A no-carbon electric grid need not, and should not, include nuclear, according to a new report unveiled today (July 15) and done for prominent anti-nuclear groups. The report for national groups Friends of the Earth and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and the Illinois-based Nuclear Energy Information Service, done by Mark Cooper at the University of Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment, argues that “a 21st-century electricity system based on a radically different approach to system operation – small, decentralized, and dynamic – is replacing the 20th century station system, which was based on huge, inflexible ‘must-run’ generators. The paper shows that this transformation was not possible when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed in the early 1990s, but it has been made possible by the dramatic recent technological progress.”
The 112-page Cooper study “Building a Least-cost, low-carbon electricity system with efficiency, wind, solar, & intelligent grid management: Why nuclear subsidies are an unnecessary threat to the transformation,” is sure to produce substantial pushback from many analysts, including some environmentalists, who believe that nuclear is a necessity for a zero-carbon U.S. electric system.
For decades, opposition to nuclear power was a signature of U.S. environmental groups. But the advent of concerns about global warming has muddied that picture. The New York Times reported in 2018 that in recent years, that “the threat of climate change and a shifting energy landscape has made the nuclear question — well, a lot more complicated.” The article noted the case of New Jersey, which passed laws subsidizing wind and solar, but also three economically struggling nuclear plants with $300 million per year. “Before the vote, the Natural Resources Defense Council told me they wouldn’t endorse the nuclear provision but wouldn’t actively oppose it, either,” the Times wrote.
Cooper says that two supply-side technologies – onshore wind and utility-scale solar photovoltaics, and two demand side approaches – energy efficiency improvements and demand response – render conventional central station nuclear plants unnecessary and inefficient. He argues, “The four alternatives yield power that is lower in cost, achieves faster economic growth, creates more jobs, and reduces concerns about public health and safety, while fully decarbonizing the electricity sector. With such clear advantages, the question arises as to why the 21st-century alternative needs aggressive public policy to be implemented on a pervasive scale. The answer is, as it has always been during technological revolutions, the new system must overcome the resistance of the dominant, entrenched incumbents who have had a century to cement their power and influence. The new system needs not only extensive physical assets but also institutional supports to become dominant.”
Cooper identifies the “entrenched incumbents” as “deniers who say it is unnecessary or cannot be done and from those who claim decarbonization cannot be accomplished without relying on nuclear power. The barriers are backed by powerful interests. Coal accounts for 23% of total generation [in the U.S. – ed.], gas 37%, and nuclear 20%.”
As Congress, and particularly Democrats, ponder the Biden administration’s infrastructure plans, the issue of subsidizing nuclear, both existing plants, and new, advanced reactors, has arisen. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WVa), a coal state advocate whose state has no existing plants, and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), with the two-unit Calvert Cliffs plant, dating to the mid-1970s, have been discussing some $6 billion to $50 billion in the Biden plan for existing plants in economic distress.
At a Thursday (July 15) press conference, Cooper said, “Over the past 70 years, nuclear power has been the recipient of massive subsidies, but it has failed to deliver on its promise of low-cost power. While the nuclear industry complains about the subsidies that are bringing renewables into the market today and resists programs to promote energy efficiency, analysis of the historical pattern demonstrates that the cumulative value of federal subsidies for nuclear power dwarfs the value of subsidies for renewables and efficiency, 10 to 1. Renewables are in the early stage of development. Nuclear received much larger subsidies in its developmental stage and enjoyed truly massive subsidies since its inception, compared to other resources as it grew.”
–Kennedy Maize