Discovering the Limits of Solar: A Physicist’s Journey
As a physicist and lifelong renewable energy enthusiast, I once believed that solar power would be the silver bullet to solve our fossil fuel woes. I had solar panels adorning the roof of my Colorado home, and I even helped build a couple of large solar farms. It felt like I was making a real difference in the fight against global warming, and the fact that my electric bill was $0 during the sunny summer months was just the cherry on top – a win for the climate and a win for me.
Or so I thought.
My journey into understanding the true capabilities and limitations of solar power began when, as a concerned scientist, I decided to dig deeper into what it would actually take to clean up America’s fossil-fueled electric power systems. After all, wind and sunshine are free and plentiful – it seemed like a no-brainer to harness them and phase out those dirty, polluting power plants.
The Realities of Intermittent Solar Power
As I studied the science, met with utility executives, talked to leading academics, and pored over data from existing clean energy systems, the results began to deeply challenge many of my cherished beliefs. The math behind solar power explained why it couldn’t simply replace our 24/7 baseload power sources.
You see, solar panels can only generate meaningful power less than 20% of the time on an annual basis. They suffer through nights, clouds, dust, snow, and weak winter sun, all of which dramatically impact their ability to produce electricity. That’s a far cry from the round-the-clock, always-available power that traditional fossil fuel and nuclear plants can provide.
To cover those huge gaps in solar power production, utilities have no choice but to keep their fossil-fueled generators running. So although solar farms have allowed these plants to cut back and save some emissions on sunny days, they haven’t been able to replace them entirely. The result is that we’re still relying on those dirty, CO2-emitting coal and gas plants to keep the lights on when the sun isn’t shining.
The Illusion of Battery Storage
Many of us have hoped that battery storage could be the solution to fill in those gaps when the sun isn’t shining. But the harsh reality is that there is no known technology that can efficiently and economically store the incredible amount of energy required to power the nation for prolonged periods of cloudiness or seasonal changes.
For example, in the winter, cloud cover can blanket most of the continent for a week or more, causing solar farm output to drop by 75-90%. Batteries can store enough power to keep the grid running for a few hours, but storing enough to power the entire country for a week-long cloudy spell is simply not feasible. And as we continue to electrify more of our economy, the demand and the gap will only grow exponentially.
Hydrogen has also been touted as a potential solution, but the reality is that the energy-intensive process of producing “green” hydrogen, compressing and storing it, and then burning it in power plants to generate electricity results in a staggering two-thirds of the original energy being lost. We can’t afford to triple the number of solar farms just to make up for hydrogen’s inefficiency.
The Nuclear Option
As much as I wanted solar and wind to be the silver bullet, the math and physics simply don’t add up. The intermittency of these renewable sources can’t reliably replace our 24/7 baseload power needs. So what’s the solution?
After a long and difficult journey of studying the data, I’ve come to the realization that nuclear energy is the only technology capable of truly replacing fossil fuels at scale and meeting our growing electricity demands. It’s a tough pill to swallow, but the facts are undeniable.
France is a prime example of how nuclear power can work. After the 1973 oil crisis, they began replacing almost all of their fossil-fueled power plants with new nuclear reactors. In less than 15 years, they were able to achieve the feat, and today those nuclear plants provide over 70% of France’s electricity, with the rest coming primarily from hydropower. France now has the most reliable, cleanest, and cheapest electricity in Europe, all while maintaining an impeccable safety record.
A Nuclear Renaissance?
The rest of the world is starting to take notice of the nuclear option as well. There are currently about 440 nuclear power plants operating in 32 countries, with another 60 reactors under construction and 110 more planned. China, in particular, is leading the charge, bringing dozens of new nuclear reactors online – more than any other country.
Even countries new to nuclear power, like Poland, are moving forward aggressively, seeking to free themselves from reliance on Russian gas. In fact, more than 30 nations are now considering, planning, or starting nuclear power programs, and 22 countries signed a pledge at COP28 in Dubai last December to triple their nuclear capacity.
Unfortunately, the United States is heading in the opposite direction. Public opposition driven by fear and oil company pressure effectively halted the planned conversion to nuclear power of most of our coal and oil-fueled generators decades ago. We’ve built only two new reactors in the last 30 years, and no more are currently planned.
Overcoming the Myths and Embracing the Facts
I believe this anti-nuclear sentiment is largely the result of well-intentioned scientists who, in the aftermath of World War II, inflated the danger of radiation in order to scare the world away from using or even testing atomic weapons. The unintended consequence is that the U.S. government has set radiation limits for nuclear power plants that are far stricter than necessary for safety – more than 100 times stricter than anything that has ever been shown to cause human harm.
If we viewed the risks of other technologies the same way, it would be as if we mandated a maximum speed limit of 1 mph on our highways to save lives. It would undoubtedly save lives, but at a huge cost to society. We’ve effectively restricted nuclear power to a crawl when the data shows we could be going 15 times faster with almost no increase in risk.
The truth is that nuclear power is already the safest, most reliable, and most environmentally friendly form of electricity generation. In the last 70 years, radiation from nuclear accidents has caused fewer than 200 deaths, all from the Chernobyl disaster. By contrast, the UN estimates that fossil fuel pollution causes around 8 million deaths each year. Even the manufacture and installation of solar panels causes more deaths per unit of delivered power than nuclear.
The Path Forward
If the United States is to meet the anticipated doubling of electricity demand and achieve its climate goals, the American people must demand that their leaders include a significant buildout of new nuclear power. The rest of the world is already doing it, and we’re falling behind.
Korean companies are building large, U.S.-designed nuclear plants in under five years and for less than the cost of a coal plant. American innovators are also developing a new generation of smaller, cheaper, and even safer small modular reactors (SMRs) that could see commercial operation this decade.
But if we fail to launch an accelerated nuclear buildout, we won’t just be damaging the climate – we’ll also be handing our adversaries an unopposed opportunity to move an energy-hungry world away from us and into their orbit.
The choice is clear: we can either continue to delude ourselves with the false promise of an all-renewable energy future, or we can embrace the proven, reliable, and clean solution of nuclear power. The future of our planet and our energy security depends on it.
