Maybe it was inevitable that when 20 candidates appear together in the span of four hours total that no one issue was going to get an in-depth treatment. Leading up to the two-night series last week, concerned citizens like myself wondered where climate and energy would fall into the first round of the Democratic presidential debates.
Unfortunately, the debates barely skimmed the surface on climate, and what discussion there was, was short on details.
Of course, it’s early. These were the first debates, with the actual election still 16 months away. At least the issue of climate is visible. As Vox pointed out, during the Wednesday night debate, climate was discussed for seven minutes, which is more time than it got in all the debates between President Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016. By Thursday night, the candidates discussed climate for a total of 15 minutes.
Yet 15 minutes hardly seems enough time to address a topic that many candidates and voters have identified as a top issue. A quick (and entertaining) look at Twitter shows that many reporters were eager for more airtime on the matter.
Ok all let's recap:
— Gavin Bade (@GavinBade) June 28, 2019
In the end, no candidate truly used climate to differentiate themselves. We heard no one call for a climate-specific debate, and policy discussions were — if it's possible — thinner on the subject than last night.
Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow certainly seemed interested to start a conversation on both nights, and legendary reporters like Dan Rather even took notice of the need for a much longer discussion on the matter.
I want to thank Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow for constantly foreshadowing that they are going to ask about climate change.
— Robinson Meyer (@yayitsrob) June 27, 2019
Wait, are we done with the debate on climate change already? What did I miss? I had just gone to the fridge to get my Diet Dr. Pepper and. when I came back.. okay, I guess so much for the greatest existential threat to the planet
— Dan Rather (@DanRather) June 27, 2019
Before their appearance on the debate stage, candidates weighed in on how they would tackle the climate crisis, with several including the expansion of nuclear carbon-free energy as part of the solution. During the debates, a handful of the candidates identified climate as the biggest geopolitical threat to our nation. Several of them called for gearing up for a long campaign, even a national mobilization, to hold down emissions of climate-changing gases and to develop new technologies for clean energy.
But many of the major climate decisions aren’t long term; like sea level rise in Miami, they’re already upon us. Specifically, we are on the edge of closing several nuclear energy plants, which are by far the largest source of emission-free electricity. In the nation’s largest electric market, we are poised to lose five reactors, whose combined output is far larger than all the wind and solar we’ve added there in the last 25 years.
We can all root for more wind and solar, like a few candidates did during the debates, and we’ll need as many renewables as we can integrate into the system. But when you get down to the nuts and bolts—something that 10 candidates at a time can’t do with multiple issues and less than two hours—a little math helps.
Take, for example, the fate of the Three Mile Island (TMI) reactor, which has been operating unprofitably because wholesale electricity prices have dramatically decreased due to the influx of natural gas. Its owners decided not to order another load of fuel for the plant, so it will close in the fall. Can Pennsylvania replace it with sun and wind?
There isn’t any wind under construction right now in Pennsylvania. The state adds some solar every year, but only 50 megawatts or so, about one-sixteenth the power produced by the TMI reactor. And the reactor runs 24/7, while the solar panels, no matter how cheap they get, run only a few hours a day.
If solar grows the way it has for the last three years, it will take more than 650 years to replace TMI's carbon-free output. And the point isn’t to return Pennsylvania to 2018 levels of carbon-free production, it’s to expand that production sharply and reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.
Perhaps it’s not sensible to make energy projections over such a long period, but the short answer to the question of whether we’re on track to address our climate challenge is clear: No.
Climate Advocates Agree Nuclear Must Be Part of Solution
If the Democratic candidates value carbon-free generation as part of their climate plans, then they must recognize the importance of nuclear energy. Candidates should focus on preserving existing nuclear plants facing closures because they are the workhorses producing more than 55 percent of our nation’s clean energy. Not to mention, these plants employ thousands of hardworking Americans. And as candidates discuss growth for new technology, they should explore how advanced reactors can play a critical role in future energy systems.
The best that can be said about the first debates is that they surfaced the issue of climate and clean energy. As the field inevitably thins out, voters are expecting the remaining candidates to come prepared with specifics on how to address one of the top issues of our time.
Photo credit: Shutterstock/Bernhard Staehli
