The Inflation Reduction Act continues to throw money at green energy — its focus should be on nuclear, the best clean-energy solution.
The Inflation Reduction Act continues to throw money at green energy — its focus should be on nuclear, the best clean-energy solution.
A fter a relentless, and ultimately successful, effort to pressure West Virginia senator Joe Manchin into backing some version of a climate bill, Democrats are hoping to pass what they’ve risibly named the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. One key holdout, Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.,), apparently has secured a handful of modifications in the bill and is ready to move forward, as of last night.
If the bill is to pass, let’s hope lawmakers see fit to at least fix a glaring hole in the legislation.
As it stands, the bill allocates a whopping $385 billion to fight climate change. The goal is to cut emissions by 40 percent (compared with 2005 levels) by 2030. It includes a variety of tax credits to boost clean-energy sources. There are subsidies for energy storage and hydrogen energy. The bill also allocates $60 billion toward what Senate Democrats term “environmental justice.” The Inflation Reduction Act also allows for low-income Americans to receive $7,500 for a new electric car and $4,000 for a used electric car. Of course, this ignores the fact that electric vehicles are not usually within the budgets of low-income Americans, even with a tax credit.
The bill further includes $30 billion of production tax credits for wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries. Setting aside the reality that neither the wind nor solar industry has the battery capacity at this point to support the electric grid, even this “clean” energy produces pollution. By 2050, the world will produce 6 million metric tons of solar e-waste — waste produced by electronic equipment once it is no longer usable — every year. Windmills and solar panels are also built using rare earth metals, often mined in China, that severely pollute the soil and water when mined and processed.
A much-better way to mitigate the effects of climate change while reliably producing energy, however, is nuclear, as Kevin Williamson explained in the August 15 issue of National Review. That is where the focus should be.
The Inflation Reduction Act does include a “zero-emission nuclear power production” credit. It also provides $700 million for HALEU (high-assay low enriched uranium), a critical fuel source for advanced nuclear reactors. Further, the bill allocates $250 billion toward Department of Energy loans for innovating clean-energy technology, though it is unclear how much of this would go toward nuclear technology. These are steps in the right direction. However, if leftists were serious about addressing global warming — as their apocalyptic rhetoric suggests — they would have allocated more for nuclear-energy development.
Nuclear energy produces energy through nuclear fission and therefore emits no carbon. This also removes pollutants from the air that cause maladies including lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy is the safest energy source. It provides 20 percent of America’s electrical generation and more than 70 percent of non-greenhouse-gas-emitting electrical generation in the U.S. Wind farms and solar farms require 360 and 75 times more land area, respectively, than nuclear plants do. Moreover, nuclear energy produces little waste: All the nuclear waste produced in the U.S. since the late 1950s could fill a football field about ten yards high. Nuclear energy also has the highest capacity factor of any energy source, generating maximum energy 92.5 percent of the time, compared with 35.4 percent of the time for wind and 24.9 percent of the time for solar. Just as important as its environmental benefits, the nuclear industry employs almost half a million Americans and adds around $60 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product every year.
Nuclear energy has seen various advancements in recent years that have made it more efficient, smaller, and safer. The reactors have advanced safety features such as the ability to automatically shut down. Some of the new models have novel fuel sources. New molten-salt and liquid-metal reactors will operate at higher temperatures, which could increase efficiency. Some new nuclear-reactor designs include small modular reactors (which are easier to construct and smaller than normal reactors), salt- and sodium-cooled reactors (enabling reactors to run at higher temperatures and lower pressures), micro reactors (tiny reactors that are mobile), and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (using inert gas such as helium rather than water for cooling).
Partly owing to the influence of the green-energy lobby, we have not fully embraced nuclear energy. The Biden administration has started a $6 billion federal program to help nuclear companies compete with their renewable-energy competition, but it may not be enough to keep them afloat. Production of nuclear power reached its highest point in 2012, with 104 operating reactors; today, only 92 reactors are still operating. Since 2013, twelve nuclear reactors have closed, and seven others have announced plans to close in the next few years. The Department of Energy warns that a quarter of our nuclear power plants are at risk of shutting down. We must reverse this trend. Instead of doling out billions of dollars for green energy, we should use that money to build more advanced nuclear reactors. Until green energy has the storage capacity to support America’s energy needs, nuclear energy is the best solution to mitigate the effects of climate change.