COMMENTARY: Nuke plants at risk, and that hurts climate
America’s nuclear plants are at risk. In 2013, the U.S. had 104 operating nuclear plants. Since then, a dozen have closed or announced plans to shut down.
These productive nuclear plants are not closing because they’re old or unsafe, but rather for economic reasons. If we don’t act, and nuclear plants continue to close, the consequences will be significant for the economy, for customers and for the environment.
Fortunately, we in New Jersey have a chance to respond before it’s too late for our nuclear fleet, which provides almost half of the state’s energy.
Last month, Exelon — the nation’s largest nuclear plant operator — said it would close two Illinois plants by 2018, putting 1,500 people out of work. In New York, Entergy will retire its FitzPatrick nuclear plant next year — despite a $100 million state bailout offer the company called “too little, too late.”
Here in New Jersey, Oyster Creek will close in 2019. When it’s gone, like the others, it most likely will be replaced with the least expensive option: natural gas, a carbon-emitting fossil fuel.
That, in turn, will leave PSEG’s three Salem County plants as the source of nearly all of New Jersey’s carbon-free energy. These plants are not at immediate risk, but the national trend cannot be ignored.
What’s hurting nuclear plants?
Primarily, natural gas. Since 2008, shale gas has flooded the market with new supply and driven prices down. Those rock-bottom prices have deflated revenues for other generators, including nuclear plants.
Second, rising regulatory costs. America’s nuclear industry is one of its safest. Nevertheless, since Fukushima, nuclear plants have faced a series of expensive new mandates.
Finally: Well-intentioned policies with unintended consequences. In their zeal to cut carbon emissions, policymakers have heavily subsidized renewables, such as solar and wind, but at the expense of other energy sources.
If New Jersey’s nuclear plants are allowed to fail, the repercussions will be severe:
- Carbon emissions will rise, as nuclear plants are replaced with cheap natural gas;
- Customer costs will rise, as prices reflect the cost of new power plants — whether natural gas, solar or wind;
- Local economies will suffer. Our Salem and Hope Creek plants create 1,800 jobs, plus 1,000 more during twice-a-year refueling outages, and pump $660 million a year into the economy.
Many of the most enthusiastic supporters of renewable energy say nuclear plants could be replaced by solar and wind power. While technically possible, it would be cost-prohibitive.
In New Jersey, for example, replacing the state’s current nuclear fleet with large-scale solar farms would cost an estimated $32 billion (not including expensive storage technology) and occupy 180,000 acres, an area larger than Camden County.
If it were 50 percent large-scale solar and 50 percent private rooftop solar, the cost rises to $56 billion.
When California’s San Onofre nuclear plant closed in 2012, its 2,200-megawatt output was replaced mostly with natural gas — which is cleaner than coal, but still a fossil fuel. As a result, carbon emissions rose 9 million tons in the first year, equal to 2 million extra cars on the road.
Solar cannot yet make up the difference.
“The tragedy is that we have subtracted more clean energy in the last two years by premature nuclear-plant closing, than we have added from all of the solar that has gone online,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel recently told the Washington Post.
Make no mistake: We support renewable energy; we have invested more than $1 billion to develop universal, grid-connected solar power. But today, solar can only be part of the solution. It operates about 15 percent of the time, compared with 92 percent for an average nuclear plant, and is significantly more expensive.
Today, New Jersey’s existing nuclear plants generate almost half the state’s electricity — and 97 percent of its carbon-free electricity. We need to value these carbon-free sources in the same manner we value solar and wind. If we don’t, we’ll have twin problems: significantly higher bills, no matter what we replace it with — solar, wind or natural gas. And if we choose natural gas, we’ll put an additional 14 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
The best solution, for our pocketbooks and our environment, is to level the carbon-free playing field, rewarding nuclear plants with equal financial value for the reliable supply of affordable, around-the-clock electricity they produce.