Skip to main content

EPA's Carbon Regs, Nuclear and Energy Diversity

By
Kimberly Cate
The following post was written by Kimberly Cate, NEI's Communications Intern.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is set to roll out a carbon-reduction regulation tomorrow, a move that may have major ramifications in how states manage energy policy and develop the electricity grid of the future.

This new regulation will likely prompt companies to shift to nuclear energy, renewables, hydropower and other lower-carbon emitting energy sources, as the new regulation will impose yet more strict regulations on carbon emissions.

As the only large-scale electricity producer, “…[P]olicy makers should not be spooked into shutting down [nuclear energy as] a vital source of clean energy in a warming world,” the New York Times points out in an editorial.

Last year, nuclear energy accounted for more than 60 percent of America’s carbon-free sources of electricity, with hydropower accounting for around 20 percent; wind an estimated 13 percent; and geothermal and solar at about 1 percent each.

Many environmentalists and energy and environmental policy organizations have already assessed nuclear energy’s essential role in a carbon-constrained energy portfolio. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions notes in a recent report that, “Without nuclear power…U.S. emissions would be 289 million-439 million metric tons higher in 2014, and 4-6 billion metric tons higher over the period of 2012 to 2025.”

All carbon-free energy technologies will be needed in this transition to a lower carbon electricity portfolio, but nuclear energy’s scale sets it apart from other sources. One hundred reactors in 31 states produced 789 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and sector-leading reliability. When compared to wind, nuclear energy prevents more than 4.5 times the carbon emissions as wind.

Despite global events such as the Fukushima reactor accident in 2011, “[I]t…would be wrong to rule out a near-carbon-free technology that produces a fifth of the country’s electricity,” a Washington Post editorial notes.

The International Energy Agency predicts that global energy demand will increase one-third by 2035. In addition, they estimate that low-carbon energy sources (renewables and nuclear) will account for 40 percent of the growth in “primary energy demand.”

Steps to expand nuclear energy are in the works, with the Energy Department issuing a $6.5 billion loan guarantee to Southern Co. for its Vogtle 3-4 project in Georgia, two of the five reactors under construction in the Southeast. Two other reactors are being developed by South Carolina-based SCANA. By the time this additional 2,200 megawatts of nuclear energy comes online, the company’s electric generation mix will include 62% non-emitting sources.

The EPA regulation is an opportunity for U.S. policymakers to prompt serious discussion on how to harness nuclear energy most safely and effectively, while maintaining the reliability and diversity of the grid.
Labels:

Comments

Mitch said…
This was a good article! Only I'll believe the government believes in this EPA statement when they throw down some fresh new orders for nuclear plants and help salvage bankrupt ones for a acid rainy day! Talk is cheap! Add how just much land use and scenic eyesores and property value crashers Wind and Solar are and they lose their glamor! There's a great YouTube video with a graphic of land-use of nuclear vs windmills. Can't find it again!
June 3, 2014 at 1:54 PM
jim said…
Very good feature Kimberly! Please do a much overlooked and overdue expose on this topic as well!
Re: Leslie Corrice's "Hirsoshima Syndrome" on The Godzilla Movie and the Parallel with Fukushima: http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-commentary.html
"...As the cloud of the explosion’s debris blew toward the northeast, the world’s news media pounced on it like hungry predators. The horrific aftermath (and response to and treatment of) of the quake/tsunami (refugees and victims) immediately became a secondary topic. In less than a week, the Fukushima accident (and plight of evacuees) was all we heard about... Could a more perfect smokescreen have been anticipated... and the Kan regime used it to the fullest while a quarter of a million tsunami refugees languished in utter inattention."

There's another unsung peril here that I believe is receiving insanely nil media coverage, and that's the widespread contamination of coastal water tables by the toxic brew of chemicals, raw sewage, industrial waste, garbage dumps, cemetery remains, oil products, medical lab biologics and God knows what else gouged up and churned and swept deep inland by the tsunami. It all didn't backwash out to sea; a massive amount had to've seeped into the ground and farmland soon as it occurred, yet you can't find even a health review or inquiry about this! Isn't anyone in Japan the slightest curious? Is there a gag order in place here even to research the possibility? This water table contamination issue makes frets of Fukushima's leaking holding tanks look a picnic!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
June 7, 2014 at 9:16 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more