Nuclear Power Critical to U.S. Climate Goals

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

Date posted: 05/23/16

Umair Irfan, of the Scientific American, opines that jobs, national security and climate change were all part of an urgent appeal at a summit yesterday on Capitol Hill to keep the American nuclear fleet running. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said that we are supposed to be adding zero carbon sources, not subtracting or simply replacing by building to just tread water. Nuclear energy provides almost 67% of the U.S. clean electricity. With only five new reactors under construction after a 30-year pause, the 99 existing nuclear reactors are not getting any younger. With license renewals coming up for many plants, some operators are wavering over whether it is worth the hassle. Moniz noted that five plants have been retired early over the past few years and three more are scheduled for retirement, a prospect that would undermine progress toward climate change objectives. He cited the 2014 shutdown of the 620-megawatt Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, Vt. Natural gas filled much of the shortfall, but even as overall electricity production went down in the region, greenhouse gas emissions went up. That is the kind of confluence of data we would like to avoid more of, he said. When natural gas has displaced coal, that has one CO2 impact. When it displaces nuclear, it has the opposite. This is not very complicated. The announcement of the closure of the plant, which employed 600 workers, was devastating to the 2,000-resident town. The plant provided good-paying skilled jobs to the region and provided a huge chunk of the regional clean energy. This is what we as a nation are going to lose if we do not do something to help the nuclear industry by removing impediments.