By Lenka Kollar
There's been a lot of debate on the new Clean Power Plan proposed by the EPA last week. The plan outlines carbon reduction goals for each state that would cut carbon pollution by 30% by 2030, as compared to 2005 levels. Each state will come up with a plan to cut carbon emissions using the following mix of steps:
There's been a lot of debate on the new Clean Power Plan proposed by the EPA last week. The plan outlines carbon reduction goals for each state that would cut carbon pollution by 30% by 2030, as compared to 2005 levels. Each state will come up with a plan to cut carbon emissions using the following mix of steps:
1. Improving efficiency at existing coal-fired power plants
2. Increasing utilization of existing natural gas fired power plants
3. Expanding the use of wind, solar, or other low- or zero-carbon emitting alternatives
4. Increasing energy efficiency in homes and businesses.
The bad news is that the coal industry is going to take a hit (see map of affected power plants above) and this may cause a rise in electricity costs. The good news is that the EPA is recognizing more than just the popular renewables, wind and solar, as "alternative" low-carbon generation. The word "nuclear" is mentioned 76 times in the proposed rule, mostly when talking about the current energy sector, but also as a solution to cutting carbon emissions. These statements about how states should meet carbon reduction goals are getting us really excited:
...including the projected amounts of generation achievable by completing all nuclear units currently under construction, avoiding retirement of about six percent of existing nuclear capacity…
Policies that encourage development of renewable energy capacity and discourage premature retirement of nuclear capacity could be useful elements of CO2 reduction strategies and are consistent with current industry behavior.
As the Atomic Power Review says, we've seen a complete change in the prospect of nuclear energy in the United States with this proposed rule. Utilities have been threatening to close nuclear plants because of economics (low energy prices caused by low natural gas prices and subsidies for solar and wind) but the EPA is now encouraging sates to keep nuclear power plants open and even build new ones.
This is great and all, but what will the policies to discourage premature retirement and encourage new construction of nuclear power plants look like? Does this mean subsidies for nuclear energy or maybe a reduction in the red tape associated with regulation? We have the technology to build new nuclear power plants and to keep existing plants running, but how do we address the economic and political issues?
By the way, as with any government rule-making, you can voice your thoughts at a public hearing or comment on the proposal online.
This is great and all, but what will the policies to discourage premature retirement and encourage new construction of nuclear power plants look like? Does this mean subsidies for nuclear energy or maybe a reduction in the red tape associated with regulation? We have the technology to build new nuclear power plants and to keep existing plants running, but how do we address the economic and political issues?
By the way, as with any government rule-making, you can voice your thoughts at a public hearing or comment on the proposal online.
RSS Feed
