So we're going to try to double our energy capacity,
keep it carbon neutral
and retire 20% of the cleanest energy sources on the grid.
That's what we're going to try to do?
That's our plan?
I wouldn't say that
we're going to try to retire 20% of the clean-
We want to be able to replace those.
We want to be able to add
additional advanced nuclear opportunities.
Are you familiar with the thorium
molten salt breeder reactor that Oak Ridge successfully
tested in the sixties?
I'm familiar that they did, yes. Thank you.
Alvin Weinberg,
who was the director of Oak Ridge
and worked on the original
Manhattan Project called the Thorium Reactor:
"Only a little less important than the discovery of fission."
That's pretty important.
It is one of
the safest designs ever tested In fact, a molten salt
breeder reactor based on a thorium cycle cannot meltdown.
It's not like the reactors that we use nowadays.
And actually consumes (Consumes!) nuclear waste.
At its heart, this reactor contains Uranium-233.
We have the world's largest supply of Uranium-233,
right in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
I think you're familiar with this.
But your department was tasked to irreversibly destroy
our supply of U-233. Is that correct?
Yes. We are diluting and disposing of it.
Downblending it, yep. Thank you very much.
So we're spending $50 million a year to downblend,
to destroy this resource, when in fact in 2008
the Department of Energy issued reports cautioning that
we should not destroy Uranium-233.
Have you read these reports?
I've not read that one from 2008.
You know, a recent Hill article says the DOE is destroying
an important piece of our Cold War nuclear program.
Uranium-233.
Have you read the 2008 IG report that cites that U-233 is
vital to our national interest?
I have not read the report.
Thank you.
In fact, in 2008, the report calls U-233,
an irreplaceable natural resource.
Congress has asked for answers on this.
Are you familiar with that? We've asked for answers?
The appropriations bill in 2021 required the DOE
to inform Congress about the potential of U-233.
Do you know when this report was due, Ms. Granholm?
When was it due? 2021.
I do not know why, but this report is still not finished.
And to me, it's a very important report.
If we're going to do away with gas
and we're going to try to cut back on our oil supply.
We have got to find some way
to generate more power in this country. Clean power.
We're all for that.
My colleague Senator Warren and I do not see eye to eye
on a lot of things, but we do agree on how egregious
the mismanagement and disregard
for civilian oversight is within our Department of Energy.
We have got to pay attention to facts.
And these are facts
that our scientists (we all want to follow science)
these are facts that scientists have come up with.
We have a national treasure that could solve our nation's
clean energy problems and also have been proven
invaluable in the fight of cancer. And we're destroying it.
And it's by our own admission, the Department of Energy says
destroying U-233 is a terrible, terrible mistake.
And we just seem to be overlooking that.
Yesterday, Senator Marshall and I introduced a bill to save U-233
(S.4242) called the Thorium Energy Security Act.
And I hope and pray that this body will halt
the Department of Energy from downblending U-233,
to give us the option to make clean energy for our kids future,
our grandkids future, and all of us in the future.
Because we see what's happening as we speak
with all the problems that we're having
with cutting off our energy supply and oil supply
all at one time.
We have to have a plan
to make amends for that that we're not using.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you, Senator Tuberville.