Nuclear power’s time has come

Evidence that it’s needed to combat climate change continues to grow

Something new and promising is happening with nuclear energy in the United States. A belief that nuclear technology is dispensable is giving way to a new measure of its worth — the proposition that it is playing a quiet yet effective role in reducing global-warming emissions.

The evidence can be found in New York state’s farsighted decision to reward nuclear plants for their chief advantage in electricity production: They produce zero carbon emissions. Due to a clean-energy standard approved by the state’s Public Service Commission and backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a credit can be paid to nuclear plants in upstate by utilities that use their power. This payment is part of an effort to wean the state off fossil fuels and save reactors battered economically by competition from cheap natural gas.

Growing concern over climate change has become a critical element in statelevel discussions of nuclear energy’s future. Four reactors are under construction in the Southeast — two each in Georgia and South Carolina — and a fifth is nearing completion in Tennessee after a long delay.

While there are no firm plans to build more, as many as 50 nuclear companies are developing designs for a new generation of advanced nuclear plants, including small modular reactors that could be built in factories for a fraction of the cost of today’s large nuclear plants.

Most of this activity is being funded privately, and it includes work on a so-called traveling wave reactor that, theoretically, could be selfsustaining and run for decades without refueling or removing spent fuel. Traveling-wave advances are being financed largely by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who has become a vocal supporter of nuclear energy.

Many environmentalists believe wind and solar energy can be scaled up to meet the need for emissions-free power. But, even with federal tax credits and state mandates for renewable energy sources, wind and solar combined account for just 7 percent of the nation’s electricity supply. If renewables can’t do more to cut carbon emissions in this country, energy analysts have concluded there is little prospect of wind and solar making much of a dent in countries like China and India that still rely heavily on coal.

A few well-known environmentalists now support nuclear energy. Stewart Brand, author of the iconic Whole Earth Catalog, once opposed nuclear energy but now says it is essential in the battle against climate change. Another onetime critic is Carol Browner, a former top environmental adviser to President Barack Obama, who is now actively involved in keeping existing nuclear plants in operation.

A lot of other people are coming to see nuclear energy’s value. And, despite short-term challenges for nuclear energy — since 2014 electricity companies have either shut down or announced plans to close 10 reactors, and at least 15 other reactors are considered at high risk of being shuttered — the long-term prospects for nuclear energy in America remain strong.

Here in Pennsylvania, nine reactors produce 93 percent of the state’s carbon-free electricity, and they’re the only clean-air sources that produce electricity around the clock. Over the past three years, Pennsylvania’s nuclear plants on average generated electricity 92 percent of the time, according to the Energy Information Administration. The most efficient reactor, Three Mile Island unit one in Middletown, produced electricity 99 percent of the time, among the highest capacity factors of any nuclear plant in the world.

In short, there is an overwhelming case for continued reliance on, and expansion of, America’s nuclear energy infrastructure. But will Pennsylvania and other states with nucleargenerating capacity be able to save plants that are at risk of shutdown? Or build new ones?

The good news is that the discussion seems, finally, to be moving in the right direction. Ten years ago, the debate over nuclear energy was fixated on plant safety and nuclear waste. Today, not so much.

Nuclear energy is not the problem. It is part of the solution to global warming, the overarching environmental problem of our time.