“Climate Act Nuclear Reality and Clueless Anti-Nuclear Activists”, By Roger Caiazza

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 450 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.

Climate Act Nuclear Reality and Clueless Anti-Nuclear Activists

Two recent Syracuse Post Standard letters, “Nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide but is anything but clean” and “Coverage of Hochul energy summit did not convey dangers of nuclear waste” oppose the idea of using nuclear power as part of the zero-emissions generating resources needed to achieve the Climate Leadership & Community Protection  Act (Climate Act) goals.  In this post I explain why their knee jerk rejection of nuclear is not in the best interests of New York.

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 450 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview and Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030. Two targets address the electric sector: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022.  Since then, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.

Evidence is mounting that the implementation is not going to as planned.  The Public Service Commission (PSC) Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report found that the 70% renewable energy goal will likely not be achieved until at least 2033.  The New York State Comptroller Office Climate Act Goals – Planning, Procurements, and Progress Tracking audit found that the PSC and NYSERDA implementation plans did not comprise all essential components, including “assessing risks to meeting goals and projecting costs.”  The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2023-2042 System & Resource Outlookdescribed issues that threaten reliability and resilience of the current and future electric system. The Department of Public Service Proceeding 15-E-0302 has initiated a process to “identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly to identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target”. The Business Council of New York cited those reports and gave other reasons in a letter asking for a reassessment of the Climate Act goals. 

A technical conference held under the PSC’s auspices on December 11 and 12, 2023 entitled “Zero Emissions by 2040” included a session titled “Gap Characterization.”  Panelists at the session recognized the need for some new resource that would need to be developed to provide electricity to meet demand when wind and solar production are low.  They referred to this new, not-yet-existing, hypothetical technology as the Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource, or “DEFR.”  The panel also described a few potential DEFR technologies.  Nuclear is the only proven technology that can be expanded sufficiently to fulfill the DEFR energy requirements projected for the future electric grid.

Future Energy Summit

In an apparent response to these issues, on September 4-5, 2024, the Hochul Administration hosted a Future Energy Summit that announced the draft Advanced Nuclear Technologies Blueprint.  The blueprint notes that a “growing and innovative group of advanced nuclear energy technologies has recently emerged as a potential source of dispatchable carbon-free power”. The blueprint introduces the goals:

The term advanced nuclear represents a suite of technologies, a description of which is provided in subsequent sections of this document. Advanced nuclear technologies could offer attractive possibilities for New York, with its scalability, economic development, low land use, and potential applications of process heat. It may represent an opportunity for additional grid capacity to support an electrifying economy, that can complement New York’s buildout of renewables. Yet advanced nuclear technologies raise a host of questions that would have to be addressed before planning on it, regarding technological readiness, costs and cost risks, environmental justice, among other factors.

Accordingly, this discussion paper examines a number of advanced nuclear technology options from the standpoint of technological readiness and systemic challenges and issues. The objective is to surface the most important opportunities, issues, and questions associated with these options to create a platform for additional analysis and stakeholder input on these options that moves New York forward towards its energy, economic, climate, and equity goals.

Tim Knauss described the Summit and the initial public response.  He noted that the Summit attracted two street demonstrations – one for nuclear energy and the other against.  He described the two protests:

Several speakers at the energy summit noted that both Democrats and Republicans in Washington support expanding nuclear power. And polling shows that a majority of Americans — some 56% — support building new nuclear plants, according to Pew Research Center.

But at the local level, the subject can still be divisive.

That was evident Thursday outside the energy summit at the Marriott Downtown Syracuse, where about 60 protestors gathered to denounce the discussions of nuclear power.

“Governor Hochul’s climate leadership is in freefall,’’ said Laura Shindell, New York director of Food & Water Watch, an environmental group. “Now, at the very moment that we need Gov. Hochul to be our climate’s strongest defender, she is instead wining and dining the slow, expensive, dirty and dangerous nuclear industry.”

Shindell and other activists called nuclear power a “fairytale distraction’’ that will weaken the state’s efforts to meet climate goals mandated by the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

They were joined by Cornell University professor Robert Howarth, who served with Harris on the Climate Action Council that drew up the state’s plan to comply with the law’s mandates.

Aside from its environmental hazards – including uranium mining, much of which mars lands occupied by Indigenous peoples – nuclear power is too expensive and too slow to construct to help meet New York’s emission reduction goals, Howarth said.

Spending on nuclear will detract from the development of more beneficial power sources, he said.  “It’s nonsense in terms of our energy future in New York, even if it had an acceptable environmental and health footprint, which it does not,’’ Howarth said. “We can meet all of the energy needs of New York with solar, with hydro and wind and appropriate (energy) storage.’’

But the energy summit also drew a pro-nuclear protest. U.S. Rep. Brandon Williams, R-Sennett, and members of Nuclear New York held their own sidewalk event to protest the anti-nuclear protest. 

Williams, a former nuclear submarine officer, said he strongly supports new nuclear power for New York. But he does not support New York’s mandate of zero-emission electricity, which he said is costly and ineffective.  “This goal of net-zero emissions is based on ideology, not on economics and not on engineering and not on science,’’ Williams said.

Anti-Nuclear Letters

The Syracuse Post Standard published two anti-nuclear letters after the Summit.  “Nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide but is anything but clean” was written by Donald Hughes, Ph.D., a longtime resident of Syracuse and environmental activist with Sierra Club and Sustain CNY.  “Coverage of Hochul energy summit did not convey dangers of nuclear waste” was written by Carole Resnick from Syracuse.  I have submitted rebuttals to those letters but there are space constraints and there is no assurance that my letter will be published.  This section describes my concerns with these letters.

Hughes argues that nuclear is anything but “clean.”  He claimed that the construction of reactors has a huge carbon footprint but ignored the mineral intensity of wind, solar, and energy storage technologies.   He said the nuclear fuel cycle is highly toxic and cited problems with uranium mining in the American Southwest.   I have compiled references for similar issues with the resources he claims are “clean”.  As part of the Nuclear New York demonstration mentioned previously ,Chris Denton assembled a booklet with numbers and pictures that show that ignoring the impacts of wind and solar when complaining about nuclear is poor form.

Hughes dismisses the advanced nuclear technology under consideration in the Advanced Nuclear Technologies Blueprint because of concerns with safety, nuclear waste, and costs. However, nuclear advocates see an opportunity to develop different types of reactors that could address these issues.  Ronald Stein explains:

The nuclear power production industry has the best industrial safety record among all industries for electricity production. So, the fear that most needs attention is the one surrounding spent nuclear fuel, which is commonly referred to as “nuclear waste.” The solution, then, lies in educating heads of state, mainstream media, and policymakers by extending the concept of recycling to include the unspent energy in used nuclear fuels, a method that can convince people that the “nuclear waste” issue is being dealt with, the cost of power is competitive, and that the production of nuclear power is safe.

Recycling Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel (SUNF) in a Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) provides all these remedies in a way that is competitive and publicly acceptable.  The advantages to recycling used nuclear fuel in Fast Breeder Reactors are many:

1. It provides a solution to the disposition of the stockpile of Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel (SUNF).

2. Current inventories of SUNF provide an essentially unlimited supply of domestic fuel.

3. The fuel material is already mined, so the energy produced is much closer to 100% clean, and further environmental degradation from mining operations is not required.

4. The public would be more receptive to nuclear power because “waste” is being used as “fuel,” reducing the retention of unspent fuels and diminishing perceived risks.

5. The design is “intrinsically safe”. This means that the reactor is designed to cool sufficiently in the case of an accident without human intervention.

6. The current stockpile of SUNF has a value of $10 Trillion when the electric power that it produces is sold at 1 cent per kWh.

7. Process heat can be used for industrial purposes such as hydrogen, freshwater production, and synthetic fuel production.

Hughes complains that the costs make nuclear a poor choice.  His main argument is that the relative costs of nuclear compared to wind, solar, and energy storage are high.  For example he cites a study by Lazard, that estimated that the unsubsidized levelized cost of electricity from new nuclear plants in the U.S. will be between $141 and $221 per megawatt hour. In comparison, a newly constructed utility-scale solar facility, with battery storage to provide power after the sun sets, will produce power at an unsubsidized levelized cost of between $46 and $102 per megawatt hour.

Willis Eschenbach evaluated that Lazard April 2023 annual reportand summarized the problem with the Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) methodology:

The LCOE estimates the total capital, operations, and maintenance costs for new electric power plants coming into service. People use the Lazard LCOE all the time to claim that renewable electricity sources are now cheaper than fossil fuel electricity. However, the Lazard data has a problem—it doesn’t include the cost of backup and other costs for renewable energy. These costs fall into four groups:

1. Backup costs – All power sources require backup power for the times when they are not generating any or enough power. However, the amount of backup required is much larger for intermittent sources.

2. Balancing costs – Extra equipment is required when you have intermittent sources, to keep their highly variable input to the grid from destabilizing it.

3. Grid connection costs – Renewable wind and solar power is variable voltage direct current. Before it can be fed into the grid, it must be run through costly synchronous inverters to convert it to stable voltage, stable frequency alternating current.

4. Grid reinforcement/extension costs – Unlike fossil or nuclear plants, which can generally be sited as required, renewable sources of energy are often located far from where the power is needed. As a result, the grid will generally need to be extended, strengthened, or both for such source

Eschenbach’s analysis includes the following figure that compares the original Lazard costs relative to the addition of potential costs for the cost groups described above.

Note that nuclear costs are still higher than solar and wind.  However, these projections are based on a 50% penetration of generating sources.  New York’s Climate Act requires 100% penetration of wind and solar.  As a result, it does not include the necessity for a DEFR resource to backup solar and wind.  When DEFR cost support is included I believe that nuclear will be the cheaper option.

The only proven DEFR technology is nuclear so it is possible that there won’t be any choice but to develop it.  However, note that DEFR is not needed very often so it does not make much sense to use it solely for DEFR.  Instead, the obvious solution is to go all in for nuclear and stop trying to develop wind and solar.  Ron Stein sums it up: “Rather than pursue renewables of wind and solar that require huge land footprints, huge taxpayer subsidies, and even then, only generate electricity occasionally, it’s time to focus our technology resources on the nuclear power production industry that has the best industrial safety record among all companies and a track record of producing the cheapest non-subsidized electricity.”

The letter from Carole Resnick was long on emotion and short on numbers.  She believes professor of ecology and evolutionary biology professor Robert W. Howarth’s claim that “We can meet all of the energy needs of New York with solar, with hydro and wind and appropriate (energy) storage.”  Her belief is misplaced because Howarth is wrong.  I have analyzed his arguments that no new technology is needed and found them wanting.  More importantly, the Scoping Plan Integration Analysis, all analyses done by the New York Independent System Operator, and the Public Service Commission ‘Zero Emissions by 2040’ proceeding described previously all agree on the need for a new dispatchable emissions-free resource to support the electric system.  Her arguments against nuclear power itself echo the same points argued by Hughes

Conclusion

Hughes anti-nuclear claim is that “The reality is that it’s an unaffordable, slow to build and highly toxic process that has no place in a clean energy future.” Resnick claims that nuclear is a false solution and insinuates that is being considerable because it is profitable.  Neither of their arguments stands up to inspection.

I believe when the total costs of a wind, solar, and energy storage system are compared to the cost of a system that relies on nuclear for electricity generation that the nuclear system will be cheaper.  In addition, it will be more reliable because there is no reliance on weather-dependent generating resources.

The letter authors suggest that wind, solar, and energy storage have no downsides.  However, when the emissions from the full life cycle of those technologies, the impacts of renewable energy sprawl across the countryside, and the cumulative environmental impact of thousands of wind turbines and thousands of acres of solar panels necessary to provide the electricity projected are compared to the nuclear option, those technologies are anything but green. 

It is time for a nuclear renaissance.

Share this:

• Twitter

• Facebook

Author: rogercaiazza

I am a meteorologist (BS and MS degrees), was certified as a consulting meteorologist and have worked in the air quality industry for over 40 years. I author two blogs. Environmental staff in any industry have to be pragmatic balancing risks and benefits and (https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/) reflects that outlook. The second blog addresses the New York State Reforming the Energy Vision initiative (https://reformingtheenergyvisioninconvenienttruths.wordpress.com). Any of my comments on the web or posts on my blogs are my opinion only. In no way do they reflect the position of any of my past employers or any company I was associated with.View all posts by rogercaiazza