BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Why Closing Ohio's Nuke Plants Will End Up Killing More Ohioans

This article is more than 4 years old.

State Senate Republican Caucus Spokesperson John Fortney said that Ohio State Legislators continue to discuss passing a nuclear subsidy to stop the closure of Ohio’s two nuclear plants.

First Energy

The debate rages over Ohio House Bill 6, legislation that is highly misunderstood. The Bill, passed by the Ohio House May 29, would sunset the State’s prescriptive renewable-only subsidies and green energy mandates in favor of more general subsidies to all “clean-energy” sources, which includes nuclear as well as renewables.

Specifically, the Bill provides a seven-year program compensating Ohio’s two nuclear plants for their larger-scale environmental and economic benefits. Without such a Bill, plant owner First Energy said it will proceed with closing and decommissioning the Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear plants.

But a new issue has arisen that is pretty important – deaths actually increase when you close nuclear plants.

A new scientific study finds that well over 100 additional deaths will occur each year if three at-risk nuclear plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania are closed prematurely and replaced by carbon-emitting, high-polluting fossil fuels.

The report was released last week by the National Caucus & Center on Black Aging together with Nuclear Matters, and focused on Perry Nuclear Generating Station (OH), Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (OH) and Three Mile Island Generating Station (PA). The report shows that increased air pollution in the region from closing these nuclear plants could lead to an average increase of 126 excess deaths per year and cause over $800 million in economic damage.

The National Caucus & Center on Black Aging partnered with Nuclear Matters to underscore the undue impact that increased air pollution has on minority communities in Ohio and anywhere where nuclear power plants are under threat of closure.

Air pollution is a major burden to human health, and electricity generation from fossil fuel power plants, especially coal, is a major source of air pollution. This type of air pollution causes upper respiratory distress than can be fatal. But nuclear power plants do not emit significant amounts of air pollution.

“Elderly communities are particularly at risk to the adverse health effects of increased carbon emissions, and when segmenting older Americans by race and income, we can clearly see that elderly people of color and lower income Americans are most impacted,” said Karyne Jones, President and CEO of the National Caucus & Center on Black Aging.

“We’re on the frontlines in our communities battling for access to healthcare, housing and services, and against policies that exacerbate vulnerabilities associated with aging. It’s important that we pursue a comprehensive strategy to avoid increasing carbon emissions, which includes protecting zero-emission nuclear generation as well as encouraging the development of renewables.”

The region investigated in this report is governed by the PJM electrical interconnection, the organization that coordinates electrical generation and transmission in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States, an area stretching from New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio to North Carolina and out to Kentucky and Illinois.

PJM’s generators are fueled by coal (34%), nuclear power (34%) and natural gas (27%). Replacement of closed nuclear power plants would come from coal and gas plants within their region.

Because PJM’s nuclear plants are not valued for their low-carbon electricity, their community economic value or their reliability (they perform almost 100% of the time), PJM is losing about a penny a kWh on them, less than half of what they get in subsidies for their wind and solar. This Bill would even out the subsidies so all low-carbon sources are supported.

Key findings from the report include:

-  If operations at the three plants cease, nuclear power generation will be replaced by fossil fuel generation in the region, leading to major burdens on health including an average increase of 126 deaths per year

-  The increase in deaths due to air pollution is equivalent to $806 million per year in economic 
damages

-  The number and magnitude of health and economic damages grow proportionately if additional nuclear plants are closed.

“Pollution from burning fossil fuels causes climate change and endangers human health,” said Carol Browner, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and member of Nuclear Matters Advocacy Council. “This report measures the direct impact that closing nuclear power plants – [the Nation’s] largest source of carbon-free energy – has on our environment and the health of our communities.”

The report was authored by Christopher W. Tessum and Julian D. Marshall, both members of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Washington in Seattle. It follows recent reports from The Brattle Group and IHS Markit that reinforce the benefits of nuclear power to residents of all states having nuclear power or adjacent to those that do.

The misunderstanding of House Bill 6 can be seen in the odd alliances for and against it. Renewable energy companies are siding with fossil fuel companies to kill the Bill, which is not surprising as both know that increasing renewables without nuclear means more natural gas.

Thinking that we need to choose between nuclear and renewables is a false choice. We need all low-carbon sources to have any hope of achieving a clean energy future.

It is important to realize that the Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear plants in Ohio provide over ten times more non-emitting electricity than all the State’s wind and solar combined. If they are closed prematurely, there is no hope of replacing that amount of non-emitting power with renewables by 2030, even with extreme applications of energy efficiency.

Which is why fossil fuel concerns are against this Bill. They know the replacement for nuclear will be natural gas and coal from plants already within PJM’s region, contrary to what pro-renewable folks claim. Every time a nuclear plant has closed in America over the last ten years, it has been replaced by fossil fuel, increasing those state’s emissions and sickening its people.

I am not sure if this new report will influence critics of this Bill. Even citing increased deaths from closing nukes may not penetrate the anti-nuke nonsense that fills their ideology. And they don’t actually listen to climate scientists.

Which is weird since the world’s top climate scientists, including Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, have all urged world leaders and environmental campaigners to stop their unscientific and ideological attacks on nuclear energy and support its expansion.

U.S. carbon emissions rose in 2018 by over 60 million tons of CO2. Closing six nuclear plants over the last few years, building new gas plants, increasing manufacturing and construction, and increasing gasoline/diesel/jet fuel demand are the reasons for this rise. Increased renewables and increased energy efficiency have not been able to keep up with any one of these effects.

By any measure that includes environmental concern, or even cost, it is foolish to close any nuclear power plant that has been relicensed by the NRC and is producing power continuously over 90% of the time for only a penny or so more per kWh than natural gas.

But if the lives of our people aren’t enough to pass this legislation, I’m not sure what is.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn