We're subsidizing expensive solar and wind power, but nuclear energy is the key to going carbon-free.
If there is one thing that seems certain about meeting the nation's clean air goals, it is that shutting down nuclear power plants is nonsensical. Nuclear power doesn't pollute the air, and it is our largest source of carbon-free energy. The climate benefits of nuclear power are unmistakable. Yet since 2013, 10 nuclear plants have either been shut down or are in the process of being retired prematurely – and the Department of Energy says that as many as 20 other nuclear plants are at high risk of being closed.
As a result of plant closings, greenhouse gas emissions have gone up, since nuclear power is most often replaced by natural gas, which is a major source of emissions. But another factor is now fueling the problem. It's our habit of mandating the use of subsidized wind and solar power.
Twenty-nine states have renewable portfolio standards which call for energy sources like wind and solar to generate a certain percentage of a state's electricity. But nuclear power, though it accounts for nearly 60 percent of the nation's carbon-free energy, is excluded from the portfolio standards in every state except Ohio, which credits "advanced nuclear power." Consequently, at wholesale electricity auctions, electric grid operators must purchase a certain amount of solar and wind energy, even though, due to its intermittency, it is usually three or four times more expensive than nuclear-generated electricity
Anyone who thinks that renewable portfolio standards aren't one of the factors that have warped the economics of nuclear power ought to think again. Today nuclear power is being relegated to the same twilight zone as coal. Five new nuclear plants are being built, but other well-performing plants are being shuttered, the latest being the Quad Cities and Clinton plants in Illinois. If wind and solar were subject to the same political disadvantages under which nuclear power labors, they would no longer be guiding the world.
The problem is we're replacing one source of emissions-free power that produces electricity around the clock – nuclear power – with solar and wind that generate electricity about a quarter of the time. If this folly is allowed to continue, there will be no progress in the efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
If we're serious about carbon reduction, we have to be serious about keeping existing nuclear plants operating and expanding the use of nuclear power. The best way to achieve this is for states to adopt clean energy standards that treat all zero-carbon energy sources equally. Utilities would be able to keep existing nuclear plants operating, build a new generation of plants and meet the carbon reduction goals of the Clean Power Plan.
At the very least, we should learn from Germany's costly mistakes. Germany's goal was to cut greenhouse emissions 90 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. But instead of reducing its reliance on coal and natural gas for electricity production, just the opposite has happened. Following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, Germany decided to close its nuclear plants. But despite huge subsidies, solar and wind power couldn't replace the lost nuclear power. As a result, Germany had to bring shuttered coal plants back on line and import electricity from neighboring countries. Today, electricity in Germany is four times more expensive than electricity in the United States. And Germany's greenhouse gas emissions are barely declining.
Nuclear power should not be undervalued. Because energy diversity is important for carbon mitigation and electricity reliability, nuclear power needs to retain a central place in electricity production. Everything possible should be done to ensure that nuclear power gets fair treatment in state electricity standards. That would not only halt but eventually reverse the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere.