Ambient office = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumbers from Central Market = 84 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 78 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 68 nanosieverts per hour

     The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) is developing strategic plans to create a clean energy supply chain. DoE’s plans for nuclear power are aimed at enabling continued operation of existing U.S. nuclear reactors, enable deployment of advanced nuclear reactors, develop advanced nuclear fuel cycles and maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear energy technologies.
     A year ago, President Biden issued his Executive Order 14017 on America’s Supply Chain. America’s Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition was prepared in response to the executive order. It is part of a whole government approach to revitalizing the U.S. economy and manufacturing by securing the U.S.’s most critical supply chains.
     Jennifer Granholm is the U.S. Secretary of Energy. She said, “Taking bold action to invest in our supply chains means America will reap the tremendous opportunities that tackling climate change presents to kickstart domestic manufacturing and help secure our national, economic, and energy security. The strength of a nation relies on resilient and reliable critical supply chains across sectors, and DOE’s report provides the key strategies and recommendations for Congress and the Federal government to act now to help deliver more jobs and a stronger, cleaner future.”
     The new report contains thirteen “deep-dive” assessments on specific nuclear technologies. It crosscuts topics and focuses on key findings that will maximize opportunities to strengthen the energy supply chain and develop the country’s energy manufacturing base and workforce.
     The sixty-five-page deep-dive assessment on nuclear energy was prepared by the staff at the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, National Reactor Innovation Center and Idaho National Laboratory.  The DoE issued a request in November 2021 for information and the comments they received were also used in the development of the report.
     The nuclear supply chain is critical for enabling the continued operation of the U.S. existing fleet to light-water reactors as well as supporting the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies. These new reactors can provide low-carbon heat and/or electricity for facilities and processes outside the power sector along with other clean energy options for deep decarbonization. Nuclear energy also provides more local permanent jobs at a higher average wage that other energy sources.
    The report said that “Although there are challenges and risks in each of these areas, implementation of targeted policies would support achievement of all the goals and would strengthen the US nuclear supply chain to meet the nation’s energy, environmental, and societal needs.”
     With respect to the need to deploy new advanced reactors in the near term (to the mid-2020s), the main priorities for are the establishment of secure domestic supply of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel required for such reactors. An additional priority is the demonstration of “innovative” reactor designs under the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP). Many of these advanced reactors require TRi-structural ISOtropic particle (TRISO) fuel and uranium metal fuel. None of these fuels is as yet commercially available.
     This overarching strategy document includes its recommendations for developing an integrated nuclear waste disposal strategy for spent nuclear fuel. There is an initial focus on a consent-based siting process for the siting of federal facilities for temporary, consolidated storage.
     A third priority is to coordinate with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors in a timely fashion. The report calls for Congressional action to amend the Nuclear WastePolicy Act and to support funding to agencies for the development and accelerated deployment of innovative nuclear energy systems.

Ambient office = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 119 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 116 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumbers from Central Market = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 69 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 56 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 118 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 100 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumbers from Central Market = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 78 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 67 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 115 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 90 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Blueberry from Central Market = 124 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Dover sole = 111 nanosieverts per hour

Part 3 of 3 Parts (Please read Part 2 first)
(Continuing comments of U.K. members of the House of Lords as they debate the Nuclear Energy Financing Bill.)
     Lord Howell is a Conservative Party member. He welcomed the bill but pointed out the delays to the European Pressurized Reactors (EPR) at Okliuoto in Finland and Flamanville in France Sizewell C. He wondered exactly what these delays mean for the Hinkley Point C project and the proposed “replica” at Sizewell C. He added that “Are investors ever going to wait that long for payback … do we plug on with these mammoths at Wylfa, Moorside, Oldbury and Sizewell or turn all our efforts to small and more advanced nuclear power plants?”
    Lord West was a security minister for the Labour Party. He said, “Why are we in this position? It is because of the failure of successive Governments, as has been mentioned. It is a national disgrace, actually. We have gone from being the world leaders in civil nuclear – we made masses of money exporting this stuff to Japan – to a position where we cannot build even one of these large reactors ourselves. Basically, we need to pull our finger out and get going on this. Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C are absolutely necessary. Looking to the future, we absolutely have to go for SMRs, AMRs and the use of hydrogen. This can all be encapsulated somehow in this. I think we would all agree with that.”
     Lord McNicol said that the Labour Party would support the bill in House of Lords. However, he said that they would like it “mandate nuclear stations to use UK-manufactured fuel and stick to UK consumer charges”.
     Business and energy minister Callanan responded to the issues raised during the debate by saying that the new funding mechanism would allow foreign investment but not at the cost of national security. He added that on the issue of radioactive waste, good process was being made in the process “to identify a suitable location for a geological disposal facility”. Although there had been issues with the first wave of EPRs, he said that “developers have learned lessons”. The minister also emphasized that, with respect to those asking about SMRs, the new funding model could be applied to them, and not just larger nuclear power plants.
     The Nuclear Energy Financing Bill has already passed through the House of Commons. The House of Lords is a revising chamber in the U.K. Parliament with about eight hundred members. The vast majority of them have been appointed for life but there are also ninety-two members who inherited their place from their fathers. There are twenty-six members who are Church of England archbishops and bishops.
     Although the bill was backed in principle it has been submitted for detailed scrutiny to a House of Lords committee. If the bill is amended in the House of Lords, those changes will have to be accepted, or rejected, by the House of Commons before they can become law.