Hello,

We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.

To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in.

Not an Insider? Subscribe now for unlimited access to online articles.

Mike Orcutt

A View from Mike Orcutt

Reactor Retirements Will Hurt U.S. Emissions Cuts

Subtracting nuclear reactors in the U.S. could make it tougher to meet climate goals.

  • May 7, 2014

Greenhouse gas emissions within the United States have been trending downward for the past few years, mainly because coal-fired generation is declining (see: “How and Why U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Falling”). Coal’s decline will likely continue, given an abundance of domestic gas and the many coal plant retirements expected over the next several years.

But a new report from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (formerly the Pew Center on Global Climate Change) is a reminder that coal’s share of electricity is not the only one that could substantially decline in the next several years. Nuclear’s share appears likely to shrink as well, and the likely greenhouse gas emissions increase could imperil the country’s chances of meeting its pledge to reduce emissions by 17 percent relative to 2005 levels by 2020. An aging reactor fleet, cheap natural gas, renewable energy incentives, and other economic factors could lead to “a wave of U.S. reactor retirements in the coming years,” writes Doug Vine, a senior fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

The report notes that four reactors were retired in 2013, and another is slated to go offline this fall, representing just over 4 percent of the total U.S. nuclear capacity. Depending on how that generating capacity is replaced, these retirements alone could lead to a release of an additional 12 million to 18.25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year—or the same amount emitted yearly by two million to 3.6 million passenger vehicles, according to the report.

There are five new reactors currently under construction, but the first one won’t be ready until December 2015 at the earliest, and the others won’t start up until 2017 or later. In the meantime, subtracted nuclear capacity is likely to be replaced in large part by fossil fuel plants.

Nuclear power supplied 19 percent of the total electricity in the U.S. in 2012 (See “Nuclear Options”), and it accounted for 60 percent of electricity generated at plants that don’t emit carbon dioxide. Whereas the total emissions associated with nuclear power is similar to that of wind or solar power, unlike wind and solar plants, nuclear plants can run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, making them suitable to provide baseload power.

For perspective, consider this: the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions calculates that in a scenario in which nuclear power was replaced completely by fossil fuels after 2012, the added emissions between then and 2025 would be four to six billion metric tons. That’s the same amount the EPA hopes to avoid, over the same time frame, through vehicle efficiency standards. 

Cut off? Read unlimited articles today.

Become an Insider
Already an Insider? Log in.

Uh oh–you've read all of your free articles for this month.

Insider Premium
$179.95/yr US PRICE

More from Sustainable Energy

Can we sustainably provide food, water, and energy to a growing population during a climate crisis?

Want more award-winning journalism? Subscribe to Insider Online Only.
  • Insider Online Only {! insider.prices.online !}*

    {! insider.display.menuOptionsLabel !}

    Unlimited online access including articles and video, plus The Download with the top tech stories delivered daily to your inbox.

    See details+

    What's Included

    Unlimited 24/7 access to MIT Technology Review’s website

    The Download: our daily newsletter of what's important in technology and innovation

/
You've read all of your free articles this month. This is your last free article this month. You've read of free articles this month. or  for unlimited online access.