What if New Jersey’s nuclear plants – which produce nearly 50 percent of the state’s electricity and 97 percent of its carbon-free energy – were to close? The result would be more pollution, higher bills and thousands of jobs lost.
Since 2013, 10 U.S. nuclear plants have shut down or announced plans to close because of financial pressures. The pressures come in three forms. Significantly lower electric prices, due to historically low natural gas prices. Higher compliance costs, to satisfy stricter federal regulations. And subsidies for solar and wind energy providers – to encourage the development of carbon-free electricity resources – while ignoring that nuclear plants are the nation’s largest source of zero-carbon energy.
PSEG’s three nuclear plants at Salem and Hope Creek are in no immediate danger of closing. However, New Jersey will be at risk if we don’t enact public policy to address the economic trends affecting nuclear generators across the United States.
We have issued a new position paper, Nuclear’s Role in New Jersey’s Clean Energy Future, that discusses the financial challenges facing New Jersey’s nuclear plants and the potential consequences. Those ramifications include:
- Carbon emissions and air pollution would increase. Nuclear plants would mostly likely be replaced by natural gas units that emit more greenhouse gases and other pollutants;
- Customers would pay more, as families and businesses would have to cover the costs of replacing the state’s existing nuclear fleet with new natural gas or solar generating systems; and
- Economic losses, particularly in South Jersey, where PSEG’s three nuclear plants employ more than 1,800 people and generate hundreds of millions of dollars in business and taxes.
In 2012, the San Onofre nuclear plant in California closed. That led to customers paying $350 million in higher electricity bills and added 9 million metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere, in only the first year, according to a University of California economic analysis.
Our position paper recommends developing an economic model that encourages a diverse set of energy sources – solar, nuclear, natural gas and wind – while recognizing the environmental benefits of retaining the state’s existing nuclear plants.
The worst choice would be to do nothing. We must only look around the country, as plant after plant shuts down for want of financial support, to see where that would lead.
For more information, read our position paper, Nuclear’s Role in New Jersey’s Clean Energy Future.
Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President & CEO PSEG
Well said. I believe we should use all the technology we have to provide energy efficiently. If the governments mantra is clean energy,then they must convert all federal employees and elected officials automobiles, buildings, etc to natural gas, solar, electric and other types of clean energy to 1. Lead by example 2. Make it more affordable to Americans.
what is clean about burning natural gas. it still contributes to greenhouse gases( carbon footprint)
Where is the storage for the waste? Its at the sites themselves. How dangerous that is with all the shir thats going on in the world
Not dangerous at all. Nuclear waste has been safely stored (in pools and in dry casks) for many decades, and no member of the public has ever been harmed. Nuclear plants themselves have also never caused any harm (had any measurable public health impact). Meanwhile, US fossil power generation causes almost 10,000 deaths *annually* and is a leading cause of global warming.
Even a terrorist attack on a waste cask would be very unlikely to cause any public deaths (off site). Meanwhile, all they have to do is show up at any place where people gather (schools, nightclubs, etc..) with machine guns and they can easily kill hundreds. Nuclear plants are among the worst terrorist targets. Very low chance of success, and limited impacts even if they did.
[…] renewable sources by 2030 – including nuclear energy. That’s an important milestone, because it recognizes nuclear’s contributions to the state’s carbon-reduction […]