The price of energy continues to skyrocket. Climate change activists are demanding the elimination of fossil fuels. How do you solve both problems and still have enough reliable power to meet America’s daily demand for energy? One expert suggests a combination of renewable energy sources and nuclear power.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2022 shows fossil fuels are the primary source of electricity in the United States, accounting for 60.2 percent of the nation’s power. These fuels include natural gas (39.8 percent), coal (19.5 percent), and other gasses (0.3 percent). Renewables accounted for 21.5 percent of America’s electricity in 2022. Renewables include wind (10.2 percent), hydropower (6.2 percent), solar (3.4 percent), and biomass sources (1.3 percent) like wood, landfill gas, and municipal solid waste. Nuclear provides 18.2 percent.
President Joe Biden has set ambitious goals in his climate change agenda: Cutting carbon emissions in half by 2030 and having a net-zero carbon economy by 2050. The plan also requires electricity generation to be carbon-free by 2035.
But how do you make up for the 60.2 percent of the energy while eliminating fossil fuels?
The War on Fossil Fuels
Through the use of government agencies, the Biden administration is trying to implement programs that will ban the use of fossil fuels.
According to an April 5 press release, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new regulation “to strengthen and update the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal-fired power plants.” The rule will require existing and future coal-fired power plants in the United States to cap their carbon dioxide emissions in-house. “This proposed rule, the most significant update since MATS was first issued in February 2012, fulfills EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act to periodically review emission standards,” the press release states.
The Clean Air Act (pdf) was part of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), created by the Obama administration in April 2015. The CPP’s goal was to reduce carbon pollution from power plants by 90 percent by 2030.
The Environmental Protection Agency in Washington on Dec. 12, 2018. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
However, a bipartisan majority of the United States Congress formally disapproved of the CPP in December 2015, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. On June 19, 2019, the EPA repealed the CPP (pdf).
On April 21, CNN reported that the EPA is again “planning to roll out aggressive new rules to regulate planet-warming pollution from natural gas power plants.” However, the effort will likely face legal challenges as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (pdf) on June 30, 2022, that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.
The Epoch Times reached out to the EPA on this matter.
“EPA cannot comment because the proposals are under interagency review and subject to change,“ Shayla R. Powell from the EPA’s Office of Public Affairs told The Epoch Times in a statement. ”But we have been clear from the start that we will use all of our legally-upheld tools, grounded in decades-old bipartisan laws, to address dangerous air pollution and protect the air our children breathe today and for generations to come.”
On Dec. 2, 2022, the Biden administration’s Department of Energy announced a proposal to ban federal buildings from using fossil fuels. The proposal would mandate that all federal buildings undergo renovation—starting in 2025—to reduce their on-site emissions associated with energy consumption by 90 percent, “relative to 2003 levels.”
All federal buildings are to be fossil-fuel-free by 2030.
New York is the first state in the country to ban natural gas and other fossil fuels in most new buildings—a major win for climate advocates but a move that could spark pushback from fossil fuel interests.
In the meantime, the Biden administration has paved the way for other countries to have more access to natural gas. On April 14, the DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management approved Alaska Gasline Development Corp’s exports of liquid natural gas to countries—primarily in Asia—with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (pdf).
Simultaneously, the vast expansion of cheaper wind, solar, and natural gas has been driving nuclear plant closures—a dozen over the past decade. But those closures are making it harder for the United States to limit its carbon emissions. Now, the federal government has decided to step in with money to keep those plants open.
The Push for Nuclear Power
Nuclear plants are currently the most expensive form of electricity generation. At the same time, nuclear power is America’s largest single source of low-carbon electricity generation, accounting for almost as much as wind, solar, and hydropower combined.
While the majority of America’s nuclear plants are approaching the end of their design life, with only one being built in the last 20 years, nuclear advocates are looking forward to the development of smaller, modular versions of conventional light-water reactors. On March 28, 2020, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its approval (pdf) for one company’s small modular reactor design.
Nuclear power has a lot going for it. Its carbon footprint is equivalent to wind, less than solar, and significantly less than coal.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, America currently has 92 nuclear reactors at 53 plants in 28 states. Data collected by Statista Research Department show that the United States recorded the majority of the 200 permanent worldwide shutdowns as of May 2022, with 40 units.
According to the United States Regulatory Commission, 25 nuclear power reactors are in the process of being decommissioned. Closing a nuclear power plant isn’t quick or cheap.
On April 19, 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) officially opened its certification and bidding process for a civil nuclear credit program intended to bail out financially distressed owners or operators of nuclear power reactors. The program was funded through Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal, signed into law in November.
The guidance (pdf), published April 19 and revised June 30, 2022, directed owners or operators of nuclear power reactors that are expected to shut down due to economic circumstances on how to apply for funding to avoid premature closure.
On Sept. 6, 2022, the DOE closed the first award cycle. On Nov. 21, 2022, the DOE announced the conditional selection of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant to receive the first round of funding from the Civil Nuclear Credit Program.
NPR reported on April 15 that “Germany began winding down its three remaining nuclear power plants,” a step toward its own “long-planned transition toward renewable energy. According to the report, the announcement drew ”cheers from environmentalists who campaigned for the move.”
Conversely, Bavaria’s conservative governor, Markus Soeder, who initially backed the idea, called the shutdown “an absolute mistaken decision.”
“While many countries in the world are even expanding nuclear power, Germany is doing the opposite,” Soeder said. “We need every possible form of energy. Otherwise, we risk higher electricity prices and businesses moving away.”
The question is, what would happen in America if the Biden administration caved to pressure from environmental activists and began shutting down nuclear plants rather than providing funds to help them stay open?
Views on Nuclear Power
A May 2022 Gallup survey showed 51 percent of Americans favored the idea of using nuclear power as a source of electricity, with 47 percent in opposition. A January poll by Pew Research Center showed 69 percent of Americans favor the idea of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. However, a subsequent Pew Research survey showed only 35 percent felt the U.S. government should encourage the production of nuclear power. While 26 percent said the government should not encourage nuclear, 37 percent said the government should stay out of the conversation. A survey released in June 2022 said 77 percent either strongly or somewhat favored nuclear energy becoming a source of electricity in the United States. Only 23 percent opposed.
Still, Biden has his work cut out for him if he wants to convince those who are highly concerned about climate change that nuclear power needs to be part of the green energy agenda.
Gallup’s May 2022 poll found that 62 percent of Americans who worry “a great deal” about climate change are opposed to nuclear energy. Barely a third are in favor.
Jacopo Buongiorno, Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Courtesy of Jacopo Buongiorno)
Jacopo Buongiorno, professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) told the Epoch Times that “what you need is a well-balanced grid.”
“We have run models and simulations, and the best and cheapest path towards decarbonization of the grid is a combination of nuclear and renewables,” Buongiorno explained.
“It is true that the Biden administration has subsidies in place, but it’s for all clean technologies, not just nuclear,” Buongiorno added. “And the program is specific for the existing fleet of nuclear reactors.”
Until recently, Buongiorno said nuclear plants struggled to remain economically viable. But that’s not the case anymore, and it isn’t because of the subsidies. It’s because the price of electricity has gone up.
“The subsidies for existing fleets are not much use at the moment,” he said. “Even while the Biden administration is showing favorability toward nuclear, places like Illinois and Michigan are actually passing legislation to enable the construction of nuclear power plants.
Buongiorno also noted that complete reliance on renewable energy isn’t feasible “because of the intermittency with renewables” and “because the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.”
“If you decide to do everything with renewables, which is what some people are advocating for, you not only need to build over capacity on those renewables, but you have to build an enormous capacity for storage with lithium-ion batteries,” Buongiorno said. “When you take the aggregate cost of all this and compare it to the cost of having a modest amount of nuclear in your grid, the comparison is in favor of having a little bit of nuclear because it allows you to operate and meet the demand without having to overbuild the capacity for renewables and storage.”
A Nissan Leaf plugged into a charging station at the Seward Park Co-op apartments on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, on May 2011. (Stan Honda/AFP via Getty Images)
There is, of course, one glaring problem with eliminating fossil fuels. Buongiorno said, “Where ... are you going to get all of the electricity that you will need to run these electric cars and electric trucks?”
“There are several costs that could make this particularly onerous,” he said. “The first is that you need to switch from internal combustion cars and trucks to electric. So the whole fleet of cars and light trucks has to be replaced. Second, our grid could be expanded, but in order to expand it, you need to invest, and that’s not cheap.”
Illinois—America’s fourth-largest coal producer—plans to close the Prairie State coal plant—the country’s eighth-largest carbon-emitting plant—by 2045. Illinois also became the first Midwest state to adopt a law that proposes to make the Prairie State the first 100 percent fossil fuel-free state by 2045.
How will Illinois do this? A combination of nuclear power and renewable energy.
The Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (pdf), passed by the Illinois General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Pritzker on Sept. 15, 2021, will provide the state’s nuclear power plants with $700 million over five years in the form of carbon mitigation credits (pdf). The Act will also double current investments into wind and solar energy to as much as $580 million a year, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Natural Resource Defense Council.
According to Buongiorno, “It’s the combination of the two that get you to decarbonization at the lowest cost.”
Patricia Tolson, an award-winning national investigative reporter with 20 years of experience, has worked for such news outlets as Yahoo!, U.S. News, and The Tampa Free Press. With The Epoch Times, Patricia’s in-depth investigative coverage of human interest stories, election policies, education, school boards, and parental rights has achieved international exposure. Send her your story ideas: [email protected]
Friends Read Free