Concerns regarding the practicality and cost of green energy have prompted Democratic governors, including Kathy Hochul of New York and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, to take a renewed look at nuclear energy.
This shift is significant, but it doesn’t immediately resolve the pressing energy issues facing their states.
In June, Hochul instructed the New York Power Authority to work on a 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility upstate. Still, that capacity won’t be enough to stabilize New York City’s energy supply in the near term, especially with the ambitious goal of reaching zero emissions by 2040—just 14 years away.
Thus, in her State of the Union address, she proposed increasing nuclear energy investments to 5,000 megawatts.
In New Jersey, Sherrill has established a “task force” to promote new nuclear power initiatives. However, this step does not mean that New Jersey’s energy challenges will be resolved quickly.
The crux of the issue is that constructing new, economical nuclear power plants will involve significant engineering, financial, and political obstacles.
The nuclear industry has been shaken by intense safety and environmental fears. For instance, former Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which was crucial for New York City, and New Jersey’s Governor Phil Murphy closed Oyster Creek.
Political support alone won’t expedite the construction of new nuclear facilities.
First, there’s the challenge of training a new generation of nuclear engineers and securing sufficient manpower to build and run these plants. Hochul’s directive to the NYPA was made seven months ago, yet there are still no updates on where the new plant will be located, who will construct it, when construction will start, or how much it’s going to cost.
There are doubts about the feasibility of her plan; it’s almost as if Hochul is suggesting they build a facility on the moon.
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 mandates a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040. Achieving that without coal, oil, or natural gas will be a considerable challenge, especially when scaling nuclear energy production in a timely manner.
The most recent nuclear projects in the U.S., like the Vogtle plants in Georgia, took far longer than anticipated to complete.
These plants, while constructed, are projected to cost around $35 billion—three times the original estimate—leading to high monthly costs for residents, which average around $250. Ratepayers are understandably unhappy.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that building a new nuclear plant in 2024 will cost nearly $7,900 per kilowatt. A new 5,000-megawatt facility could thus set New York back close to $40 billion, a staggering amount by any measure.
Sherrill’s task force aims to address nuclear energy across the Hudson River, which is a step forward, but again—what’s the realistic timeline, and how much will it cost?
Restarting Oyster Creek could serve as a viable starting point to turning things around.
Meanwhile, the recently appointed Governor is intensifying efforts to tackle energy issues. Her initial order seeks to freeze electricity rates, a move that might merely shift costs from ratepayers to taxpayers, and expedite unreliable wind and solar initiatives.
Past experiences, like California’s interest rate freeze three decades ago, resulted in bankrupt public utilities and legal battles.
This weekend may present valuable lessons on the reliability of wind and solar energy. For instance, adverse weather conditions could reduce solar and wind energy generation drastically.
If Hochul and Sherrill continue to lean on wind and solar at the expense of other energy sources, they may face significant energy shortages and soaring electricity bills.
In the meantime, Hochul has yet to mention any immediate measures that could relieve energy costs for New York residents and businesses—most notably, fracking.
By allowing this safe and widely accepted method, new natural gas supplies could potentially lower electricity prices, which are still heavily reliant on natural gas.
This transition could lead to thousands of new jobs and crucial economic opportunities in northern states.
As for Sherrill, she seems to need a basic understanding of how the energy sector operates.
Letting go of unrealistic hopes for solar and wind and embracing hydraulic fracturing in New York would reflect a more grounded approach to energy policy.
Likewise, developing new natural gas power options rather than spending taxpayer money on ineffective wind and solar initiatives is crucial.
But, let’s be honest, embracing reality can be quite challenging.
