By Mark J. Perry

March 19, 2024 - There is a common sentiment among the chattering class that energy made from solar panels and windmills is good and energy generated by fossil fuels is bad. Nature is seen as holy, and fossil fuels are seen as crass. And now the Biden administration‘s Environmental Protection Agency is “playing nature,” using its regulatory power to force the shutdown of coal and natural gas plants and replace them with renewables.

But those who think the switch to renewables is cheap or easy need to do some rethinking. Renewables pose serious problems. For one thing, America’s transmission system doesn’t have enough battery capacity to store solar energy for use on days when the sun isn’t shining or wind energy for use on days when the wind isn’t blowing. Plans to build offshore wind turbines in the Atlantic have been shelved, mainly because of the high cost. And deployment of solar and wind farms has often been blocked due to local opposition, including opposition from those most concerned about climate change.

And yet, the transition away from fossil fuels is underway. For instance, the Energy Information Administration expects that coal’s share of the nation’s electricity supply will slide to 14% in 2024. Not too long ago, coal accounted for more than half of the nation’s electricity-generating capacity. Today about 225 coal plants remain in operation, and that number is likely to drop sharply unless steps are taken to stop EPA’s regulatory trainwreck. The Coal Hard Truth Campaign pointed out in 2023 that “fossil fuel power plants are retiring much faster than new, dispatchable, reliable sources are being developed. This could lead to energy supply shortages, even rolling blackouts. Coupled with increased demand … America’s bulk power system could be facing energy shortages — as soon as this year.” 

The scale of the energy challenge is so daunting that it cannot be met solely by solar and wind. Far from taking a dominant role, solar and wind risk being marginalized. Despite generous subsidies, solar and wind combined account for just 14% of the nation’s electricity supply. 

To the extent that the growth of solar and wind is more promising than performance and a marketing phenomenon, it is fragile. Energy diversity, we’re coming to realize, is something the United States will need well into the future. The idea of being able to live in long-term balance with nature is within our grasp, but only if we do it right.

Will we have the energy resources to meet a growing demand for electricity? Or will we make the mistake of shutting down base load plants?

Take nuclear power. Once given up for lost, nuclear power in the United States is prospering. Although there are no orders for new plants, it continues to supply about 20% of the nation’s electricity and half of its emission-free power. For all purposes, it has switched from being an energy problem to an energy solution. The continued operation of about 90 nuclear plants producing clean energy reliably and efficiently has been a great boon for our nation’s economic and environmental fitness. 

But now is the time to ask: What next? How many more years will nuclear plants be able to provide affordable power.? Because many nuclear plants were built more than 40 years ago, nearly 90% of the fleet has applied for or obtained 20-year life extensions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Before too long, some nuclear plants will have to be closed, and the realization that other energy sources will eventually have to take nuclear’s place is humbling. 

The environmental movement, with its customary indifference to electricity shortages, has adopted the position that coal power is expendable. To the contrary, coal still matters. What we have learned is how resilient coal is and how quickly coal plants kick back when renewables cannot meet the growing demand for electricity and the threat of shortages becomes real. In recent years, coal plants have been brought out of retirement to keep the lights on, homes warm, and assembly lines moving. There is a moral imperative to acknowledge coal’s continuing value even as steps are taken to reduce carbon emissions.

Yet, the EPA’s current plan is to force the shutdown of coal and gas plants despite growing demand for electricity. EPA is making plant owners decide whether to install unproven and expensive carbon capture technologies or close the plants altogether to meet emission targets. 

This is an absurd choice that’s being presented at a time when the Energy Department estimates the United States will need to double its generating capacity by 2050 just to keep up with soaring electricity demand due to the growth of manufacturing, increased numbers of EVs on the road, reindustrialization, and the further development of power-hungry data centers. Grid officials have warned that a rapid, disorderly energy transition will increase the potential for more frequent and more serious electricity shortages, including rolling blackouts. 

A preferable outcome is that energy needs are met by a diverse mix of fuels and renewables.

Mark J. Perry is a senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan.