) at the EXIM Bank. They stated that the CTEP allows for the EXIM Bank to compete more effectively against China with respect to foreign nuclear projects. Dr. Reinke stated that the U.S. should be adding nuclear energy technologies to the list of technologies for which the EXIM Bank can match Chinese loan terms and opening up the EXIM Bank to match Russian loan terms for nuclear energy technologies. Ms. Korsnick also recommended that the EXIM Bank’s CTEP accept greater loan risk across its portfolio and expand its Transformational Export Areas to include civil nuclear energy facilities. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-NC) further mentioned how he is developing legislation to support nuclear energy financing at the EXIM Bank. He called for the EXIM Bank to raise its default rate limit from 2 percent to 4 percent and to include civil nuclear energy facilities were in the CTEP. Ms. Korsnick expressed support for these proposed reforms.
  • Upcoming DFC Reauthorization: Mr. McMurray noted how the DFC will need to be reauthorized in 2025. He stated that Congress should work to strengthen the DFC’s unique equity function, ensure that the DFC possess sufficient expertise and project support capabilities, and ensure that the DFC does not face financing constraints when seeking to support larger nuclear energy projects.
  • Importance of Domestic Nuclear Energy Project Approvals and Deployments for U.S. Nuclear Energy Exports: Ms. Korsnick, Mr. McMurray, and Dr. Reinke remarked that the NRC’s licensing of nuclear reactor designs will be key to support the U.S.’s exports of nuclear energy technologies. They stated that other countries are unlikely to pursue U.S. nuclear reactor designs if such designs have not been previously approved and deployed. Mr. McMurray raised specific concerns that the U.S.’s current regulatory framework for nuclear energy projects is designed around large nuclear reactors. He stated that this regulatory framework is not designed to handle the new generation of nuclear reactors that use different fuels, coolants, and safety cases. He indicated that the NRC is working to modernize its regulatory approach to account for this new generation of nuclear reactors. He stated that these modernization efforts can enable the U.S. Department of Energy and the NRC to advise other countries on technical and regulatory approaches to nuclear energy technologies.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Nicholas McMurray, Managing Director for Nuclear and International Policy, ClearPath
2. Dr. Ben Reinke, Vice President, Global Business Development, X-energy
3. Ms. Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute
4. Mr. Timothy L. Judson, Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO):

• He discussed how clean nuclear power accounts for over one-quarter of the world’s low carbon electricity and nearly 20 percent of all electricity in the U.S.
  • He highlighted how Ameren Corporation’s Callaway Plant is located within his Congressional District and produces clean nuclear power.
• He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy has deemed nuclear power to be the most reliable energy source and stated that nuclear energy is one of the safest sources of power.
  • He cited one analysis that had estimated that nuclear power has been less risky to human health than wind or hydropower.
• He stated that efforts to eliminate carbon emissions through renewable energy sources alone have produced “catastrophic” results.
  • He discussed how Germany has abandoned nuclear power and that this abandonment has led Germany to have double the per capita carbon emissions of France (which relies upon nuclear power for two-thirds of its electricity).
  • He further mentioned how German households had experienced a 50 percent increase in gas prices in 2023 due to the country’s reliance on Russia for its energy needs while France is now exporting clean energy to the rest of Europe.
• He remarked that nuclear power is essential to energy security and asserted that the U.S. cannot limit the reach of nuclear power to solely advanced economies.
  • He mentioned how half of sub-Saharan Africa lacks access to electricity and commented that many renewable energy supporters want to maintain this status quo.
• He discussed how China and Russia are exploring nuclear energy cooperation throughout the developing world.
• He called on the U.S. to compete with China and Russia on efforts to export nuclear energy technologies globally.
  • He commented that nuclear power provides the U.S. with a “unique opportunity” to advance a positive national security agenda.
• He mentioned how Republicans had worked in 2019 to create the EXIM Bank’s CTEP and stated that the CTEP allows for the EXIM Bank to compete more effectively against Chinese nuclear projects abroad.
  • He commented that the CTEP will enable the U.S. to provide foreign countries with “real options” to power their development with abundant clean energy,
• He applauded the EXIM Bank for engaging in several discussions on future nuclear deals around the world.
  • He noted how these deals involve countries in Asia, Europe, and Latin America.
• He also mentioned how Committee Republicans have pushed the World Bank and the EBRD to end their bans on nuclear energy financing.
  • He commented that these bans do not comport with the rhetoric of these organizations regarding the need to address climate change.
• He asserted that these lenders should be active in emerging markets and developing nations and not remain passive as China and Russia attempt to export their inferior nuclear energy technologies.
  • He expressed his pleasure with the progress of efforts to enlist IFIs in promoting the global financing of nuclear energy projects.
• He mentioned how the U.S. and 19 other countries had committed to tripling nuclear energy capacity globally in December 2023.
  • He highlighted how this pledge explicitly encourages the World Bank and regional development banks to include nuclear energy as part of their lending policies.
  • He noted how the EBRD has already signaled that it may consider opportunities to support nuclear power projects.
• He remarked that the shared support for nuclear energy financing between Republicans and the Biden administration has been a “welcome source of cooperation.”
  • He expressed hope that this cooperation would continue.
• He lastly mentioned how the Subcommittee had worked to ensure that the hearing would include witnesses with scientific expertise and expressed his pleasure with the fact that many of the witnesses have engineering backgrounds.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Joyce Beatty (D-OH):

• She discussed how the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have expanded their focuses in recent years to helping countries respond to COVID-19 pandemic-related economic disruptions and to addressing climate change.
  • She commented that the U.S. has advocated for the global community to address these challenges.
• She mentioned how U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen has urged the World Bank to develop an Evolution Roadmap to respond to climate change.
• She also mentioned how the U.S. has led efforts within the Group of Seven (G7) and the Group of 20 (G20) to support a $100 billion Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST) at the IMF.
  • She explained that the RST would advance climate change resilience and financing for low- and middle-income countries.
• She noted that while Congress has appropriated funds for the RST, she indicated that the Committee has not authorized these funds.
  • She attributed the Committee’s failure to authorize these funds to Republican opposition.
• She remarked that the U.S. must “dramatically” reduce its use of fossil fuels and transition to clean energy in order to address climate change.
  • She commented that the U.S. must “carefully and accurately” consider every factor to ensure that the U.S. transitions to energy sources that best serve the environment and global communities.
• She remarked that nuclear energy constitutes a superior alternative to fossil fuel development and commented that nuclear energy can play a role in efforts to transition to clean energy sources.
• She stated however that nuclear energy has its own unique hazards that policymakers must address.
  • She asserted that further actions must be taken to ensure that countries powered by nuclear energy are properly managing and disposing of their toxic radioactive waste.

Witnesses Opening Statements:

Ms. Maria Korsnick (Nuclear Energy Institute):

• She thanked the Subcommittee for recognizing that clean nuclear energy will be crucial for meeting the U.S.’s national security, energy independence, climate change, and environmental goals.
• She remarked that U.S. companies lead the world in innovating the next generation of nuclear energy.
  • She stated that the U.S. operates the largest and highest performing fleet of nuclear reactors in the world.
• She noted however that the U.S. lags Russia and China in terms of nuclear energy technology exports and highlighted how Russia and China are building strategic 100-year partnerships with foreign countries and setting the global standards for nuclear safety.
• She remarked that the export of U.S. nuclear energy technology abroad would result in the U.S. exporting its world-leading standards for safety, security, and non-proliferation.
  • She asserted that the best way for the U.S. to raise global nuclear energy standards is for the U.S. to build, operate, and maintain U.S.-designed and NRC-reviewed nuclear power plants.
• She also discussed how the U.S.’s deployments of nuclear power plants globally would reduce carbon emissions and create thousands of American jobs.
  • She asserted that U.S. nuclear power exports benefit national and international security, U.S. workers, and the environment.
• She warned that Russia is outcompeting the U.S. in the global nuclear energy market and that China may soon overtake the U.S. in this market.
• She called Russia the world’s dominant nuclear energy supplier and noted how Rosatom (which is Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy conglomerate) currently has 70 percent of the global export market for new nuclear energy construction.
  • She mentioned how a Russian-built nuclear reactor had recently begun operation in Belarus and highlighted how Russia is currently building nuclear reactors in Egypt, Turkey, Bangladesh, and other countries.
• She also discussed how China has designated nuclear energy exports as a strategic priority and noted how nuclear energy has been included in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) since its launch in 2017.
  • She indicated that China now operates 55 nuclear reactors and was second to the U.S. in total nuclear power generation in 2023.
• She noted how China’s state-owned nuclear enterprise has 22 more units under construction and 42 units planted and stated that this state-owned enterprise is becoming increasingly aggressive in the global marketplace.
  • She highlighted how this state-owned enterprise had recently completed two nuclear reactors in Pakistan.
• She then discussed how global demand for nuclear energy is “unprecedented” and stated that governments around the world recognize that making nuclear energy a central part of their energy systems can enable them to decarbonize their electric grids and strengthen their energy independence.
  • She noted how there had occurred “robust” growth in nuclear energy demand prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and commented that this invasion had underscored the problems associated with overreliance on Russian gas.
• She mentioned how two dozen countries had signed a pledge at the recent COP28 Conference to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
  • She also noted how a majority of European Union (EU) governments had recently voted to include nuclear energy in the EU’s net-zero list of strategic technologies.
  • She added that approximately 30 countries (of which one-third are in Africa) are now considering planning or starting nuclear power programs for the very first time.
• She testified that she meets with foreign leaders regularly to discuss nuclear energy issues and indicated that most of these countries do not want to partner with Russia or China on nuclear energy projects.
  • She asserted that the U.S. must offer other countries similar nuclear energy project opportunities.
• She lastly remarked that the U.S. must provide its nuclear energy companies with tools to compete and win against state-owned enterprises from Russia and China.
  • She contended that the U.S. must place the same strategic value on nuclear energy exports as Russia and China do.
  • She mentioned how Russia currently offers terms and conditions for its nuclear energy technologies that the U.S. cannot match.
• She called on Congress to enact the International Nuclear Energy Financing Act of 2023 and other proposals mentioned in her written testimony.
  • She commented that these policies can bolster the U.S.’s international competitiveness within the global nuclear energy market and ensure that the U.S. remains an influential participant within this market.

Mr. Nicholas McMurray (ClearPath):

• He mentioned how the U.S. and over 20 allies had recently pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
  • He commented that this commitment recognizes that reliable energy (like nuclear energy) is necessary to reduce global emissions while meeting economic development goals.
• He stated however that the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 2023 World Energy Outlook shows that existing policies make this goal “incredibly” challenging.
  • He noted how the IEA projects that existing policies would allow for just a 48 percent increase in global nuclear energy capacity.
  • He asserted that the tripling of global nuclear energy capacity would necessitate the deployment of nuclear power plants domestically and the construction of nuclear power plants using U.S. technologies abroad.
• He remarked that the U.S. must remain competitive with China and Russia in terms of nuclear energy, overcome financing obstacles for U.S. nuclear energy projects, and reform burdensome nuclear energy regulatory requirements.
• He noted that while the U.S. still possesses the world’s largest domestic operating nuclear fleet, he stated that the pace that China is building nuclear reactors should be worrisome to those that want the U.S. to remain a global leader within the nuclear energy space.
  • He indicated that China currently has 55 operating nuclear reactors and is “actively” constructing more reactors.
  • He indicated that the U.S. by contrast has just one commercial nuclear reactor under construction.
• He stated that China’s BRI and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrate that China and Russia want to exert their influence globally.
• He highlighted how China and Russia are developing nuclear energy technology export markets and providing “significant” financial support for their nuclear energy projects.
  • He mentioned how Russia had provided $25 billion in financing to Egypt (which was around 85 percent of the full project cost) and how China had recently announced that it would provide the full cost of a new nuclear reactor (which was $4.8 billion) to Pakistan.
• He stated that this focus has led China and Russia to construct 64 new nuclear reactors abroad since 2000.
  • He emphasized that nuclear reactors will operate for 60 years or more, which will lead the countries hosting these nuclear reactors to depend on China and Russia for decades.
• He remarked however that the U.S. private sector can compete with China and Russia in deploying international nuclear power facilities.
  • He commented that the U.S.’s shale gas “boom” provides an example of successful public-private partnerships and suggested that the advanced nuclear energy market can experience similar success.
• He stated that Congress can provide further direction to various government agencies through developing a U.S. nuclear energy export strategy, bolstering U.S. export financing tools, and removing “red tape” that prevents the scaling of nuclear energy technologies.
• He described the U.S.’s current approach to exporting nuclear energy technologies as “fragmented” and noted how the process of exporting a nuclear reactor involves coordination among multiple entities.
  • He indicated that these entities include the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the NRC, the EXIM Bank, the DFC, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the U.S. National Security Council (NSC), and other government bodies.
• He also stated that innovative U.S. nuclear energy companies are not operating in a fair and open market and highlighted how these companies must compete against generous state-sponsored financing.
  • He mentioned how China’s financing of all global energy initiatives had outpaced the combined contributions of all significant Western-backed development banks between 2016 and 2021.
• He remarked that providing a fair environment for clean energy exports will require thoughtful policy reforms and highlighted how the International Nuclear Energy Act of 2023 would develop a civil nuclear energy technology export strategy.
• He also mentioned how the International Nuclear Energy Financing Act of 2023 would require the U.S. Executive Director at the World Bank to advocate for funding nuclear energy.
  • He stated that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks play a significant role in worldwide infrastructure planning and commented that these banks can be “instrumental” in increasing global nuclear energy deployment.
• He then remarked that the NRC will need to license a nuclear reactor design domestically before another country would be willing to build it.
  • He noted however that an NRC-licensed nuclear reactor design must still receive export approvals and be licensed by other countries to be deployed in said countries.
• He contended that an efficient and agile U.S. regulator is therefore fundamental for enabling domestic deployment of nuclear energy technologies and for ensuring the U.S.’s global competitiveness within the nuclear energy space.
• He remarked that an “all of the above” clean energy strategy is the only viable path for achieving global emissions reduction targets.
  • He commented that this will entail the deployment of nuclear energy and called on IFIs to promote nuclear energy deployment.

Dr. Ben Reinke (X-energy):

• He discussed how his company, X-energy, is a nuclear reactor and fuel design engineering company.
  • He indicated that X-energy has over 400 employees and “hundreds” of more contractors that are part of its design team.
• He mentioned how X-energy manufactures TRISO-X fuel (which is their proprietary version of tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) coated particle fuel) and stated that TRISO-X fuel serves as the safety and economic basis for X-energy’s nuclear reactors.
  • He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy had originally developed TRISO coated particle fuel and how TRISO coated particle fuel had been qualified through a series of experiments that had validated TRISO’s safety case.
  • He highlighted how the U.S. Department of Energy has called TRISO coated particle fuel the “most robust nuclear fuel on earth.”
• He discussed how X-energy’s advanced high-temperature gas-cooled SMR is called the Xe-100 and indicated that this SMR produces 200 megawatts (MW) of thermal energy or 80 MW of electricity.
  • He commented that the Xe-100 has advantages in sustainability, economics, reliability, and safety over conventional nuclear reactors.
• He stated that the Xe-100’s core can never meltdown, even in the worst-case accident scenario.
  • He also noted how the Xe-100 has helium flow through its core (rather than water) and how these SMRs can achieve much higher temperatures than current nuclear reactors.
• He discussed how the Xe-100’s modular design allows for the number of reactors to be matched to the needs of each customer with up to 12 reactors operating form a single control room.
• He highlighted how the Xe-100 can load follow, which makes it “ideally suited” for pairing with renewable energy sources.
  • He indicated that the Xe-100 can ramp between 40 percent and 100 percent power in only 12 minutes.
• He then remarked that there is a global race underway for the development and deployment of clean energy technologies and lamented how Russian and Chinese state-owned enterprises have established strong positions in the global nuclear energy marketplace.
  • He noted how China and Russia currently account for 70 percent of planned or under construction nuclear reactors worldwide.
• He stated however that the U.S. is positioned to reclaim its global leadership within the nuclear energy space due to its innovative technologies (including X-energy’s Xe-100).
• He discussed how X-energy’s first project will be deployed under the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP).
  • He commented that this Program will enable X-energy to complete the design of the Xe-100, construct its first commercial scale TRISO-X manufacturing facility, and license, construct, and commission its first plant with Dow.
  • He elaborated that this Dow plant will involve a four-unit 320 MW electric plant that will provide all of the steam and electricity required for Dow’s Seadrift, Texas polyethylene manufacturing complex.
• He also mentioned how X-energy has an ARDP fast-follower project with Energy Northwest in Richland, Washington.
  • He commented that this project intends to develop a minimum of four follow-up nuclear reactors and up to 12 Xe-100 units on their project site.
• He stated that while there are many use cases for SMRs for utility deployments, he indicated that coal-to-nuclear conversion and data centers are the two most dominant use cases driving demand for SMRs.
• He testified that X-energy has observed growing customer interest for SMRs globally and mentioned how X-energy has been paid to conduct studies across market segments and geographies.
  • He indicated that these market segments include integrated steel manufacturing, end-of-life coal plants, and hydrogen production.
• He remarked that there exists “ample” evidence that nuclear energy has become popular again globally and asserted that the fundamentals underlying nuclear energy are now better than ever.
• He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the U.S. will require an incremental 200 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear energy by 2050.
  • He commented that the Biden administration had sought to advance this objective through joining 21 nations at COP28 in pledging to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
• He remarked that the U.S. must work to deploy nuclear energy technologies domestically before it can sell these technologies internationally.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must remain committed to a fully implemented ARDP to accomplish this objective.
• He also stated that the U.S. must remain committed to a technology neutral tax credit system.
  • He applauded the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for providing incentives for nuclear energy that are equal to renewables.
• He further remarked that the U.S. must redevelop its nuclear fuel supply chain through ensuring that there exists sufficient funding for the U.S. Department of Energy’s HALEU Availability Program.
• He then stated that the U.S. must remove barriers to entry for new advanced nuclear reactor technologies both domestically and internationally.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must focus on “right sizing” regulatory requirements for these “inherently safe” advanced nuclear reactors.
• He further called for ensuring that the U.S. possesses a broad variety of financing tools to support nuclear energy technology exports.
  • He commented that this entails adding nuclear energy technologies to the list of technologies for which the EXIM Bank can match Chinese loan terms, opening up the EXIM Bank to match Russian loan terms for nuclear energy technologies, and advocating for the World Bank to reverse its ban on providing loans for nuclear energy projects.
• He lastly thanked the Subcommittee for their bipartisan support for efforts to regain the U.S.’s global leadership within the nuclear energy space.

Mr. Timothy L. Judson (Nuclear Information and Resource Service):

• He remarked that the world is “eager” for the U.S. to play a larger role in financing energy infrastructure for less developed countries.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must play this larger role because of the “climate crisis.”
• He stated however that the U.S. and IFIs should not prioritize the financing of nuclear energy infrastructure and argued that countries need other types of energy infrastructure.
• He remarked that nuclear power projects are too expensive, take too long to deploy, and are prone to cost overruns, delays, and cancellations.
  • He commented that these negative features make it too risky for governments and IFIs to make loans for these projects.
• He stated that the U.S. has acknowledged these challenges associated with financing nuclear power projects and asserted that the U.S. has needed to use “extraordinary means” to finance these projects.
  • He highlighted how the Energy Policy Act of 2005 had provided $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power projects.
  • He also mentioned how states have offered construction-work-in-progress (CWIP) programs that have ratepayers cover the cost of financing nuclear power projects before the projects generate any electricity.
• He acknowledged that while the Energy Policy Act of 2005 had led to 28 proposals for new nuclear reactors around the U.S., he highlighted how most of these proposals had not come to fruition.
  • He indicated that 24 of these proposed nuclear reactors had never commenced construction and that two of these proposed nuclear reactors had been canceled after $9 billion had been spent.
  • He also indicated that the two proposed nuclear reactors that are being completed had cost over $30 billion and were seven years behind schedule.
  • He further indicated that the Georgia Public Service Commission’s staff had testified that these projects will provide no net benefits for Georgia ratepayers.
• He expressed concerns that the U.S. is now asking other countries (that have less wealth than the U.S.) to assume significant amounts of financial risk to construct nuclear energy projects.
• He then disputed the claims that nuclear power will become more affordable and that advancements will occur that will enable the quicker construction of nuclear reactors.
  • He mentioned how there have been no SMRs or advanced nuclear reactors built in the U.S. and emphasized that SMRs and advanced nuclear reactors have not received approvals for their designs yet.
• He stated that other countries will not pursue SMRs or advanced nuclear reactors until they first observe these reactors be successfully deployed.
  • He contended that having IFIs prioritize funding for nuclear energy projects would constitute a suboptimal strategy because these projects will take decades to deploy while countries have pressing energy infrastructure needs.
• He noted that while 22 countries had recently called for the tripling of nuclear energy capacity by 2050 at COP28, he highlighted how 130 countries had called for tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency by 2030.
  • He commented that tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050 would not provide as much electricity as is currently generated by renewable energy.
• He discussed how a 2022 Third Way report had claimed that there had occurred a tripling of the global market for nuclear energy and indicated this report’s claim was based on an electricity price of $90 megawatt hour (Mwh).
  • He noted that this estimate is less than half the actual cost of nuclear power plants that are currently being developed and “significantly greater” than the costs of wind and solar energy sources (which are $50 Mwh and $60 Mwh, respectively).
• He also mentioned how the IEA had recently issued a report confirming that the world is on pace to triple its renewable energy generation capacity by 2030.
• He stated that a key barrier to increasing renewable energy generating capacity is access to financing and contended that the U.S. can support this access to financing.
  • He commented that focusing on the U.S.’s competitiveness with Russia and China on supporting nuclear energy projects would prove inefficient in terms of promoting clean energy.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO):

• Chairman Luetkemeyer discussed how the U.S.’s failure to support other countries that are pursuing nuclear energy projects has led China and Russia to assist these countries. He asked Mr. McMurray to respond to Mr. Judson’s assertions that nuclear energy is not cost effective.
  • Mr. McMurray remarked that the world needs a wide variety of clean energy technologies and commented that nuclear energy should be one of these clean energy technologies. He stated that China and Russia have recently controlled the global nuclear energy export marketplace and emphasized that nuclear energy projects are being built globally. He remarked that the U.S. must now work to regain its global leadership within the nuclear energy space. He asserted that the U.S. will need to pursue an “all of the above” energy strategy because countries will be interested in building whatever clean energy resources that they have available. He warned that the failure of the EXIM Bank, the DFC, the World Bank, and other development banks to support nuclear energy projects will lead countries with growing demand for energy to seek out energy financing elsewhere. He commented that China and Russia are currently working to satisfy this international demand for energy financing.
• Chairman Luetkemeyer also noted how X-energy is producing a new type of nuclear energy facility. He asked Dr. Reinke to respond to Mr. Judson’s assertions that new nuclear energy facilities have not been tested and cannot be implemented.
  • Dr. Reinke remarked that virtually all of the nuclear energy technologies currently under development have been tested at a pilot scale, in a test reactor, or commercially. He stated that many of these technologies are “extremely promising” and were first developed in the U.S. He indicated that these technologies have typically been tested in the Idaho desert, as well as at various U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories. He stated that this testing had supported an understanding of the basic physics underlying the technologies and the major economic challenges that are associated with bringing these nuclear reactors to market. He discussed how the U.S. now has a major fleet of large light-water reactors both domestically and internationally and described these deployment efforts as successful. He remarked that X-energy’s technology is one of just many nuclear energy technologies that have been tested and demonstrated at a commercial scale globally. He noted how the Chinese government currently operates the world’s only commercial high temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactor and indicated that China has long worked to lead the world in this technology. He stated that X-energy is working to improve upon this technology and provide a better and more economic fuel and nuclear reactor.
• Chairman Luetkemeyer reiterated his concerns that the U.S. is ceding its leadership in the global nuclear energy marketplace to Russia and China. He stated that Russia and China’s growing market share in this marketplace provides these countries with an advantage in terms of developing geopolitical relationships. He partially attributed this situation to the fact that the IMF, the World Bank, and the EXIM Bank have not actively financed nuclear energy projects. He stated however that there appears to be a growing awareness regarding the need for IFIs to support nuclear energy projects. He asked Ms. Korsnick to address how the Subcommittee can improve IFI support for nuclear energy projects.
  • Ms. Korsnick expressed appreciation for EXIM Bank Chair Reta Jo Lewis for being receptive to having the EXIM Bank support nuclear energy projects. She remarked that the U.S. must enhance the EXIM Bank’s offerings to make U.S. nuclear energy companies more competitive with foreign state-owned enterprises. She indicated that her testimony includes specific recommendations. She also stated that the U.S. must catalyze private financing for international nuclear energy projects. She further called for a coordinated whole of government approach to support nuclear energy project deployments. She elaborated that the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of State, and the NRC will need to support this deployment. She then discussed the importance of front-end financing to support nuclear energy projects and commented that this financing will support feasibility studies. She remarked that the U.S. must work to foster relationships with countries that are interested in pursuing nuclear energy projects and asserted that the U.S. must become a global leader within the nuclear energy space.
• Chairman Luetkemeyer interjected to ask Mr. Korsnick to indicate whether there currently exist prohibitions that prevent the World Bank and the IMF from funding preliminary studies for nuclear energy projects.
  • Ms. Korsnick answered affirmatively and commented that it is currently difficult for interested parties to obtain financing for feasibility studies for prospective nuclear energy projects.
• Chairman Luetkemeyer asked Ms. Korsnick to confirm that she is suggesting that IFIs should finance feasibility studies for prospective nuclear energy projects and that U.S. backstops for this financing could create future market demand for U.S. nuclear energy technologies.
  • Ms. Korsnick confirmed Chairman Luetkemeyer’s description of her suggestion. She stated that the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), the EXIM Bank, and the DFC can support these front-end financing efforts.
• Chairman Luetkemeyer indicated that his question period time had expired.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Joyce Beatty (D-OH):

• Ranking Member Beatty discussed how IFIs currently do not finance new nuclear power generation projects. She asked Mr. Judson to discuss the ramifications of having the IFIs change their internal policies to allow for such financing. She also asked Mr. Judson to address the safety, security, oversight, and feasibility of these projects.
  • Mr. Judson remarked that the feasibility of new nuclear energy projects will depend on whether there are products that are appealing to other countries. He stated that the current trends in the U.S. relating to demand for new nuclear reactors are not encouraging. He recounted how the NuScale VOYGR SMR had proposed the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) in Idaho in 2015 and indicated that the originally projected price for this Project was $3 billion. He noted however that the CFPP’s estimated price had grown steadily over the ensuing years and indicated that the estimated price was $9.3 billion when the Project was ultimately canceled in 2023. He also noted that CFPP’s planned energy generation had decreased during this time and that the CFPP had been four years behind its proposed schedule at the time of its cancellation. He further indicated that the CFPP had neither commenced nor received approval at the time of its cancellation. He remarked that the U.S. nuclear energy industry has failed to determine whether smaller nuclear reactor designs are superior to existing large nuclear reactor designs (which he commented are already unaffordable). He noted how the CFPP’s $9.3 billion price would have amounted to $20 million per MW of energy, which is more expensive than the Plant Vogtle nuclear reactors that are currently being completed. He also stated that the CFPP’s price would have likely increased further had the Project commenced construction. He remarked that this experience raises doubts as to whether the U.S. can produce nuclear energy technologies that would be attractive to foreign countries. He mentioned how there had been 507 GW of renewable energy that had been brought online in 2023, which is 25 percent more capacity than the entire nuclear energy industry worldwide. He further noted how the IEA has projected that the amount of new renewable energy capacity being brought online could increase to over 900 GW per year by the end of the decade. He stated that the U.S. should not narrowly focus its international energy financing policy around nuclear energy. He warned that this narrow focus would cause the U.S. to overlook the much larger market for renewable energy and related products and services that has already developed. He added that there already exist U.S. renewable energy companies and commented that the International Nuclear Energy Financing Act of 2023 would not support these companies.
• Ranking Member Beatty then asked Dr. Reinke to discuss X-energy’s TRISO-X fuel.
  • Dr. Reinke explained how TRISO-X fuel involves a graphite ceramics matrix that contains uranium oxycarbide. He noted how ceramic materials do not melt and that this feature enables the fuel to reach very high temperatures without failing. He commented that this obviates the need for large concrete steel vessels (that are common in existing nuclear reactors). He stated that TRISO-X fuel supports SMRs that can produce 80 MW of electric power. He indicated that X-energy plans to deploy an SMR at a Dow facility before the end of the decade.

Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX):

• Rep. Williams remarked that nuclear power is a viable clean energy source. He mentioned how the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant is located within his Congressional District and noted how this nuclear plant supplies energy to over one million homes. He stated that nuclear power is one of the U.S.’s safest energy sources (even compared to other low carbon energy options). He expressed support for an “all of the above” energy approach and commented that this will entail expanding the U.S.’s nuclear energy profile. He also remarked that the U.S. must ensure that Russia and China do not dominate nuclear energy construction efforts given how energy security is a key component of national security. He asked Mr. McMurray to elaborate on the importance of strengthening the U.S.’s domestic and international nuclear energy portfolio. He also asked Mr. McMurray to discuss how a strong nuclear energy profile would improve domestic energy security.
  • Mr. McMurray remarked that having a wide variety of nuclear energy technologies would help the U.S. to compete in the international market. He noted how many countries may not want large nuclear reactors and may instead want smaller nuclear reactors. He stated that domestic demonstrations of nuclear reactors will support the U.S. nuclear industry’s global competitiveness. He then discussed how U.S. policies, including the ARDP, can support the construction of these nuclear reactors domestically. He also called for improving the regulatory environment to support novel nuclear energy technologies that have different fuels, coolants, and safety cases. He further stated that the DFC, the EXIM Bank, and the World Bank can provide financing opportunities for foreign countries to purchase U.S. nuclear energy technologies. He commented that this financing will support U.S. export opportunities.
• Rep. Williams then discussed how China and Russia have been working to develop nuclear energy projects across Europe, South America, Africa, and South Asia. He stated that these countries are using the global nuclear energy market to increase their profile and influence in countries in need of sound energy infrastructure. He called this situation problematic and asserted that these Chinese- and Russian-built nuclear reactors and technologies are more dangerous than U.S.- and Japanese-built nuclear reactors and technologies. He stated that the U.S. cannot allow its enemies to grow their influence in vulnerable nations and allow countries to become reliant on hostile countries and unsafe technologies. He asked Ms. Korsnick to discuss how Chinese and Russian nuclear energy projects pose risks to certain regions and will impact U.S. national security. He also asked Ms. Korsnick to address how the U.S. can mitigate the risks posed by Chinese and Russian nuclear energy projects.
  • Ms. Korsnick recounted how Russia had recently cut off access to their natural gas supplies for many European countries. She commented that this episode demonstrated Europe’s dependence on Russia for their energy needs. She remarked that Russia is not pursuing foreign nuclear energy project deployments for benevolent reasons. She asserted that Russia is instead pursuing these foreign nuclear energy project deployments to increase their control over the world’s energy supply. She then remarked that the U.S. must increase its relevance within the global nuclear energy market to counter Russia’s actions. She stated that the export of U.S. nuclear energy technologies abroad can support this objective and commented that countries already want to partner with the U.S. on nuclear energy projects. She stated that financing institutions (including the EXIM Bank) can support the export of these technologies abroad.
• Rep. Williams remarked that international nuclear financing is a key tool for providing U.S. allies with safe and reliable energy. He also commented that this financing constitutes a “critical step” for countering Chinese and Russian influence. He mentioned how Committee Republicans had worked to create the EXIM Bank’s CTEP in 2019. He explained that CTEP allows for the EXIM Bank to provide competitive financing terms to counteract Chinese financing of nuclear energy technologies abroad. He remarked that the U.S. must ensure that the EXIM Bank can continue its nuclear energy assistance programs and projects abroad to ensure that countries can use safe and reliable energy without malign influence. He asked Dr. Reinke to discuss how the EXIM Bank can be most effective in supporting the growth of nuclear energy technologies within the U.S.
  • Dr. Reinke thanked the Committee for its efforts to support the EXIM Bank in becoming more competitive regarding its offerings vis-a-vis China. He stated that the U.S. could add nuclear energy to the list of technologies that are available to the EXIM Bank’s Chinese exemption. He also stated that the U.S. could extend this exemption to apply to Russian offerings.

Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL):

• Rep. Foster expressed agreement with Mr. Judson’s assertion that the challenges facing nuclear energy are largely economic in nature. He noted how there has occurred a significant drop in the cost of wind and solar energy over the previous decade. He remarked however that cost comparisons between wind, solar, and nuclear energy generation units cannot involve just cost comparisons between the energy generation units themselves. He stated that cost assessments of wind and solar energy generation units must account for their energy replacements during periods of intermittency, which can include energy storage or additional grid transmission capacity. He commented that adding energy storage or additional grid transmission capacity is not cheap. He asked Mr. Judson to project the costs associated with building out this additional energy storage and additional grid transmission capacity that are needed to satisfy current energy demands using exclusively renewable energy sources.
  • Mr. Judson remarked that the full costs associated with deploying renewable energy sources must be studied in detail. He discussed how the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research had released a 2016 study that assessed the feasibility of achieving a net zero emissions grid for the state of Maryland by 2050 using renewable energy sources. He noted how this study had found that wind and solar energy sources can offset their energy intermittency issues related to time of day and seasonality. He indicated that this study projected that Maryland’s economy would double between the time of the study and 2050 and experience a commensurate increase in population. He noted that this study had concluded that the cost of a renewable energy system for Maryland in 2050 would be “substantially” less than the status quo with 100 percent renewable energy sources.
• Rep. Foster then expressed interest in how X-energy is using its technologies to provide process heat and commented that this application will be key to combating climate change. He asked Dr. Reinke to discuss the markets that X-energy is considering beyond electricity generation.
  • Dr. Reinke noted how about 25 percent of the U.S.’s energy emissions come from heavy industry. He discussed how X-energy is working with Dow on the company’s efforts to decarbonize a polyethylene plant and indicated that this plant produces components for solar cells and the insulation and jacketing for high-voltage transmission lines. He then mentioned how X-energy has conducted study work for a large integrated steel manufacturer in the U.S. He noted that while this potential customer has not yet decided whether to adopt nuclear energy technologies, he testified that this study has had “very promising results” in terms of the potential to integrate process heat and electricity for large manufacturing products. He also mentioned how X-energy has looked into potential mining applications and stated that X-energy’s technologies could support the production of dry products.
• Rep. Foster interjected to remark that the U.S. has a national security interest in subsidizing dual use technologies. He identified drones as an example of a dual use technology and stated that the U.S.’s failure to support its domestic drone market has led China to dominate this market. He asked Ms. Korsnick to address how the U.S. should think about this issue.
  • Ms. Korsnick contended that the global construction of nuclear power plants is inevitable and stated that the question has become whether the U.S. will be involved in this global construction. She remarked that the U.S. should encourage the adoption of its nuclear energy technologies and strong safety standards.

Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA):

• Rep. Meuser mentioned how his Congressional District contains the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station and added that there exist several other nuclear power plants throughout his commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He highlighted how Pennsylvania derives its energy from a diverse set of sources, including nuclear, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, thermal, and hydropower energy sources. He raised concerns over the U.S.’s growing energy demands and how existing energy generation capacity may not be able to satisfy this demand. He asked Mr. McMurray to discuss the impact that the current regulatory environment for nuclear energy has on the deployment of nuclear energy projects. He noted how few nuclear energy plants are currently under development.
  • Mr. McMurray remarked that the U.S.’s current regulatory framework for nuclear energy projects is designed around large nuclear reactors. He stated that this regulatory framework is not designed to handle the new generation of nuclear reactors that use different fuels, coolants, and safety cases. He indicated that the NRC is working to modernize its regulatory approach to account for this new generation of nuclear reactors. He remarked that these regulatory modernization efforts provide the U.S. with an opportunity to become a global leader in deploying novel nuclear energy technologies. He also stated that these modernization efforts can enable the U.S. Department of Energy and the NRC to advise other countries on technical and regulatory approaches to nuclear energy technologies.
• Rep. Meuser asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether the U.S.’s current regulatory environment for nuclear energy projects impacts the international financing of nuclear energy projects.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that the NRC’s performance has international implications because many countries want to know whether the NRC approves the nuclear energy technologies that they are considering. She stated that a slow and inefficient NRC will hamper the deployment of U.S. nuclear energy technologies, which will in turn impact the attractiveness of these technologies.
• Rep. Meuser then noted how the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station is 2,500 MW. He asked Dr. Reinke to indicate whether it is feasible to build, finance, and obtain a return on investment on a nuclear power plant in the U.S.’s current regulatory environment.
  • Dr. Reinke noted how the U.S. is currently bringing two large light water nuclear reactors online and commented that there exist certain markets where such deployments are feasible. He noted however that the U.S.’s most recent previous nuclear reactor deployment had occurred 30 years ago. He also mentioned how many rival countries are developing smaller nuclear reactors. He noted how smaller nuclear reactors are much cheaper to deploy than larger nuclear reactors. He discussed how the amount of money needed to be raised to support a nuclear reactor project is phased over the life of the project. He indicated that the first phase of exploring a nuclear reactor project deployment involves the commissioning of feasibility studies. He estimated that these studies cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (which he commented are cheap relative to the overall cost of a nuclear energy reactor project). He stated that spending on a nuclear energy reactor project will increase overtime while the risk of the project will decrease overtime. He testified that a notional X-energy project will be approximately seven years in length. He stated that heavily industrial companies are accustomed to these expenditure levels and timeframes.

Full Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA):

• Ranking Member Waters discussed how nuclear energy facilities have previously experienced problems and referenced the Three Mile Island accident, the Chernobyl disaster, and the Fukushima nuclear accident as examples of these problems. She also mentioned how Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently bombed nuclear energy facilities around Ukraine. She then stated that most of the power generation from nuclear energy is safe and noted how nearly 20 percent of the U.S.’s electricity is generated by nuclear power sources. She also commented that nuclear energy generates less carbon emissions than fossil fuels. She remarked however that policymakers cannot ignore the safety risks posed by nuclear power plants. She asked Mr. Judson to discuss the safety considerations and guarantees that would be necessary before IFIs could pursue nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. Judson remarked that the NRC should first approve nuclear energy technology designs for construction and operation in the U.S. before these technologies are exported abroad. He also stated that Ukraine’s current situation demonstrates that the U.S. should not prioritize the export of its nuclear energy technologies abroad. He elaborated that the U.S. cannot guarantee that other countries will not be involved in future military conflicts. He warned that these exports may force the U.S. to become involved in such future conflicts so that the U.S. can protect against widespread environmental damage. He also expressed concerns that foreign nuclear energy facilities may become vulnerable to theft of nuclear materials during periods of conflict or civil war. He further noted how Russia has staged its military operations against Ukraine out of the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants because they know that Ukraine will not attack these facilities. He remarked that the existence and operations of nuclear energy facilities creates national security vulnerabilities (as well as nuclear waste). He asserted that the U.S. must seriously consider these challenges in discussions around the international financing of foreign nuclear energy projects. He commented that the U.S. tends to discount these concerns because it has not experienced significant infrastructure disruptions.
• Ranking Member Waters reiterated her interest in ensuring that nuclear power plants are safe. She emphasized how there remains environmental contamination stemming from the Chernobyl disaster and noted how the total death toll from this disaster remains unknown. She warned that the bombings of existing nuclear energy facilities could result in “massive destruction.”

 Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA):

• Rep. Nunn remarked that U.S. energy security is a critical component of U.S. national security and stated that recent global events have underscored the importance of U.S. energy independence. He mentioned how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has disrupted global natural gas prices and how Hamas’s attack against Israel has jeopardized oil exports throughout the Middle East. He criticized the Biden administration’s environmental policy agenda and asserted that this agenda is harming the U.S.’s energy producers. He remarked that his state of Iowa is pursuing a variety of different energy types and called on Congress to take action to increase the U.S.’s energy production. He stated that nuclear energy is often overlooked as a potential source of safe, clean, and affordable fuel and that a lack of consensus around nuclear energy has stalled the U.S.’s deployment of this energy source. He remarked that the U.S.’s failure to promote energy production has led adversaries to advance their energy sectors at the expense of the U.S.’s energy sector. He then asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether Russia is currently selling SMRs to the U.S.’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies.
  • Ms. Korsnick noted that while Russia has SMRs, she indicated that she is not aware as to whether Russia has sold these SMRs to other countries.
• Rep. Nunn asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether China views the production and sale of SMRs as a critical component of their BRI.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that China views the export of both large and small nuclear reactors as a component of their BRI.
• Rep. Nunn asked Ms. Korsnick to confirm that foreign countries (including many NATO allies) are looking to Russia and China as a potential source of nuclear energy technologies.
  • Ms. Korsnick confirmed that foreign countries are looking to Russia and China as a potential source of nuclear energy technologies.
• Rep. Nunn asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether the U.S. can currently offer its NATO allies an alternative to Russian and Chinese nuclear energy technology offerings.
  • Ms. Korsnick answered affirmatively. She mentioned how the U.S. has active contracts in Poland and Romania to sell U.S. nuclear reactors. She added that the U.S. has an open tender in the Czech Republic to sell U.S. nuclear reactors.
• Rep. Nunn asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether the U.S. must take more actions to ensure that the U.S. and its allies (rather than the U.S.’s adversaries) are the global leaders within the nuclear energy technology space.
  • Ms. Korsnick answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Nunn then remarked that nuclear energy technologies have changed significantly since the Chernobyl disaster. He asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether current nuclear energy facilities (particularly those being produced within the U.S.) bear similar risks to the nuclear energy facilities that had existed during the period of the Chernobyl disaster. He also asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether subsequent technologies have helped to mitigate the issues that had been present during the Chernobyl disaster.
  • Ms. Korsnick testified that she has worked in the nuclear energy industry for 37 years and had operated and maintained nuclear power plants for over 30 of these 37 years. She stated that she would live next to any U.S. nuclear power plant. She called U.S. nuclear power plants “perfectly safe” and stated that the U.S. can safely export its nuclear energy technologies abroad. She remarked that the U.S. should be proud of its nuclear energy technologies and asserted that the U.S. operates the best nuclear energy facilities in the world. She noted how all U.S. nuclear power plants have had a 95 percent or greater capacity factor for over 20 years. She commented that these high-capacity factors demonstrate the quality of the U.S.’s nuclear energy facilities.
• Rep. Nunn commented that a person living next to a nuclear power plant would be safer and experience lower energy costs. He then asked Dr. Reinke to indicate whether U.S. nuclear energy supremacy would translate to improved U.S. national security.
  • Dr. Reinke answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Nunn asked Dr. Reinke to project the consequences for the U.S. if the U.S. allows for its adversaries to become the global leaders in nuclear energy implementation efforts.
  • Dr. Reinke lamented how the U.S. has largely abdicated its leadership position over the previous 30 years in terms of both the global exports of nuclear energy technologies and the development of new nuclear energy technologies. He stated that China and Russia have surpassed the U.S. in terms of deploying nuclear energy technologies in their own countries and selling said technologies abroad. He noted how China and Russia have now established long standing relationships with developing countries centered around nuclear energy. He commented that this situation puts the U.S. at a geopolitical and geostrategic disadvantage.
• Rep. Nunn asked Dr. Reinke to indicate whether Russia and China’s global leadership within the nuclear energy space will impact his constituents (as well as all Americans).
  • Dr. Reinke answered affirmatively. He also remarked that there exists a “great opportunity” for nuclear reactor sales within the U.S. He stated that the advent of SMRs has made it cheaper to deploy nuclear reactors. He mentioned how Northwestern Energy (which operates in Iowa) has indicated through its integrated resource plan (IRP) that it intends to deploy a 320 MW SMR.

Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-CO):

• Rep. Pettersen called nuclear energy technology an “essential piece of the puzzle” as the U.S. transitions to a carbon-free energy grid. She stated however that cost appears to be a significant barrier to the deployment of nuclear energy technologies and commented that the U.S. is in a “race against time” to address climate change. She asked Ms. Korsnick to recommend potential labor protections that the U.S. should adopt as part of nuclear energy technology deployment efforts.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that there exists a strong relationship between the U.S. nuclear energy industry and organized labor. She stated that labor unions have historically supported nuclear energy and commented that organized labor will play a key role in future nuclear energy facility deployments. She asserted that this relationship would not be strong if organized labor had concerns over their treatment or the safety of nuclear energy facilities. She then discussed how South Korea had not stopped building nuclear energy facilities and noted how the cost of these South Korean facilities has continued to decrease. She lamented how the U.S. had stopped building nuclear reactors for 30 years and stated that it would take time for the U.S. to realize cost efficiencies when constructing nuclear energy facilities. She mentioned how a U.S. Department of Energy report had found that there would occur a 50 percent reduction in costs over the course of building five similar nuclear reactors. She contended that increased construction of nuclear energy facilities would therefore lead the U.S. to realize cost savings.
• Rep. Pettersen also asked Ms. Korsnick to recommend potential policies that Congress could take to help local communities attract nuclear energy industry investments. She also expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S. makes investments to modernize its electricity grid in the immediate term so that it will be ready to meet the growing demand for electricity.
  • Ms. Korsnick first expressed agreement with Rep. Pettersen’s assertion that the U.S. must consider its fully energy grid infrastructure (rather than solely focus on energy generation sources). She then discussed how nuclear energy is a baseload energy source that can always provide power. She stated that multiple studies have found that nuclear energy can complement wind and solar energy, which will result in lower energy costs for customers. She further discussed how states have exhibited significant interest in nuclear energy and noted how there had been 200 state bills in 2023 that related to commercial nuclear power. She called on the U.S. to support states in their efforts to deploy more nuclear energy projects.

Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX):

• Rep. De La Cruz mentioned how there were 1,694 jobs in the Texas nuclear electric power generation industry in 2022 according to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. She indicated that the average wage for these jobs was $175,140 and that this industry had contributed an estimated $1.4 billion to the Texas economy. She also highlighted how this number of jobs jumps to over 3,000 when considering nuclear energy-related jobs outside of the utility sector. She elaborated that these jobs involve manufacturing, construction, and professional services. She then discussed how nuclear energy is a low-carbon source of energy and possesses certain advantages over wind and solar energy. She mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy has described nuclear energy as a key source of baseload power that can compensate for the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources. She also noted how nuclear power plants can run at maximum power more reliably than other energy sources. She added that nuclear power plants can produce as much energy as four renewable energy plants. She then noted how Mr. Judson had asserted that there exist “missed opportunities” in renewable energy. She commented that Mr. Judson’s remarks suggest that support for nuclear energy must come at the expense of support for renewable energy. She noted however that energy companies with nuclear energy portfolios also have renewable energy portfolios. She asked Mr. Judson to explain why Russia and China are investing significant resources into nuclear energy if there exists more opportunity in renewable energy sources.
  • Mr. Judson noted that while China is currently leading the world in nuclear energy investments, he stated that China is investing more money into renewable energy than into nuclear energy.
• Rep. De La Cruz interjected to dispute the veracity of Mr. Judson’s statement. She stated that China is currently assembling more than one-third of all of the world’s nuclear reactors. She also stated that China has only invested $20 billion per year in renewable energy over the previous ten years.
  • Mr. Judson reasserted that China is investing more money into renewable energy than into nuclear energy. He stated that he could follow up with Rep. De La Cruz with information supporting this assertion.
• Rep. De La Cruz expressed interest in receiving such information from Mr. Judson. She remarked that China and Russia are investing in nuclear energy so that they can build long-term relationships with other countries. She asserted that China and Russia want to exploit these relationships to force other countries to ultimately become dependent on them. She stated that China and Russia ultimately want world energy dominance and argued that nuclear energy (rather than renewable energy) will be a key component of this dominance.

Rep. Juan Vargas (D-CA):

• Rep. Vargas remarked that there now exists general consensus surrounding the existence of climate change and asserted that science (rather than ideology) should drive policy discussions on the issue. He noted how Mr. Judson had argued that nuclear energy poses safety, security, and cost concerns. He stated however that there exists strong global demand for nuclear energy and mentioned how he had observed this demand firsthand during his recent trip to Slovakia. He asked Mr. Judson to indicate whether the U.S. should be involved in constructing nuclear energy facilities if these facilities are going to be built anyway.
  • Mr. Judson acknowledged that Russia and China have their own reasons for increasing their exports of nuclear reactors and commented that Russia is “dominating” the nuclear reactor export market. He asserted however that the global nuclear energy market is very small and stated that the global development of renewable energy and related resources is “far outpacing” the global development of nuclear energy. He remarked that it is much easier for the U.S. to offer renewable energy technology exports to foreign countries than to compete in the global nuclear energy market. He also stated that renewable energy technology will enable countries to become entirely energy independent and that renewable energy is affordable.
• Rep. Vargas interjected to reiterate that other countries appear determined to build nuclear energy facilities. He asked Mr. Judson to indicate whether the U.S. should be involved in exporting nuclear energy facilities abroad given this foreign interest in nuclear energy technology. He commented that U.S. nuclear energy safety standards are likely superior to Russian and Chinese nuclear energy safety standards.
  • Mr. Judson remarked that the U.S. should play an active role in global energy infrastructure finance. He stated however that the world is not demanding nuclear energy and is instead demanding financing for renewable energy resources.
• Rep. Vargas interjected to comment that while he supports renewable energy sources, he asserted that the international construction of nuclear reactors is inevitable. He asked the other witnesses to indicate whether foreign countries are planning to construct nuclear reactors.
  • Dr. Reinke testified that international customers have expressed their desire to construct nuclear reactors to X-energy. He discussed how many countries are adopting “pro-nuclear” policies and highlighted how Sweden had recently adopted such policies. He stated that these countries are interested in developing nuclear reactors faster as a result of these new policies.
• Rep. Vargas commented that while the global nuclear energy market may currently be small, he remarked that this market could grow significantly in future years. He suggested that nuclear energy may experience a similar growth trajectory to renewable energy sources. He reiterated his support for investing in renewable energy development in addition to nuclear energy development. He then acknowledged that his question period time had expired.

Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-NC):

• Rep. Nickel remarked that the development and export of U.S. nuclear energy technology are important for the U.S.’s national security, economic security, and climate. He emphasized that 2023 was the hottest year on record and described nuclear energy as a “common sense path” for addressing climate change. He also discussed how Russia is the world’s dominant nuclear energy supplier and noted how Russia’s state-owned nuclear conglomerate controls 70 percent of the worldwide export market for new nuclear reactor construction and an orderbook of $200 billion over the next decade. He also noted how Chinese nuclear industry officials have stated that China can build as many as 30 nuclear reactors abroad worth $145.5 billion by 2030. He stated that Russia and China are funneling “endless” resources into nuclear energy exports to bolster their geopolitical influence. He lamented how U.S. nuclear energy companies are being forced to compete against foreign governments without meaningful support from the U.S. government. He asserted that the U.S. cannot allow for its nuclear energy industry to lag the nuclear energy industries of other countries. He mentioned how he is developing legislation to support nuclear energy financing at the EXIM Bank. He stated that the EXIM Bank already possesses the lending authority and functional capacity to finance overseas deployments of nuclear energy technologies. He highlighted how the EXIM Bank had approved $57.2 million in financing in 2023 to help Romania develop two nuclear reactors. He asked Ms. Korsnick to project the role that the EXIM Bank could play in financing nuclear energy if their default rate limit were raised from 2 percent to 4 percent and if civil nuclear energy facilities were included in the CTEP.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that Rep. Nickel’s proposed reforms to the EXIM Bank would be “game changing.” She stated that U.S. nuclear energy companies must compete against state-owned enterprises abroad. She commented that while the U.S. might not be able to provide the exact same financing terms for nuclear energy projects as Russia and China, she stated that most countries would prefer to do business with U.S. nuclear energy companies over Russia and China if the financing terms were comparable.
• Rep. Nickel then mentioned how some people have argued that financing nuclear energy would harm the climate. He expressed his disagreement with this argument and asked Mr. McMurray to opine on this position.
  • Mr. McMurray remarked that there is a growing global demand for clean energy and stated that countries are pursuing all available clean energy options. He asserted that increased deployment of nuclear energy will not come at the expense of the deployment of clean energy. He remarked that the U.S. must ensure that it has the proper policies in place to support nuclear energy exports. He stated that international financing support for nuclear energy technologies will encourage U.S. nuclear energy companies to domestically deploy nuclear reactors. He elaborated that such domestic deployment will provide these companies with the confidence that they can later export the technologies abroad.
• Rep. Nickel asked Ms. Korsnick to indicate whether the U.S. must work to “level the playing field” for U.S. nuclear technology companies seeking to export their technologies abroad given how Russian and Chinese nuclear enterprises receive state-backed financing. He also asked Ms. Korsnick to provide recommendations for supporting U.S. nuclear technology exports.
  • Ms. Korsnick remarked that the U.S. must “level the playing field” for U.S. nuclear technology companies seeking to export their technologies abroad. She recommended that the EXIM Bank’s CTEP accept greater loan risk across its portfolio and expand its Transformational Export Areas to include civil nuclear energy facilities. She also expressed support for the Civil Nuclear Export Act of 2023’s provisions and stated that these provisions would help the U.S. to make progress in exporting commercial nuclear energy technologies abroad.

Rep. French Hill (R-AR):

• Rep. Hill expressed support for having the U.S. advocate that IFIs promote nuclear energy projects. He described nuclear energy as the “ultimate carbon-friendly baseload and long-lasting power source.” He expressed support for the International Nuclear Energy Financing Act of 2023 and explained that this legislation would require the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to overturn a longstanding ban on nuclear energy assistance at the World Bank. He noted how the last time that the World Bank had considered a nuclear energy project was more than 60 years ago. He expressed his pleasure with the EBRD for revisiting its ban on nuclear energy financing. He also mentioned how the DFC had relaxed its own nuclear energy financing ban in 2020 and indicated that this policy change had received bipartisan Congressional support. He further recounted how he had participated in a 2023 Congressional Member Delegation (CODEL) trip to Romania and Poland and noted how these countries had expressed a desire to expand their deployment of nuclear energy technologies. He stated that IFIs must support middle-income countries (like Romania and Poland) in their deployments of nuclear energy technology. He mentioned how a Romanian energy official had told him yesterday that the country plans to move forward with a nuclear energy project and commented that this news constitutes a positive development. He asked Mr. McMurray to indicate whether there has been progress made in the international deployment of nuclear energy projects since the DFC’s 2020 policy change.
  • Mr. McMurray remarked that there has been progress in the international deployment of nuclear energy projects since the DFC had lifted their moratorium on nuclear energy financing in 2020. He noted how Poland is now pursuing the deployment of GE Hitachi SMRs and mentioned how Romania is pursuing a nuclear energy project involving NuScale’s technologies. He called these developments “exciting.” He also noted how the DFC will need to be reauthorized in 2025. He stated that Congress should work to strengthen the DFC’s unique equity function, ensure that the DFC possess sufficient expertise and project support capabilities, and ensure that the DFC does not face financing constraints when seeking to support larger nuclear energy projects.
• Rep. Hill added that the U.S., Germany, and Japan have an opportunity to work together on nuclear energy projects. He then asked Mr. McMurray to indicate whether the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories can further support the development of SMRs. He also asked McMurray to indicate whether the U.S. already possesses sufficient SMR technologies that are ready for export.
  • Mr. McMurray remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories can improve the U.S.’s competitive advantage within the global nuclear energy market. He noted how the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories engage in research and public-private partnerships and commented that this work helps the U.S. nuclear industry to develop new nuclear energy technologies. He discussed how the U.S. has promoted its liquified natural gas (LNG) industry through U.S. Department of Energy research, public-private partnerships, and the use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). He stated that the U.S. can take similar actions to promote its nuclear energy industry. He also suggested that the U.S. can leverage the internal expertise at the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories to help countries learn about nuclear energy technologies so that the U.S. can export said technologies abroad.
• Rep. Hill then noted how Russia and India have built 60 percent of the world’s new nuclear energy plants since 2019 according to the Atlantic Council. He asked Mr. McMurray to indicate whether international nuclear financing reforms coupled with the design and deployment of SMRs will enable Western countries to grow their market share within the global nuclear energy market.
  • Mr. McMurray answered affirmatively. He remarked that the U.S. possesses a variety of nuclear energy technologies to offer.
• Rep. Hill interjected to comment that financing is a major reason for why countries are choosing to partner with Russia on their nuclear energy projects. He mentioned how Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi had stated that Egypt had chosen to partner with Russia on its nuclear energy project because of Russia’s generous financing offering. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether Russia’s nuclear energy technology is superior to the U.S.’s nuclear energy technology.
  • Mr. McMurray remarked that the U.S. must offer competitive financing options for international nuclear energy projects.
• Rep. Hill interjected to ask the witnesses to provide recommendations for how the U.S. can make its financing offers for international nuclear energy projects more competitive to benefit U.S. manufacturing.
  • Dr. Reinke remarked that the U.S. could advocate for the World Bank and other IFIs to lift their moratoriums on nuclear energy financing. He stated that these moratoriums dissuade many other banks from financing nuclear energy projects. He also stated that this situation has left many financial institutions without the technical capacity to evaluate nuclear energy projects.
• Rep. Hill expressed his pleasure with the bipartisan support for nuclear energy and called nuclear energy critical for addressing climate change.

Subcommittee Vice Chairwoman Young Kim (R-CA):

• Vice Chairwoman Kim asked the witnesses to indicate whether it would be preferable to have the U.S. and its allies finance nuclear energy projects or to have Russia and China maintain a monopoly on lending for nuclear energy projects.
  • Ms. Korsnick called it preferable to have the U.S. and its allies finance nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. McMurray called it preferable to have the U.S. and its allies finance nuclear energy projects.
  • Dr. Reinke called it preferable to have the U.S. and its allies finance nuclear energy projects.
  • Mr. Judson called it preferable to have Russia and China provide lending for nuclear energy projects.
• Vice Chairwoman Kim warned that China and Russia will pursue market share within the global nuclear energy market if the U.S. does not compete within this market. She applauded the Biden administration’s recent decision to encourage the World Bank and other IFIs to support nuclear energy financing. She called on the U.S. to pursue an “all of the above” energy strategy. She then discussed how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has asserted that nuclear power plants are among the safest and most secure facilities in the world. She also referenced one study that had found that the risks to human life from accidents and air pollution from nuclear power are very small and that these risks from nuclear power are comparable to the risks from renewable energy sources. She asked Ms. Korsnick and Dr. Reinke to explain why nuclear energy poses less of a risk to human health than other energy sources.
  • Ms. Korsnick highlighted how nuclear power plants have no carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and sulfur oxide emissions. She noted how these emissions are damaging to both the environment and human health. She also stated that nuclear power plants can produce a significant amount of energy using a small number of resources and emphasized that this energy production is 24/7 in nature.
  • Dr. Reinke remarked that the U.S. nuclear industry holds safety paramount and that X-energy’s top focus is safety. He testified that X-energy has designed a nuclear reactor that is even safer than their current model. He stated that this safer design makes the reactor’s design simpler, which makes the reactor more economical. He also mentioned how X-energy has performed an internal analysis of the overall lifecycle emissions of its nuclear power plants and indicated that this analysis had used the Argonne National Laboratory model. He noted how this model typically finds that nuclear energy is comparable to renewable energy sources. He stated that there is only one type of renewable energy facility that produces lower emissions on a per-MWh basis than a nuclear energy facility. He testified however that X-energy’s nuclear reactors can beat this type of renewable energy facility based on the Argonne National Laboratory Model.
• Vice Chairwoman Kim then noted how the U.S. and over 20 allies have pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. She stated that this would constitute an “unprecedented” increase and would entail the deployment of more than 14 new 1,000 MW nuclear reactors every year starting in 2030. She noted however that the U.S. and European countries have not deployed nuclear reactors at this pace in recent decades. She added that some of the countries that had made this pledge have no nuclear reactors. She asked Mr. McMurray to discuss the importance of nuclear energy financing for enabling this level of deployment. She also asked Mr. McMurray to address how the U.S. and IFIs can play a role in supporting nuclear energy financing.
  • Mr. McMurray first thanked Vice Chairwoman Kim for her support for geothermal permitting reform. He then remarked that the U.S. must be the global leader in nuclear energy and stated that the U.S. possesses a robust nuclear energy industry, technical expertise, and regulatory expertise to achieve this leadership. He also remarked that the U.S. can support international nuclear energy financing through the EXIM Bank and the DFC. He further called on the U.S. to push the World Bank to remove its moratorium on international nuclear energy project financing. He added that the World Bank can create a trust fund to support international nuclear energy projects.
• Vice Chairwoman Kim interjected to note how about half of Sub-Saharan Africa still lacks access to electricity according to the World Bank. She asked Mr. McMurray to indicate whether it would be realistic to expect Africa to obtain 100 percent access to clean electricity without expanding nuclear energy on the continent.
  • Mr. McMurray discussed how Africa wants more energy (and clean energy in particular) and noted how China and Russia are seeking to deploy their nuclear energy technologies on the continent. He asserted that the U.S. needs to be able to compete with China and Russia on deploying nuclear energy to Africa. He warned that the U.S.’s failure to compete on the continent will lead African countries to partner with China and Russia on nuclear energy projects.
• Vice Chairwoman Kim acknowledged that her question period time had expired.

Subcommittee Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO):

• Chairman Luetkemeyer asked Dr. Reinke to indicate what would happen to an X-energy nuclear power plant if it were to experience a bombing.
  • Dr. Reinke discussed how X-energy has worked on a mobile microreactor design for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) under Project Pele. He noted how the DoD had required all Project Pele applicants to use a TRISO fuel because TRISO fuel would be the safest nuclear fuel. He testified that X-energy is designing its nuclear reactors to meet U.S. standards. He noted how the NRC requires that nuclear reactors be able to withstand a direct impact from a Boeing 747 plane that is fully loaded with jet fuel. He remarked that all nuclear reactors are thus “incredibly robust.” He testified that the X-energy’s TRISO-X fuel would maintain its integrity if it were to leak out of a nuclear power plant following an attack. He further discussed how crush tests have been performed on TRISO-X fuel. He indicated that the individual TRISO particles had been retained and bonded to the graphite matrices following these crush tests.

Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL):

• Rep. Foster highlighted how one advantage of the TRISO approach is that it does not vent the long-lived radionuclides. He explained that one of the problems with conventional nuclear fuel is that it contains a large amount of stored long-lived volatile radionuclides, which can create significant problems in the event of a direct impact attack. He also discussed how the use of helium as a coolant provides several advantages, including the fact that it is non-corrosive.

Subcommittee Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO):

• Chairman Luetkemeyer asked Dr. Reinke to confirm that X-energy’s nuclear reactor designs would significantly minimize any problems associated with explosions or accidents.
  • Dr. Reinke answered affirmatively. He stated that X-energy has designed its reactors to ensure that the heat could dissipate from the nuclear fuel to the surrounding environment in perpetuity without any human intervention during an accident scenario.

Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL):

• Rep. Foster remarked that a terrorist group could hijack an X-energy nuclear reactor and that the X-energy nuclear reactor’s design prevents the terrorist group from using the hijacked nuclear reactor to create further damage.
  • Dr. Reinke testified that the X-energy nuclear reactor design only contains four operations. He extended an invitation to the Subcommittee Members to view X-energy’s control room simulator and emphasized that the X-energy nuclear reactor only has four possible actions.