Nuclear Builds Momentum, But More Focus Needed

As I write this blog piece, fifty-nine nuclear reactors are being built around the globe. Surprisingly, just four of those reactors are being built in the United Staes. Despite inventing the commercial nuclear industry more than sixty years ago, the U.S. has been slow to unleash the potential of nuclear power to resolve climate issues. And despite producing 57% of the nation’s zero-carbon electricity, nuclear power has been slow to be rewarded by policy makers in the same way as solar and wind power.

That could be changing, though, as consensus builds that nuclear power is essential to meeting customer demand in a low-carbon future. For example, in early August, the New York Public Service Commission voted to alter its clean energy standard to finally recognize the carbon-free contribution of nuclear units in upstate New York. With a state goal of reducing greenhouse emissions by 40% by 2030, New York officials appear convinced that sources like solar and wind power alone aren’t capable on their own of achieving that ambitious goal.

New York’s maneuver is detailed in a recent op-ed by Jim Conca in Forbes, in which Conca explains that nuclear power today generates the vast majority of carbon-free electricity in New York, even more than hydro, and about ten times more than any renewable. Recognizing this, the state will provide a 1.7¢/kWh subsidy to upstate nuclear reactors and allow utilities to count nuclear generation alongside other carbon-free power sources in meeting the state’s clean energy standard. Currently, New York gets 40% of its electricity from natural gas, 32% from nuclear, and 19% from hydro, with less than a tenth of its power coming from renewables and other sources. The state’s relatively high reliance on nuclear power means that New York’s per-capita greenhouse emissions are just a quarter of the nation’s average.

“The need to reduce carbon emissions is a priority in the state of New York and across the country,” adds Nuclear Matters co-chair former Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH). “Yet, as we work to obtain a cleaner energy future, too many existing nuclear plants, which are responsible for the bulk of our carbon-free power, have had to shutter due to the fact that they have not been properly valued for the reliable and clean energy that they produce.”

It’s not just New York that is recalibrating its clean energy efforts. Last year, both Kansas and West Virginia repealed their state renewable portfolio standards, as Ohio did two years ago. Other states have taken similar actions, including Maryland, which in the state’s most recent legislative session saw Governor Larry Hogan veto a bill to raise the state’s renewable standard. The reason? Arbitrary mandates on energy generation aren’t cheap. In fact, residential electricity prices are 29% higher in states with a mandatory RPS than in states without them.

A similar debate is underway in North Carolina, where nuclear power accounts for 87% of the state’s carbon-free power generation. The first state in the Southeast to adopt a renewable standard, North Carolina’s standard eschews nuclear in favor of wind and solar power. That oversight was criticized heavily by University of North Carolina research professor Dr. David McNelis in a recent guest column in the Charlotte News-Observer.

“State lawmakers who advocated the standard saw it as a way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,” explains Dr. McNelis. “But nuclear energy, though the largest source of carbon-free electricity, was not included in the standard.”

As McNelis points out, that means every kilowatt-hour produced from renewables must be used, regardless of the need. It also means that nuclear generation remains at risk because state law mandates the use of competing sources.

“Forcing the shutdown of reactors because states mandate the use of solar, wind and other renewables is a profligate use of ratepayer funds and the greatest missed opportunity to further reduce carbon emissions,” Dr. McNelis concludes.

Meanwhile, as policy makers in the U.S. grapple with the treatment of nuclear, our nation’s competitors are investing heavily in nuclear power. In fact, nuclear capacity worldwide will grow by 60% by 2040. In the U.S., we are expected to see just a 16% growth in nuclear power generation over that time period. We are lagging by comparison in the build-out of the only energy source that can operate around the clock with a carbon-free footprint.

As reporter Andrew Follett of The Daily Caller explains in a recent piece, China is poised to surpass the U.S. in nuclear power, a conclusion made clear in a study published recently in Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Technology Review.

More About the MIT Nuclear Study Here

For example, China plans to double its nuclear capacity and to invest in “advanced molten-salt reactors, a concept America developed, but abandoned in the 1970s,” according to Follett. Within the next five years, China will add 58 more gigawatts of nuclear capacity to its grid. Ten years later, by 2030, it plans to bring another 150 gigawatts online. That will more than double the current nuclear capacity of the U.S.

The long-term outlook is even more stark. By 2050, China plans to invest more than a trillion dollars to have 350 GW of nuclear power operating. That will be more than three times the nuclear generating capacity of the U.S. The divide will only deepen unless the U.S. makes a course correction.

The good news is that policy makers are beginning to see the relative value of nuclear power, especially when it comes to moving toward a lower carbon future. Even so, the U.S. remains woefully behind the curve in widespread deployment of advanced nuclear. Hopefully, the momentum for nuclear power continues to build, allowing the U.S. to preserve its place as a leader in low-carbon technology and to maintain the viability of an energy source that has served the economy and consumers well.