Brad Plumer opines that over the last decade, a glut of less dirty, cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing has driven hundreds of dirtier coal plants in the U.S. out of business, a big reason carbon dioxide emissions fell 14% from 2005 to 2016. But more recently, that same gas boom has started pushing many U.S. nuclear reactors into shutterment or early retirement, a trend with adverse consequences for climate change. The U.S. fleet of 99 nuclear reactors still supplies 20% of the U.S. electricity without generating any planet-warming greenhouse gases. When those reactors retire, wind and solar usually cannot operate without grid backup or expand fast enough to replace the lost power. Instead, coal and natural gas will fill the void, causing emissions to rise.
Some environmental groups that have long been hostile to nuclear power but are now having second thoughts. They have not supported unlimited subsidies to keep these nuclear plants open, said John Finnigan of Environmental Defense Fund ...but they are concerned that if the nuclear plants close, they would be replaced by natural gas and coal, and emissions would go up. Faced with looming nuclear plant shutdowns, several states are considering a difficult and sometimes unpopular option ... subsidizing their existing nuclear reactors to keep them running for years to come. Proponents of those subsidies argue that energy markets do not properly value the low-carbon benefits that nuclear reactors provide in contrast to wind and solar, which have been shielded from low-electricity prices by state renewable mandates and federal tax credits from their beginning. Media bias (this article is not one of them) panders to ignorant, fearful people who stand in the way of the promised progress in providing cheap, safe, and climate-friendly energy for electrical generation. See: http://i2mconsultants.com/downloads/corp/ConfrontingBias.pdf
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
