IN LIGHT OF the recent stark warning from the United Nations that the world is on course to reach the limit of tolerable warming in a scant 21 years, nuclear power is getting some overdue attention and enthusiasm.
Nuclear accounts for almost 60 percent of emissions-free power in the U.S., and when plants shut down, utilities mostly turn to fossil fuels to fill the void. More than one-third of the country's plants, representing 22 percent of total nuclear capacity, are either scheduled to close or at risk of closure within the next five to 10 years.
Nuclear power is expensive, and it's under pressure from market forces--notably, the falling price of solar and wind power. Then why not simply let it lose market share to those safe, clean fuels? Because wind and solar can't immediately fill the gap. They still account for less than 8 percent of energy produced in the U.S. (nuclear is 20 percent). It's crucial that their growth displaces coal and natural gas, not nuclear.
If enough states take such measures, old plants could be kept running until the next generation of nuclear plants is ready. Building these might also require subsidy--for example, in the form of investment tax credits. These and other options need to be on the table as the world wakes up to the role nuclear power must play in avoiding a climate catastrophe.
Editorial on 01/01/2019