New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

U.S. Energy Department Study Calls for Boost to Coal and Nuclear Power

The report dovetails with the president’s promise to revive the ailing mining sector

U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Energy Department report calls for incentives to boost coal-fired and nuclear power plants following a slew of closures that it said undermined reliable sources of electricity.

The findings of the study, released late on Wednesday, drew scorn from renewable energy advocates but praise from the coal and nuclear industries.

The report dovetails with President Donald Trump's promise to revive the ailing mining sector. But it differs from conclusions presented in an earlier draft, which had said big increases in renewable power generation remained possible without undermining grid reliability.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The administration had not yet reviewed the early draft, which was written by department staff.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry commissioned the study in April to evaluate whether "regulatory burdens" imposed by past administrations, including that of former President Barack Obama, had hurt the grid by forcing shutdowns of baseload plants, which provide nonstop power, like those fired by coal and nuclear fuel.

Obama had introduced a raft of regulations intended to slash emissions of carbon dioxide, which are blamed for climate change. This accelerated the retirement of coal-fired power plants and bolstered the nascent solar and wind sectors, which depend heavily on weather conditions for their power output.

"It is apparent that in today’s competitive markets certain regulations and subsidies are having a large impact on the functioning of markets, and thereby challenging our power generation mix," Perry said in a letter introducing the study. "It is important for policy makers to consider their intended and unintended effects."

The study, conducted by the department's staff, said cheap natural gas was the main driver of the closure of baseload coal and nuclear plants, a trend that was putting areas of the country at greater risk of power outages. The department recommended giving baseload plants pricing advantages for their power, as well as making it easier and cheaper to get permits to build more such projects.

Howard Crystal, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity which advocates for clean energy, called the recommendations "dangerously misguided.

"The reality is that we can protect our planet and our energy supplies by embracing wind and solar,” he said.

Some coal and nuclear energy groups welcomed the final report's findings.

"This is a much-needed, pragmatic look at U.S. electricity reliability and resilience, including the priority of maintaining critical clean baseload power as electricity markets change," said Rich Powell, director of ClearPath, which advocates for nuclear and hydropower.

Last week, Neil Chatterjee, the newly appointed chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said coal plants needed to be “properly compensated to recognize the value they provide to the system.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe