It's Time to Talk About Nuclear Energy in Oregon.
Although Oregon is on track to eliminate nearly a third of it’s emissions, there are still important steps that the state needs to take to effectively combat climate change.
Climate activists across Oregon are celebrating the momentous passage of HB 2021, “Clean Energy for All.” Under this bill, Oregon will transition to an electric grid powered by 100% renewable energy by 2040. This is one of the most ambitious timelines in the entire country and should make Oregonians very proud. That being said, there is still more work to do. In 2019, electricity only generated 25% of all greenhouse gases in the U.S. according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Although Oregon is on track to eliminate nearly a third of it’s emissions, there are still important steps that the state needs to take to effectively combat climate change.
The first step is to create policies that incentivize businesses currently powered by fossil fuels to develop new technology that’s powered by electricity instead. Now that Oregon’s electricity will be greener, it’s time to increase the scope of what can be powered by that clean energy. That way, the economy can begin to transition from a carbon-powered economy to an electricity-powered economy, decreasing demand for carbon, gas, and fossil fuels.
However, there is a problem with powering an entire state off of renewable energy. To put it simply, the sun isn’t always shining and the wind isn’t always blowing. The state can’t guarantee a consistent stream of electricity when it’s solar panels and windmills aren’t generating power. This means that Oregon needs batteries that can store enough energy to last through periods when it’s more difficult to generate renewable energy. Oregon’s Department of Energy should partner with energy providers to expedite the construction of powerful batteries so they can be ready for Oregon’s 100% renewable energy economy in 2040.
Another option is to use nuclear energy in addition to renewable energy. Unfortunately, nuclear energy often gets a bad rap because of the nuclear disasters sprinkled throughout history. As a result, the U.S. is hesitant to embrace nuclear power. Meanwhile, other countries have shown that robust and safe nuclear power plants are prospering. It’s time for the U.S. to learn from these countries and catch up with respect to this powerful source of clean energy.
The typical reasons cited for why we shouldn’t pursue nuclear energy are increasingly feeble. Specifically, if we shut down every industry that had a low risk of catastrophic events, we wouldn’t have a strong economy. No one, for example, thinks we should ban airline travel because horrible crashes occur from time to time. Instead, we learn from other countries and push industry stakeholders to make airline travel safer. We rely on planes for transportation across the globe, and it wouldn’t make much sense to do away with all of them to protect us from a tiny risk.
The same is true for nuclear energy; instead of dismissing nuclear energy, it would be wise to learn from past mistakes and build top-of-the-line power plants that can produce energy when resources like solar panels cannot. In today’s modern day and age, the nation is much more capable of developing safe and effective nuclear power plants than ever before.
At the end of the day, if Oregon manages to accomplish these goals it will only make a small dent in the global warming crisis. I won’t pretend that one state can make a big enough of a difference to offset the emissions of the entire country. But that’s not the goal. The best thing we can do at a local level to make a large-scale impact is to show that carbon-neutral communities are attainable. Some states might be less resistant to moving away from fossil fuels if Oregon showed that the process was practical.
Oregon is already light-years ahead of most states in the country in the fight against global warming, but if we are to avoid a 2 degree or 3 degree increase in global temperature, Oregon needs to do even more. The actions we take and the blueprint we make can shape how other states perceive climate change solutions. Oregon can be a leader to other states if it shows that the right investments can effectively mitigate global warming and bolster the economy. Once we prove that nuclear energy can safely power a state and that electricity can power parts of the economy that were previously off-limits, other states are more likely to follow Oregon’s lead in embracing a carbon-neutral future.
Jared is a Politics, Policy, Law and Ethics Major at Willamette University, aspiring to bring Oregon together to achieve more representative elections and a sustainable energy program to brag about.
Thanks so much for writing about this, Jared. Worth noting that small-scale nuclear development is happening right here in Oregon with NuScale power and others.
The following is a letter to the editor I wrote that was published in the Oregonian on August 6.
The July 21 article on Oregon’s 100% clean energy target very briefly mentions that “Pacific Power is exploring a small-scale nuclear reactor in Wyoming.” It is ironic that the most promising technology for a next generation of nuclear power, the small modular reactor (SMR), developed at Oregon State University, is being given no consideration as a pathway for clean energy in Oregon. An SMR cannot be built in Oregon because a state law prohibits the construction of nuclear energy plants until a federal facility for nuclear waste is developed. And even if this requirement is met, any proposed nuclear plant would need to be approved by a vote of Oregon residents. This law was passed as an initiative in 1980 during a wave of anti-nuclear sentiment. So, the first SMR built in the U.S. will be constructed by an Oregon company NuScale, not in Oregon but in Idaho, for a Utah utility. The urgent challenge of global warming has caused a growing number of nuclear opponents to reconsider this resource of carbon-free energy. Some states with restrictions like Oregon’s are beginning to modify them. Nuclear energy has significant problems with cost, safety, and waste disposal. But in my opinion, these problems, while difficult, are all solvable. If one or more SMR’s were built in our state, many of the problems meeting the 100% clean energy target mentioned in this article would go away.