nuclear-news

Clean energy doesn’t require a nuclear renaissance

Market reality suggests a limited and temporary role for nuclear power. In California, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. announced in June that it will phase out Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors over nine years, because they’re too costly to operate and not necessary. Its output will be replaced entirely by efficiency and renewables, burning no fossil fuels, emitting no carbon  and costing $1 billion less (net present value through 2044) than continuing to run the high-performing plant (estimated savings according to the National Resource Defense Council).

PG&E agrees this will lower cost compared with relicensing Diablo Canyon because of “lower demand, declining costs for renewable power, and the potential for higher renewable integration costs if DCPP is relicensed.”

Reducing carbon is cheaper and more quickly achieved without adding additional nuclear capacity. This is because of opportunity cost: Money spent on expensive nuclear projects is not spent on efficiency and renewables, which, the Rocky Mountain Institute calculates, can displace “two to 20 times more carbon per dollar, 20 to 40 times faster than new nuclear plants.”

The rapidly declining cost of renewables means other nuclear reactors will meet the same fate as Diablo Canyon as the world moves to safe, carbon-free energy. No nuclear renaissance required.

August 19, 2016 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general