- Climate change and Russia's invasion of Ukraine has world leaders looking again at nuclear power.
- California Gov. Gavin Newsom's plan to keep a nuclear power plant open points to a trend.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to extend the life of a nuclear plant that was slated to close by 2025. German officials, in another major reversal, have decided to keep the country's last three nuclear plants running. Japan is rebooting reactors 11 years after an earthquake and tsunami caused the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
The race to combat the climate crisis and shore up energy supplies after Russia's invasion of Ukraine is pushing policymakers to reconsider nuclear power.
"When you look at how we will actually meet decarbonization targets, it becomes quite clear that nuclear — which is carbon-free, dispatchable 24/7, and compact — can be very helpful," said Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Globally, nuclear power is the second-largest source of clean energy, behind hydropower, and it provides about 10% of electricity. That figure is higher in the US, where nuclear accounts for 20% of energy consumption. But a dozen plants have closed in recent years because of competition from cheap natural gas, which drove down the price of electricity, and because of the rising costs to operate aging facilities.
Concerns about safety, the effects of uranium mining, and storing radioactive waste persist. Nuclear proponents argue that the climate crisis poses a greater threat than reactors, and that shutting them down leaves dirtier fossil fuels to fill the gap.
That's what happened after the Indian Point nuclear plant outside New York City closed last year. Almost 90% of downstate energy came from fossil fuels, a jump from 77% in 2020, when both of Indian Point's reactors were operating, according to the agency that manages New York's electric grid.
Newsom's administration warned of a similar scenario in California if the Diablo Canyon plant closes. The governor asked state lawmakers to postpone closing the plant by up to 10 years, until 2035, explaining that even with forthcoming renewable projects, the state wouldn't be able to meet power demands during extreme weather events, like the heat wave in 2020 that caused rotating outages, CNBC reported. California has solar, wind, and battery-storage projects in the pipeline, but they've been delayed by supply-chain disruptions and previous tariffs on US solar imports.
California would loan up to $1.4 billion to PG&E for the cost of relicensing the plant. Also, the utility could apply for funding from a $6 billion program that Congress included in a bipartisan infrastructure law to keep the country's nuclear plants running. The Inflation Reduction Act that President Joe Biden signed into law on Tuesday includes production and investment tax credits for new and existing nuclear plants.
But the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council oppose Newsom's proposal, noting that it doesn't cite any studies by state agencies that recommend Diablo Canyon stay open for energy reliability or estimate the costs for ratepayers. It also waives some environmental requirements.
Buongiorno coauthored a study last year that found an extension to 2035 would save $2.6 billion in power-system costs and reduce carbon emissions more than 10% compared with 2017 levels, although those findings have been questioned by environmental groups.
"I don't think anyone has a clear answer about what the cost will be," said Steve Clemmer, the director of energy research for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy program. The group opposes extending Diablo Canyon's operations, but it acknowledges that existing nuclear plants will help reach long-term climate goals.
"It comes down to a plant-by-plant evaluation of whether they should continue to operate," Clemmer said.