If
20 fire marshals came around and told us our houses were about to burn
down, we’d buy some fire insurance. So when the leading science
academies in 20 developed countries, along with several major American
corporations and the national security community, all tell us that
burning fossil fuels is causing dangerous changes to the climate, we
think it’s time for the United States to get serious about clean energy.
It also means supporting safely operating nuclear power plants that
produce carbon-free electricity.
Already,
60 percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from the 99 nuclear
reactors that dot the nation’s map, from Avila Beach, Calif., to
Seabrook, N.H. These reactors provide low-cost, reliable electricity for
the United States, which uses nearly 20 percent of the world’s
electricity. But over the next decade, at least eight of these reactors
are scheduled to shut down. That will push up carbon emissions from the
American electricity sector by nearly 3 percent, according to the United
States Energy Information Administration.
In
California, the closing of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in
2012 contributed to a 24 percent increase in carbon emissions from the
electricity sector, according to data from the California Environmental
Protection Agency Air Resources Board. Carbon emissions from the
electricity sector in New England rose 5 percent in 2015, the first
year-to-year increase since 2010, largely because of the closing of the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in December 2014, according to ISO
New England, the region’s grid operator.
In
roughly two decades, the United States could lose about half its
reactors. That’s because, by 2038, 50 reactors will be at least 60 years
old, and will face having to close, representing nearly half of the
nuclear generating capacity in the United States. Without them, or
enough new reactors to replace them, it will be much harder to reduce
carbon emissions that contribute to climate change.
Unfortunately,
some of our federal policies to encourage clean energy, such as the
Clean Energy Incentive Program within President Obama’s Clean Power
Plan, do not explicitly include or incentivize nuclear power. Likewise,
some states have chosen to adopt policies, such as renewable portfolio
standards, that do not include or incentivize nuclear power.
At
the same time, our energy markets do not currently account for the
value of carbon-free power, a failure that puts nuclear power at an
unfair and economically inefficient disadvantage to fossil fuels like
coal and natural gas.
We
come from different political parties, but we agree on the overall goal
of leveling the playing field for nuclear power, and the need to find a
bipartisan solution to achieve it. This matters because the investments
we make today, in new plants and transmission infrastructure, will be
around for decades. Every time new fossil energy replaces nuclear, we’re
locking ourselves in to a more carbon-heavy energy mix for years to
come.
Some
states and utilities are working to reduce carbon emissions with the
understanding that nuclear power can be part of the solution. In the
Southeast, there are four new reactors under construction that will
provide 4,470 megawatts of carbon-free electricity — enough for 3.3
million homes. New York established a clean-energy standard in August
that might help the state’s reactors stay open, including one that had
been announced as closing. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office explained that
“maintaining zero-emission nuclear power is a critical element to
achieving New York’s ambitious climate goals.” And the private sector is
pitching in, too: According to Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, there
are dozens of entrepreneurs focusing on ways to improve and expand the
nuclear power industry.
The federal government should support these efforts.
For
one thing, we should extend existing reactor licenses from 60 to 80
years, in cases where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it is safe
to do so.
We
should also invest more in research to develop advanced nuclear
reactors, including small modular reactors and accident-tolerant fuels.
Advanced reactor designs may substantially reduce the threat of a
meltdown. Many new, modular designs are much smaller than their
predecessors, meaning they can be built in factories at lower cost and
plugged into the grid as needed.
Some
of these new reactor technologies could actually use waste from
traditional reactors as fuel, helping to alleviate a major challenge
facing the industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing
framework, developed to support the last generation of reactors, should
be updated to encourage and promote new investment in the next wave of
advanced nuclear technology. And finally, we need to resolve the
stalemate over where to store used nuclear reactor fuel.
If we want to clean the air and reduce carbon emissions to deal with climate change, we need a stronger, not weaker, nuclear energy
sector. Congress, federal agencies and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission must work with utilities to preserve our existing reactors in
the safest possible way, and to develop the next generation of reactors
that will provide cheaper, reliable, carbon-free electricity.
No comments:
Post a Comment