ASKING THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: Where Now for Nuclear Power?

More and more climate advocates now recognize that renewables alone can’t deliver the zero-carbon power grid they desire. Since wind and solar produce power only about one-third of the time, they require massive amounts of “dispatchable generation”—power that can be produced whenever it’s needed—as backup. In the U.S., that backup power increasingly comes from natural gas. The need for all that redundant generation capacity means that trying to run the grid with mostly wind and solar results in both higher costs and higher emissions than backers typically claim.

Some experts argue that the looming crisis in reliability is a more pressing problem than carbon emissions. They warn that relying on a grid powered mostly by wind, solar, and gas could lead to disaster. Thanks to fracking, the U.S. is blessed with ample gas resources. But as Texas learned during the deadly winter blackouts of 2021, natural-gas supplies often fall short during cold snaps. Grid resilience requires robust power sources that don’t depend on the weather—or on just-in-time fuel deliveries. Coal and nuclear plants store fuel on site, which makes them a vital resource during power emergencies. With coal plants closing, and nuclear failing to expand, the U.S. grid faces a dangerous shortfall in reliable capacity.

Despite these risks, the push to eliminate coal power remains politically potent and seems unlikely to be reversed. That leaves nuclear as our only major power source that is at once dependable, zero-carbon, and capable of significant growth in capacity. If nuclear is ever to become a growing source of electricity, it’s vital to understand what went wrong with the first major effort to build a commercially viable, advanced-reactor power plant.

Read the whole thing.