- A report by MIT found battling climate change would be more costly without growth in the nuclear energy industry.
- Struggling from rising costs and competition from cheaper energy sources, nuclear plants would need more supportive government policies, the study found.
- The Trump administration is considering a plan to rescue struggling nuclear facilities.
A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology finds climate change to be a much tougher battle without the expansion of nuclear energy, but added that the beleaguered industry would likely need supportive government policies.
Scientists at MIT concluded what nuclear energy advocates and some environmentalists have long argued: Nuclear energy is an essential component in reducing the world’s carbon emissions. Churning out a reliable supply of electricity while emitting zero greenhouse gases, nuclear plants are able to contribute to carbon reduction targets in ways solar, wind or natural gas facilities can’t. Without growth in the nuclear industry — the study finds — the price to reduce carbon pollution will be much costlier.
“While a variety of low- or zero- carbon technologies can be employed in various combinations, our analysis shows the potential contribution nuclear can make as a dispatchable low-carbon technology. Without that contribution, the cost of achieving deep decarbonization targets increases significantly,” read a portion of the massive 246-page report, which was released Monday.
The findings bring to light an ongoing debate on how the U.S. should best approach the decarbonization of its generation fleet.
Government subsidies have contributed to the proliferation of wind and solar, but these renewable energy sources produce electricity at intermittent rates — only when the sun is shining or when the wind is blowing — and do not generate energy at the level of their fossil fuel counterparts. While natural gas has expanded rapidly in recent years and emits much less carbon than coal, environmentalists still few the industry as not clean enough.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, an advocacy group for the industry, responded to the report.
“MIT’s study highlights nuclear energy as a vital contributor in helping meet environmental goals across the globe, and MIT researchers are also explicit in linking the loss of existing nuclear power in the United States with increased costs for electricity consumers and setbacks for clean air targets,” said John Kotek, VP of Policy Development and Public Affairs at NEI, in a statement obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The MIT study is a valuable contribution to a vital discussion of our energy present and future.”
However, the report also included grim news. Researchers concluded the nuclear industry — which has been plagued with high costs — would not experience growth unless the regulators implement policies for its benefit, calling the role of government “critical.” Such regulations would need to encompass not just renewable energy, but all low-carbon energy sources.
Hit with stiff competition from cheap natural gas and renewables, nuclear plants in the U.S. have not fared well in recent time. Out of the 66 facilities currently operating in the U.S., 24 nuclear plants are either scheduled to shut down or likely won’t make a profit through 2021, according to a report released in May. With a total generating capacity of 32.5 gigawatts, these at-risk plants make up more than a quarter of the entire nuclear fleet.
These closures are happening quickly. As recently as August, FirstEnergy, a major electric utility, announced its next steps in prematurely closing down three of its nuclear plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The Trump administration has mulled a bailout plan for coal and nuclear plants that are at risk of closing down. Under its emergency plan, the Department of Energy would mandate utilities purchase electricity from a list of at-risk plants for two years, guaranteeing them profits. The White House has considered the closure of coal and nuclear plants — which provide a reliable supply of electricity — as a matter of national security.
Too dangerous for use. We need to shut the whole nuke business down.
Solar panels and wind turbines are capable of storing energy when the sun doesn’t shine nor the wind doesn’t blow. Friends in Vermont have an 180-acre sheep farm run entirely with solar energy. Nuclear is not safe. Visit the Brock Environmental Center in Virginia Beach (LEED-certified Platnium green building) which has wind turbines and gives excess electricity back to the City of Virginia Beach.
World energy demand is growing at 2% a year. That’s roughly 1000 tera-watt hours per year. If wind turbines were to supply all of that power we would need nearly 350,000 new ones just to fill the present demand, let alone future needs.
That’s 150% as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring funds into the industry in the early 2000’s.
Then there’s the problem that the turbines are so fragile that they have to be shut down when the wind blows too hard. Can we say “self-defeating?”
Then the blade wear out. Since they are made of some pretty toxic materials, the disposal is a problem.
Also, where the wind blows best is far from where the power is needed, thus needing mega miles of new power lines. Power lines are not pretty.
Lastly, they take up A LOT of land and the turbines ain’t pretty either.
Will you even look at the links or is your mind made up?
https://www.epaabuse.com/1702/editorials/problems-with-wind-power/
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/
Those fancy New England schools are nothing but breeding grounds for snowflakes, liberals, and anti-american socialist. They do not currently produce anything that is pro-american. Their students, when stopped and asked simple history or current event questions are clueless.
To quote them as an authority on anything is anti-american.
Solar panels and wind mills DO NOT have the ability to store power, not even a shred of it. BATTERIES store power and their capabilities while growing are not sufficient yet to take up the load without traditional power generation backup.
Thorium salt reactors are far cheaper and safer than traditional nuclear, but gee how come France generates almost %75 of their power with nuke and we never seem to hear about any issues there??
We are all born ignorant, but Liberal Democrats work really hard to stay that way.
What is ignorant is the fact that you are a HATER.
Tuck that raw nerve back in and run along…
Do you not understand that Liberal Democrats have shown the world just how bat-sh1t crazy you people really are? Look at what you people have done to the world over the last 10 years. Look at how you people treated freed slaves. They called you Dixie-Rats. We The People have not forgotten. We will not let you ruin the greatest country on earth. You have been sold a bill of goods that just does not exist. 80% of people are too politically correct to tell you the truth. Federal judges have been appointed to support your sick agendas. You are a cancer that is rotting us from within. I suggest you read about the his-story of the party you vote for. Now, before you research and write about the republicans. Save it, I do not care. They are both different sides of a worthless coin. You continue to call WOLF! in the form of Hater and Racist. Have you stopped to consider that we do not care what you think?
Donna, you are sad, so sad.
I’d rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.
I don’t ask for anyone’s permission to be free, that includes what I hate or like.
Freedom is not free,
but the U.S. Marine Corps
will pay most of your share.
Um, so what do you call the vituperation that you just exhibited towards Mr. Easy?
Hypocrisy much?