Ethan Bodnaruk, of Lansing, is a program manager for BlocPower*, a company working to decarbonize buildings and build a green workforce at locations across the country. He holds an MS in nuclear engineering from North Carolina State University and a MS in Environmental Resources from SUNY-ESF in Syracuse. Seven others signed on to this commentary; their names appear below.
The Hochul administration's recent conference on New York state's energy goals and the need for nuclear power to meet them has generated a significant amount of attention, mobilizing the shrinking but vocal anti-nuclear environmentalist response.
In our dysfunctional Congress, nuclear power is one of the few topics that receives bipartisan support. Not only do conservatives tend to support nuclear power, but the Biden-Harris administration and climate envoy John Kerry strongly support it. Kerry recognizes the scientific consensus that nuclear power is crucially needed, saying "Most scientists will tell you ... we can't get to net zero 2050 unless we have a mixture of energy approaches. And one of those elements which is essential in all the modeling I've seen, is nuclear." Accordingly, more than 20 countries from four continents have signed the U.S.-led Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy.
Nuclear has the smallest lifecycle land use and smallest lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of any generating source because the power of the nucleus is so tremendous and compact compared to wind and solar or even fossil fuels. The actual safety record shows that nuclear is as safe as solar or wind.
Some environmental groups who supported the closure of Downstate's Indian Point nuclear reactor promised that renewables would fully replace its power. They were predictably proven wrong, with the result that New York's emissions have increased and new gas plants built are locked in for their lifetimes. Accordingly, the share of New York City's electricity from fossil fuels increased from 68% in 2019 before Indian Point's two-year closure to a staggering 93% in 2022 after closure.
It's true that nuclear takes a while to build, but once complete, it produces prodigious amounts of clean energy that can actually displace entire fossil fuel plants. Imagine if instead of shutting down Indian Point, a "copy" of it were made: New York City's fossil fuel use would have instead decreased from 68% to roughly 43%.
As experience grows in building new, even safer, and even simpler nuclear reactors, costs will come down. Modeling done by MIT shows that the "exclusion of nuclear could cause the average cost of electricity to escalate dramatically." Furthermore, nuclear detractors neglect to point out that other energy sources face cost overruns such as New York's offshore wind projects whose costs ballooned and contracts were canceled.
We are by no means anti-renewables. We are simply pushing back against the notion that renewables alone can solve the climate crisis and are working to point out the under-recognized benefits of nuclear power.
Research from Cornell University shows that a significant increase in flexible, carbon-free baseload energy like nuclear is needed for a reliable, clean grid in New York state. Our energy system will continue to rely heavily on energy sources we can ramp up or down independent of changing weather and climate patterns to meet instantaneous electrical demand. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, and batteries need to be recharged when they run out in these periods. This is just pure physics and pure reality. Think about it -- we can't use more electricity than we have available at any given time, just like we can't debit our checking accounts for more than we have in the bank. It's much easier to manage our electrical grid if we can ramp up our electricity sources when demand increases.
Wherever nuclear has been shuttered, whether Germany, Japan, New York or Vermont, it is replaced by fossil fuels because baseload sources are needed to keep the grid stable and keep our lights on. Recognizing this, California is wisely choosing to preserve its last nuclear power plant that anti-nuclear forces almost succeeded in closing. Tribal Elder Scott Lathrop of the YTT Northern Chumash Tribe, whose ancestral land hosts this power plant, states that "nuclear energy is one of the most sustainable energy options, and its future depends on overcoming community concerns through transparency and education" and was a speaker about nuclear power in New York City last month as part of NYC Climate Week.
The anti-nuclear camp has an advantage that fear is powerful. But their efforts rely on many half-truths or falsehoods about risks while neglecting the many benefits of nuclear power: stable, union jobs that far exceed the employment opportunities of renewables; millions of avoided deaths from displaced fossil fuels; and its role as the world's largest clean energy source after hydro.
A full two years ago, renowned climate scientist James Hansen participated in a press conference in which he strongly critiqued New York's exclusion of nuclear power from its energy plan. Let's hope with this new conference the state is truly grappling with the seriousness of the climate emergency and the crucial need for nuclear as part of the solution.
The following people signed on to this commentary. (*Affiliations are noted for identification purposes only and do not indicate institutional support.)
Dr. Sunny Aslam | Jamesville (Hutchings Psychiatric Center*)
Barry Carr | Syracuse (Coalition Director, Clean Communities of Central New York*)
Rebecca Evans | Ithaca (Director of Sustainability, City of Ithaca*)
Matt Huber | Syracuse (Center for Environmental Policy and Administration, Syracuse University*)
Brian LaMorte | Ithaca (CEO of LaMorte Electrical Heating and Cooling, a residential building electrification contractor and specialist)