EPA minimizing the U.S. Nuclear Future, Again

Uranium (Nuclear Minerals) / Nuclear Power - Economics, Design, & Industry

Date posted: 12/09/14

CLINT WOLFE reports that it is entirely appropriate of the Environmental Protection Agency - EPA - to propose carbon mitigation goals with respect to generation of electricity in the U.S. However, it is both perverse and irrational of the EPA to impose a carbon mitigation rule that downplays the value of nuclear power to the U.S. The current U.S. fleet of 100 nuclear plants accounts for nearly two-thirds of the carbon-free energy production in the U.S. So you might think that an agency so concerned about climate change would applaud the use of zero-carbon nuclear power. Or at the very least would give nuclear power equal consideration with renewable energy sources in its carbon emissions rule. But the proposed rule, which requires South Carolina to curb carbon emissions by 51.4 percent by 2030, is rigged against nuclear power, only counting 6 percent of existing nuclear-generated power toward the state carbon-reduction target. The EPA formula is even worse for nuclear reactors under construction. It assumes they are complete, which means that South Carolina will not be able to count the additional twin units at the Virgil C. Summer nuclear plant near Jenkinsville, which are slated to go online by 2018. For South Carolina, losing those 2,200 megawatts, on top of more than 90 percent of its existing nuclear-generating capacity, will make it extremely difficult if not impossible to meet the EPA target unless the rule is changed. Georgia and Tennessee - two other states with nuclear plants under construction - also face tough carbon-reduction goals. But South Carolina has the third most stringent target, after Arizona and Washington. South Carolina obtains 53 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, with another 29.5 percent from coal, 14.6 percent from natural gas, and 0.5 percent from hydro. This represents a new height of hypocrisy by EPA. Is this politics or poor management, both.