One year ago, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the planet would feel severe effects of climate change by 2030 without reducing carbon emissions. To fix this, they urged using clean electricity like nuclear energy and renewables, among other solutions, given that the electricity sector is one of the leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
In the time since, international climate strikes and media attention have made us more aware—and anxious about—the impacts of a changing planet. Policymakers, environmentalists and innovators have moved as well, joining a chorus of support to say there’s no climate solution without nuclear carbon-free energy.
What’s happened to the nation’s largest source of clean energy in the year since the IPCC’s warnings?
U.S. Spent 2019 Making Strides in Recognizing Nuclear Carbon-Free Energy
Let’s start with the good news. The Green New Deal brought the topic of climate change top of mind to Congress and in the larger political sphere. In key states, policymakers have established clean energy standards to value the carbon-free electricity that nuclear produces.
Talking so much about climate change has brought more leaders to see nuclear’s role in a solution. Institutions such as Google, the World Resources Institute, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the International Energy Agency and the MacArthur Foundation have all pointed to nuclear carbon-free energy as a necessity for a clean energy grid.
Though the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls is divided on the energy source, several notable candidates have shown support for nuclear including former Vice President Joe Biden, entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.). Booker in particular has been vocal about any realistic climate solution requiring nuclear energy.
Booker also co-sponsored the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, one of several bills introduced or moved forward in the past year that is creating a path forward for advanced reactors.
This is just one of several advances in new nuclear: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is on schedule with its review of NuScale Power LLC’s small modular reactor (SMR) design application. Out west, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems secured enough energy contracts to move forward with an SMR. And in Georgia, Southern Co. hit several important milestones for its Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors—the largest infrastructure project currently going on in the United States.
We Still Face Challenges to Reducing Carbon Emissions
We’ve seen setbacks, too.
A study by Rhodium Group found that energy-related carbon emissions in the U.S. rose by 2.7 percent in 2018. That’s concerning. Many states may have taken on ambitious carbon reduction goals—and even planned to use more renewables and nuclear—but our country as a whole took a step back from that mark.
Additionally, two nuclear plants closed this year, Pilgrim in Massachusetts and Three Mile Island 1 (TMI) in Pennsylvania. Together, these plants provided enough clean energy to power more than 1.4 million homes annually. We can’t reduce carbon emissions if we’re taking lots of carbon-free electricity off the grid.
Legislative action could have saved TMI and can still save other plants in Pennsylvania. The state is considering a clean energy standard to value nuclear energy for being carbon-free, in the same way it values renewable energy. That effort has hit a wall, though.
There’s Still Time to Protect the Climate But We Must Act
There’s been good and bad, but it’s not 2030 yet.
Though Pennsylvania hasn’t acted yet, the Legislature still has time. Policymakers in the state and across the nation can value the reliable, carbon-free electricity that nuclear plants produce.
If we are serious about addressing climate change, then the future of energy must be clean. 2030 is one year closer, but there’s still time to preserve our largest source of carbon-free energy and develop the reactors of the future.
