Why Coal (?) and Nuclear Power Aren't Going Anywhere

Nuclear Power Industry

Date posted: 10/23/17

Terry M. Jarrett opines that Americans have a strong pragmatic (and implies stupid?) streak. But they undoubtedly took notice recently when two devastating hurricanes knocked out power in much of the southern United States. News channels focused on the severe conditions that followed after families were left without power for days on end. It's understandable, then, that a subsequent poll found 85 percent of voters saying the U.S. should act to protect the diversity of its electric grid against such disruptive events. Storms aren't the only cause of power grid disruptions. But they help to illustrate why the time is right for Washington to rethink the overall viability of the nation's power sector. The new administration seems to be taking the challenge seriously as it looks to ensure sufficient, reliable electricity for the next generation of Americans. What's really at issue is "baseload" power — the electricity generation required to meet the nation's daily needs, particularly during peak periods. And there's an emerging problem, since baseload power has been declining in recent years. For decades, coal and nuclear power plants anchored America's baseload capacity. But rising natural gas production (and lowering gas prices) and a decade of successive federal regulations have served to (properly) eliminate a substantial portion of America's coal fleet. At the same time, bankruptcies (?) or market forces? and new construction cost overruns have burdened potential replacements for an aging nuclear industry (but SMRs may well be an important answer to short-term power back-up). The numbers are actually somewhat worrying. Coal still produces almost a third of America's total electricity generation and nuclear adds another 20 percent. But many now look to natural gas, along with renewable platforms like wind and solar, to drive future power generation. The simple fact, though, is that coal and nuclear still account for a very sturdy 50 percent of America's energy mix. The new administration seems to grasp the ramifications of this point , and what the loss of more coal and nuclear power could mean for a stable grid. Just weeks ago, Energy Secretary Rick Perry issued a fairly comprehensive report from his staff on the state of America's power sector. What they concluded is that the nation must necessarily continue to draw electricity from a diverse mix of sources....without regard for the climate, of course. This is a smart notion, since wind turbines and solar panels remain frustratingly intermittent — because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. But despite lavish subsidies and mandates, wind and solar only generate a very negligible 6 percent of total U.S. electricity. (Image what could have happened to all the windmills and plastic sheets of solar panels in the hurricanes of and floods of the past few months, especially if someone had sold windmills and solar panels to the people in Puerto Rico a few years ago....seems the real problem there is the distribution system (power lines). How about constructing power power out of carbon, so they wouldn't snap like twigs the next time the big winds blow?). And how about burying the main power lines? ) There's also the boom in natural gas to consider, however, (thanks to the discoveries of the U.S. geoscientists and engineers). But even this expansion of natural gas now poses complications. That's because the United States is not only transitioning to a greater reliance on natural gas for power generation, but also simultaneously gearing up for large-scale exportation of liquefied natural gas, or LNG.(, which will no doubt result in rising gas prices for power production in the U.S.)