Elsie Hung and Kenneth B. Medlock III, of the Center for Energy Studies at the Rice University Baker Institute for Public Policy opine that the nuclear industry in the U.S. is struggling, which is not a good thing for the reliability of electricity generation or meeting nationwide carbon emissions targets. Unfortunately, environmental policies such as the Clean Power Plan (CPP) have not seized the opportunity presented by a growing public willingness to tackle climate change through adjusting the energy mix, a development that should prioritize nuclear as a zero carbon source of stable baseload power generation.
Currently, about 20% of U.S. electricity is generated by nearly 100 nuclear plants across the U.S. But, that percentage looks likely to fall. 11% of the U.S. nuclear fleet, accounting for more than 10 GW of capacity, is at risk of early retirement. In fact, integrated energy company Entergy announced that it would retire another nuclear plant in New York by 2017. It already decided to shutter the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant in Massachusetts by 2019. Since nuclear power is a zero carbon source of electricity, and since cutting carbon emissions is becoming more important on national and global agendas, the pending decline in U.S. nuclear power is an untimely development. Done correctly, nuclear power could play a major part in decarbonization of the power sector, not only in the U.S. but abroad. Its potential, of course, will depend on the economic prospect of nuclear relative to other generation sources, such as natural gas and renewables.
Carbon reduction policies, like the CPP, are crucial, but a more holistic approach would provide adequate incentives to all low-carbon generation, including nuclear, instead of simply tilting the landscape towards wind and solar by subsidizing capital investment. To maintain a healthy, balanced market with proper pricing signals, a carbon tax rather than renewables subsidy should be strongly considered.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
