At TQC we unequivocally agree with most credible scientists who believe global warming is “real.” Furthermore, the dangerous amounts of greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere contribute to a slow-moving ecological disaster, evidenced by highly abnormal weather patterns that have resulted in flooding of historically dry areas, droughts in wetlands, record heat, intense storms, and rising seas.
To forestall a lasting and irreversible (at least with today’s technology) destruction of the earth's ecosystem that will devastate societies and disproportionately hurt those least culpable for the crisis, *industrialized nations must set an example by swiftly transitioning to carbon-free sources of energy. That much is a foregone conclusion. How we get there, is not.
*(It is absurd and grossly hypocritical for Western nations, who are primarily responsible for ruining the environment, to browbeat impoverished countries, who had little to do with the current environmental calamity, to use cleaner and more expensive forms of energy. Sure, fresher air would be nice. But potable water and protein are more urgent.)
In the United States, installations of solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy are increasing exponentially year over year. And renewables continue to take market share from coal, oil, & gas. Those are good things. But currently, there is dearth of renewable power generation to compensate for the loss of more than a small percentage of fossil fuel power - as evidenced by your massive increase in energy bills - and will not be for the foreseeable future.
The good news is that a safe and carbon free source of energy already exists in the form of nuclear power. The upfront outlays to build a nuclear power plant are enormous; multiple times the cost of constructing a coal or gas fired plant or to install a renewables facility. But the life of a nuclear plant is long – up to 75 years - and nuclear power is very safe, efficient, and does not emit any greenhouse gasses.
Some Western nations such as France, Finland, and Great Britain have embraced nuclear energy. Germany has recently pivoted from a staunchly anti-nuke position to a cautiously welcoming policy stance. America's commitment to nuclear has been equivocal at best. In our view, this is a mistake.
US Energy Mix
Approximately 61% of America’s electricity generation is derived from fossil fuels including coal (~22%), natural gas (38%) and oil (1%). Renewables (wind ~9%, hydro ~6%, solar ~3%, other ~2%) contribute ~20%. Nuclear is currently ~19% of the mix.
Regarding carbon free energy, there are currently two ways to generate it without *intermittency: with nuclear and hydro power. It is difficult to obtain a permit to build a nuclear reactor. It is almost impossible to get a permit to construct a dam, let alone find a suitable location for one.
(*We do not know when the wind will blow or when the sun will shine. Insufficient wind equates to less output per wind turbine. A cloudy day equates to less generation per solar farm. Storage is available on a subscale basis. But the technology to store large amounts of power derived from solar and wind is not yet commercially viable.)
Currently, nuclear power plants generate ~half of America’s emissions-free energy. However, lack of attention, misplaced public and political opposition, and horrific long-term planning have gutted the industry and left it in secular decline.
The U.S. has 92 nuclear power plants in operation and still produces ~30% of the world’s nuclear energy. However, over the last decade, 13 plants have been shuttered prematurely due to a fundamental lack of understanding of energy economics and interplay between fossil fuels, renewables, and the environment. By contrast, only one new plant has connected to the grid and two more, at plant Vogtle in Georgia, are under construction.
...