A central goal of American energy policy over the past decade has been transitioning to cleaner, more sustainable, sources of power. Thanks to trillions in tax credits and targeted loans wind and solar power generation has gone from ~6% of the energy mix in 2018, to a projected 18% in 2024 (Chart 1). While this is admirable progress, to meet global decarbonization goals, transition away from fossil fuels, and maintain current living standards, we need nuclear power.
To begin, let’s clarify the goals of current American energy policy. By doing this we can better understand why nuclear is necessary. It is reasonable to question the methodology for choosing our nations climate goals, but the fact is we are currently aiming for a ~50% reduction below 2005 emission levels by 2030. This means a rapid phase out of the dirtiest energy sources- coal and oil. To do this in a socially acceptable manner we also have to maintain current living standards, which means adding at least as much energy as we are taking offline. That’s the hard part. See German social unrest for an example of what happens when a country chooses to take more energy offline than they are bringing online. Thus, it’s reasonable to say our goal is to maintain or increase energy output and reduce emissions below 2005 levels by 50%.
The US Energy Information Administration is predicting a modest 1% increase for both wind and solar during 2024 (Chart 1), a pace that if continued, will not get us to our climate goals by 2030. Future wind and solar growth estimates factor in generous government tax credits, and declining construction costs, neither of which are guaranteed. This combination of favorable policies and the reality we aren’t on pace for 2030 climate goals begs the question, why aren’t we building more renewables? Below are some reasons why the EIA is projecting a small increase in solar and wind for 2024, despite renewables being the preferred way to reach climate goals.
- Both of these energy sources have a complex supply chain- rare earth minerals from china, steel, glass, and complex assembly/ transportation.
- Only certain geographic locations are economically viable.
- Large projects require a large amount of land, which means getting local & federal permits, right of ways, and social acceptance.
- The reliance on tax credits and loan programs that are not guaranteed with a change in political administrations adds another layer of uncertainty to future cash flow projections.
Adding all these factors up make for a complicated project with financial and energy outputs that depend on the incontrollables of government policy and mother nature. Now that we have a framework for why renewables aren’t going to get the job done alone, let’s consider the benefits of adding nuclear to the mix.
Nuclear is not devoid of complications by any means, but there are clear benefits and advantages to having more of it in our future energy mix. Detractors label nuclear an energy source of the past. Something that should be phased out as soon as possible. These people allow fear to cloud the bigger picture- nuclear is a far cleaner and safer energy source than fossil fuels, with desirable characteristics solar and wind don’t possess.
The consistency of nuclear power is possibly the single biggest reason it is a necessary compliment to renewable energy sources, which operate intermittently. It makes the perfect replacement coal- an easily adjustable baseload. This steady and predictable flow of energy is critical to every power grid, and something we don’t get from wind or solar.
On top of consistency, nuclear power is far more dense than wind or solar. This means that a comparable amount of material and land can produce vastly more energy. We aren’t too concerned with raising living standards in the Western world, but as the German example showed, we are certainly not ready to reduce them. Developing country energy usage is predicted to rapidly expand as more people get access to things like AC, lights, TV, etc (Chart 2).
The world needs more energy. Nuclear can support this global growth better than any other clean energy source. Finally, nuclear has one huge thing going for it- emissions equivalent to those of wind and solar1. Given that the benefits of nuclear power are clear, where does the resistance come from?
Unfortunately, public opinion is overly influenced by fearmongers and renewable absolutists. Lack of acceptance that renewables can’t do it alone paired with historical concerns about nuclear waste, war, and meltdowns has been fatal to the nuclear industry the past 30 years (except in China). Yet, in order to realize American and global climate goals, nuclear power is the obvious solution.2
This text focuses on why we need nuclear power, and does not attempt to debunk popular misconceptions. For some myth busting head over to the EDF website, read our article ‘Is Nuclear Clean Energy’, or browse Google yourself!
In the end, when weighing the pros and cons of nuclear energy it’s crucial to consider the larger context of our energy needs and environmental challenges. No energy source is without drawbacks, and the case for nuclear power is compelling when considering global climate goals and currently available alternatives. Consistency and energy density are crucial shortcomings of wind and solar, which nuclear power can address.
It is critical that those who understand why we need nuclear make an effort to engage climate activists, who continue to dream of a totally renewable future.
- See UT paper ‘Nuclear and wind power estimated to have lowest levelized CO2 emissions‘. As well as 8 billion trees. ↩︎
- Geothermal may one day be the solution, but the technology is not advanced enough yet as ‘Energy Transition Crisis- Episode 4: Deep Geothermal Renewable Energy‘ explains in detail. Hydroelectric is useful, but most of the suitable locations are already being used, limiting potential growth. ↩︎
