![]() Not all nuclear facilities are under economic distress. And Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania was the site of the most famous nuclear accident in American history, when a reactor partially melted down in 1979. Indian Point was plagued by worries about the potential of a nuclear accident in close proximity to New York City. ![]() Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Massachusetts saw its safety rating downgraded by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2015 before the facility was closed for economic reasons in 2019. Nuclear facilities retired in the Northeast for valid reasons, they said. Yet as some greens become more open to the idea of running existing nuclear facilities longer, they cautioned against offering a blank check to the nuclear industry. California regulators have shown no indication that they are reconsidering the plant’s fate. But so far, it appears to be an academic question. The most important people to weigh those trade-offs will be residents of the community of San Luis Obispo, which is home to the plant, Wara said. So maybe you’re willing to take a risk on an old nuclear power plant on a fault line?” It’s affecting where you want to live and how safe your kids are. “It isn’t polar bears or something in 2050 about sea-level rise. “Today, the impacts of climate are so tangible you can taste it in your mouth,” Wara said. But the calculus changed as the state got battered by drought and wildfire. Many environmentalists, long concerned about Diablo Canyon’s discharges of warm water into the Pacific Ocean and its location on a geologic fault line, embraced the utiliy’s plan. That’s a shift from 2016, when Pacific Gas and Electric proposed closing the plant. Keeping the nuclear facility open, they argued, would better position California to meet its climate goals. Michael Wara, a researcher who studies energy policy at Stanford University, said he has observed a similar shift in California, where 79 academics, scientists and entrepreneurs recently wrote a letter asking state regulators to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. “A critical mass of the environmental community is adopting reducing carbon as the most important issue, and nuclear energy becomes more important than it was before,” Scott said. In Illinois last year, many environmental groups supported a climate law that contained subsidies for nuclear and renewables alike, noted Doug Scott, vice president of electricity and efficiency at the Great Plains Institute. The rescue efforts reflect a shift in the environmental movement, to which nuclear was once anathema. The ill-fated “Build Back Better Act” would have gone further still, with a production tax credit for nuclear facilities worth $23 billion. The bipartisan infrastructure package passed last year included $1.2 billion in assistance for nuclear facilities. A group of academics and activists are now pressing California regulators to reconsider plans to shutter the state’s last nuclear facility in 2025.Įven Congress has gotten involved. Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey and New York have offered financial support to struggling nuclear facilities in the name of preserving jobs and taming emissions. That has prompted a series of state-level nuclear rescue efforts. But low-priced natural gas has been a challenge for nuclear plants, too, especially in states where companies compete to sell their electricity in wholesale power markets. The advent of fracking and horizontal drilling unlocked a wave of cheap gas over the last decade, prompting coal plants to retire en masse. The debate over nuclear is unfolding amid the rapid evolution of America’s power sector. ![]() “However, I still have a lot of concerns about subsidizing a legacy industry that, perhaps in many places, does not need additional financial incentives to keep those power plants open today.” “I have been convinced by the point that nuclear provides a lot of greenhouse gas benefits,” said Ben Inskeep, a policy analyst at EQ Research, a clean energy consulting firm. While some greens have grudgingly embraced a collection of state deals to keep struggling nuclear plants open in recent years, they say such rescue efforts should be tailored to well-operating facilities. They note that recently closed plants were plagued by operational issues, and they point to the exorbitant price of building new nuclear facilities. Others see nuclear as a short-term climate fix, at best. ![]() “If the goal is that we’re moving to 100 percent zero carbon electricity,” said Melissa Lott, director of research at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, “closing zero-carbon resources doesn’t make a lot of sense. Some researchers argue nuclear provides a reliable source of emissions-free power that can complement wind and solar. The increase is further fueling a raging debate within climate circles over the role of nuclear power in the transition to a zero-carbon grid.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |