Dive Brief:

A report from the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition shows 63% of the United States carbon-free energy comes from nuclear plants, and meeting new greenhouse gas limits without nuclear energy would be a difficult proposition, Bloomberg Government reports.

While the Clean Power Plan's implementation has been delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the group's analysis shows the rule's goals could be achieved by replacing 476 million MWh of carbon-based energy with carbon-free electricity – roughly the energy used by 37% of U.S. homes.

CASEnergy, a pro-nuclear group funded by the industry, said it used 2012 emissions levels and 2030 as the date for reaching the emission reductions. The report does not include state-specific recommendations, but creates "hypothetical scenarios that illustrate the value of existing and additional nuclear energy."​

Dive Insight:

On paper, policy-makers have "many options to reduce emissions in the electric sector," but the nuclear industry believes wind and solar cannot practically take the United States all the way to Clean Power Plan compliance.

"Beyond significant reductions already achieved, it is clear that both existing and new reactors have a critical role to play," the group said in its report. "Valuing nuclear energy along with other sources of carbon-free generation will help lower America’s greenhouse gas emissions and serve as an example for the world to follow."

"Keeping existing nuclear energy facilities online is critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," the group said, noting states like Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia would face a significant carbon-free electricity shortfalls if existing nuclear energy facilities were to close.

And new facilities could be a boon to compliance: CASEnergy found that if states such as Louisiana or Minnesota invested in one new nuclear energy facility, they would meet Clean Power Plan targets. "And hypothetically, if states such as Michigan, Ohio or Missouri did the same, they would be able to meet more than 20 percent of their carbon reduction targets," the group said.

While wind and solar can effectively produce carbon-free power, the report points out the difference in footprint size. Relative to wind and solar power, nuclear energy facilities "have an exceptionally small land-use footprint," the report concludes, with roughly 1.3 square miles of land are needed to develop a 1,000 MW nuclear energy facility.

CASEnergy said that by comparison, a solar-powered facility requires 45 to 75 square miles, and a wind farm requires 260 to 360 square miles, to produce the same amount of electricity.

"In Georgia, for example, replacing the carbon-free electricity provided by one reactor would require the development of wind farms 2.5 miles deep along the state’s entire coastline," the group said.

The Supreme Court's decision to stay the implementation injected uncertainty into the future of the nuclear industry, which believed that while the CPP was a mixed bag for the sector, it was better than no plan at all.

While the CPP was not really incentivizing new development and leaned instead on existing plants, it came at a time when plants are being challenged by cheap natural gas and high operating costs, which has led some utilities to shutter some facilities prematurely or mull that possibility, and so sends a mixed message.

A report last year from Third Way, a moderate think tank, showed nuclear generation is needed to meet new regulations and a move away from the clean generation could spike emissions levels.