A Prospect newsletter about big ideas
 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌


View this email in your browser
<[link removed]>

 

**Renewables Are Both Necessary for Carbon Reduction and Cheap**

New research shows that renewable power like solar and wind is now
affordable enough to shut down the debate over cost.

The Biden administration's climate policies are intended to rapidly
transition the nation toward renewable energy, and reduce or eliminate
the reliance on fossil fuels. For years, the main complaint from those
who wanted to do nothing about climate change was that the transition
would spike energy bills and cost too much up front. But new research
about the cost-effectiveness of renewables may just inject hope, even
into the heart of a capitalist.

The urgency of what to do about the ticking climate time bomb, as the
U.N.'s latest climate report
<[link removed]"low-carbon" solution according to the World Nuclear Association
<[link removed]"You can't significantly reduce carbon emissions without
nuclear power."

But nuclear energy comes with its own set of issues. Nuclear waste can
remain "radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of
years," and accidents like the one at the Fukushima plant in Japan,
which had a triple meltdown in 2011 due to an earthquake and tsunami,
need to be guarded against. As a result, building plants comes with a
high cost due to stringent safety measures.

The first new nuclear plant
<[link removed]'s size, has also increased
<[link removed]'re learning how increasingly cheap some renewables
can be to deploy.

The article "Why Investing in New Nuclear Plants Is Bad for the
Climate," which was recently published in the journal

**Joule**, addresses these questions by offering up renewable energy as
a more cost-effective and sustainable solution. "It is hard to overstate
how strongly the costs of renewables have decreased," the authors, who
include researchers at the European Environmental Bureau, the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research, and the Stockholm School of
Economics, wrote. For example
<[link removed]'t provide so-called "baseload" power, because they only
produce when the sun is out or the wind is blowing. But the authors say
that this has changed as well. "While renewables' production is
variable, their generation can be matched to demand by storing renewable
electricity in the form of hydrogen, using batteries or pumped hydro,"
the authors wrote. "Beyond batteries, demand- and supply-side grid
flexibility technologies can complement variable renewable energy
sources at generally lower cost than fossil-fuel backup or bulk
storage."

Virtually every solar and wind project today is paired with battery
storage to get around the problem of intermittency. This worked reliably
well in supporting Texas's power grid during this summer's heat wave
<[link removed]"green hydrogen
<[link removed]"
or other options could be available as backup power. So could nuclear,
if the cost can be managed. But battery storage is a relatively cheap
option already being built into large-scale solar and wind projects.

Renewable energy accounts for less energy output in the United States
than even nuclear power: In 2022, it accounted for just 13 percent
<[link removed]'s primary energy source. And with generous
production tax credits for renewables from the IRA, it should expand
even further in the U.S.

Climate progress has been massively delayed by endless debates over
cost. But if the right people, with the right-sized pockets, can be
convinced that saving the planet can also save them money, maybe
renewable energy will get the boost it needs. There are mounds of
potential, and literally nothing to lose.

~ RAMENDA CYRUS, JOHN LEWIS WRITING FELLOW

Follow Ramenda Cyrus on Twitter <[link removed]