OPINION:
For years, we have been told that the future of electricity belongs to wind and solar because they are supposedly cleaner, cheaper and more resilient than traditional power sources.
Now, critics are trying to add another talking point: Climate change is making nuclear power unreliable.
That claim is misleading. The best available evidence shows that although nuclear plants can occasionally reduce output during extreme weather, they remain among the most reliable sources of electricity.
The real weather problem belongs not to nuclear power but rather to wind and solar, whose output depends entirely on the weather every hour of every day.
A recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists points to temporary nuclear reactor shutdowns in parts of Europe during an unusually hot, dry summer as evidence that climate change is exposing a fatal weakness in nuclear energy. Reactors in Romania, Hungary and France reduced power because of low river levels and warm cooling water.
Every form of electricity generation has vulnerabilities. Coal plants can face fuel delivery disruptions. Natural gas systems can freeze during severe cold snaps. Hydroelectric dams depend on rainfall and mountain snowpack. Even transmission lines can fail during storms.
Yet only nuclear is singled out as “unreliable” because of a handful of temporary reductions in output. The obvious question omitted in the article is “Compared with what?”
Nuclear power plants routinely operate at capacity factors exceeding 90%, meaning they produce electricity almost continuously, except during scheduled maintenance and refueling. That level of reliability is unmatched by any renewable energy source.
Wind turbines generate electricity only when the wind blows within a narrow operating range. Too little wind produces no electricity. Too much wind forces turbines to shut down for protection. Plus, wind turbines can ice up in winter, stopping them completely.
Solar panels stop producing electricity every single night. They also generate much less power during cloudy weather, winter months, wildfire smoke, heavy rain and snow cover.
Those are not occasional operational challenges; they are fundamental limitations of this technology.
Ironically, the Bulletin praises solar power for helping Europe avoid electricity shortages during the same heat wave that affected some nuclear plants. That observation says more about the weather than solar energy.
Solar performed well because the skies were clear and the sun was shining. Had thick clouds covered much of Europe during those critical days or had peak demand occurred after sunset, solar production would have fallen dramatically. Calling that reliability stretches the definition of the word.
The article also overlooks another important point: Cooling water constraints are not unique to nuclear power. Coal-fired power plants, natural gas facilities and many industrial operations also rely on water for cooling. Any large thermal power station can face operational challenges during extreme drought or unusually warm river conditions.
What makes nuclear different is that it produces dependable electricity nearly all the rest of the time.
Critics also ignore something every electric grid operator understands: Reliable electricity is not simply power that works during favorable weather conditions. It is power that remains available when demand is high.
Hospitals must stay open, factories must keep running, and homes require heating or air conditioning at all hours.
That is why every major electric grid still depends on dispatchable generation. Whether the source is nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric power or another controllable technology, the grid requires electricity that operators can count on regardless of the weather.
Wind and solar cannot provide reliable power because they are inherently weather-dependent, whereas nuclear can and does under almost all conditions.
None of this means that nuclear plants are immune to operational challenges. Engineers have long recognized the importance of cooling water, and newer reactor designs increasingly incorporate cooling towers, closed-loop systems, air cooling, seawater cooling and other innovations that reduce dependence on external sources.
Engineering adapts to new challenges; it always has.
What should concern people is not that nuclear power occasionally encounters unusual operating conditions; it is that critics increasingly judge nuclear by a standard they never apply to renewables.
When a nuclear plant temporarily reduces output during an exceptional heat wave, it becomes “proof” that nuclear power is unreliable. When thousands of wind turbines stand motionless during calm weather or millions of solar panels produce nothing after sunset, that is simply described as normal.
That is a double standard.
Reliable energy policy begins with an honest comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of all generating technologies. Too much of today’s energy debate starts with a preferred conclusion and works backward.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ignored an opportunity to provide that balance. Rather than comparing occasional weather-related constraints on nuclear with the constant weather dependence of wind and solar, it portrayed one of the world’s most reliable electricity sources as deeply flawed.
The most ironic part? A group supposedly consisting of “atomic scientists” is disparaging nuclear power.
If climate and weather are becoming more challenging, the last thing we should do is abandon one of the few large-scale energy sources capable of delivering dependable electricity day and night, through every season, regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
• Anthony Watts (awatts@heartland.org) is a senior fellow with The Heartland Institute.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.