Editor’s note: this is part one of a two part series by the authors on nuclear energy.
Federal regulations, incentives, and administrative policies currently support the construction, operation, and maintenance of offshore wind farming within the United States Maritime Territory. An offshore wind farm is defined as, “[an offshore] power plant that contains all the facilities needed to capture the wind power, transform it into electricity, and supply it to the main electricity network.” However, offshore wind farming poses a significant risk to the oceanic environment and energy security of the United States. Since the early 2000s, American conflicts in the Middle East revolve around securing fossil fuel resources leading to the expense of eight trillion dollars and 900,000 lives lost. While offshore wind farming might appear as a solution to establishing American energy independence, such renewable energy projects create more negative impacts.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is a U.S. Government institution that leases offshore locations on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for energy endeavors. BOEM neglects to comprehend the negative impact of offshore wind farming for sustainable, American fishing companies along the eastern seaboard. A lawsuit filed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation against the Biden administration highlights the violation of several federal laws regarding offshore wind farming, including the negative impacts on sustainable fisheries and the oceanic environment. Not only are offshore wind farms immensely expensive, due to both their construction or maintenance costs, they also degrade in effectiveness over time. The average lifespan of wind turbines remains around twenty years, with necessary maintenance every six months, before the machinery ceases to work.
Offshore wind harms oceanic ecosystems, weakens American national security, and increases energy poverty. Direct investment and construction of nuclear power systems will solve a majority of issues in traditional forms of renewable energy creation. Nuclear energy both produces 2.5 to 3.5 times more reliable energy than wind and solar plants and requires less maintenance for long-term production. Opponents of nuclear power incorrectly focus on a few preventable accidents instead of understanding that nuclear power remains the safest large-scale power source in history. Nuclear power produces less air pollution than traditional energy sources, and decreases the human environmental footprint on the atmosphere. Thus, not only can nuclear energy promote human health and safety, it can also protect the climate for future generations. The Atlantic Council found U.S. nuclear energy will strengthen America’s national security by providing the clean energy necessary for military operations focusing on a net-zero framework. Finally, nuclear energy is generally cheaper than renewables to distribute, which will allow more Americans to benefit from nuclear energy. Overall, the United States ought to divest from offshore wind farms and focus on proven nuclear power technologies to bolster American society and environmental protection.
Internationally, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) reports Australia will present the next opportunity for failure for offshore wind energy products. According to the report, offshore wind developers such as Shell, Orsted, and Equinor have the most interest in developing this wind technology, but Australians might not understand that offshore wind energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy production. The cost of implementing the new energy technology could place the Australian people on a course for increasing energy prices and unreliable energy sources – similar to their other commonwealth counterparts. According to a Reuters report, offshore wind energy projects typically average about eight to ten years for completion. The combination of long construction times, unintended environmental consequences, customer costs, and investor agendas, the story of offshore wind production in Australia renders the outcome of the expansion highly uncertain.
Often, modern neocolonialism takes the form of material extraction and resource production from third-world countries by interested western investment firms. The African Development Bank Group (ADBG) assesses the potential of offshore renewable energy on the African continent; however, the group fails to emphasize those energy gains will not benefit the people of Africa. In Ghana, six offshore wind (wave power) units were deployed, but were later decommissioned because of “suitable positioning” – or a total waste of resources. Such wastes of energy and resources do not begin to complete the picture of how volatile “renewable” energy remains with current technology. The lithium necessary to power the backup batteries for the offshore wind units possesses an issue within itself. Lithium and water are dangerous when mixed and placing those lithium batteries near ocean climates rarely produces “truly safe” situations.
The fight for renewable energy solutions on part of the liberal movements in western society emphasizes the underlying problem with their methodology. The proponents of offshore wind farming (outside of the investors) value such energy production based on the convenience factor. Renewable energy sources tend to disperse their harmful aspects, particularly out of sight on other continents. The mines in third-world countries which provide lithium for the turbines rarely make the front pages of the news media’s agenda, despite the harsh working conditions faced by the local workforce. Promoting “renewable” energy is convenient when one does not bear witness to the negative impacts of such invasive production methods. In California, Governor Newsom has met little opposition to lithium extraction projects in the Salton Sea region which could disrupt the area’s environmental system. Because of the heavy lithium extraction operations, conveniently outside the public eye, the Salton Sea will potentially disappear— changing the California landscape forever. Offshore wind farm production and use occur off the coast, and once again, outside the view of progressives who champion the technology. It’s easier to boast of the supposed benefits when you do not have to view the production sites. Why do we not place wind turbines near coastlines or in valleys, but instead in the remote places of West Texas or San Gorgonio Pass in California? Because the people who champion wind energy do not want to view the eyesore of wind turbines while they sip an oat milk latte in their “energy-smart” home that a contractor built for the sole purpose of collecting government subsidies.
The case for nuclear energy is that it remains the sole candidate for real, dense energy production. American citizens stand to gain the largest net benefit for new nuclear energy production projects. In lieu of the present situation of a looming energy crisis similar to Europe, the United State ought to affirm new nuclear energy production contracts at the federal and state level insofar as to increase energy independence. Proponents of nuclear energy do not make a case for nuclear energy replacing petroleum products. Instead, nuclear energy production will balance the scale for reliable energy and the petroleum products necessary for maintaining national operations, in some cases, even global endeavors. The construction of nuclear energy production sites will address the aging infrastructure in the United States and encourage contractors to seek out government bids with a “real” return on investment. Overall, nuclear energy can solidify America’s national security position, provide for energy independence, and make substantial advancements in terms of infrastructure investments (i.e., power grid, roadways, and processing plants). Not only will increased nuclear energy production assist the country’s day-to-day operations, but it will also decrease the burden on the consumer who currently faces steep energy bills in President Biden’s status quo.
According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear power plants are relatively expensive to construct but cheap to run, and are competitive with fossil fuels as a means of electricity generation. Furthermore, the Nuclear Information Center at Duke Energy reports nuclear energy is one of the cleanest energy production processes in the United States because it emits no greenhouse gasses, nor does it burn anything or emit smoke into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, offshore windmills do not produce the same amount of energy-dense production over their lifespan. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, “nuclear energy facilities have an average capacity factor of 90 percent, much higher than intermittent sources like wind and solar. By contrast, wind farm capacity factors range from 32 to 47 percent, depending on differences in wind resources in a given area and improvements in turbine technology.” The Nuclear Energy Institute sets this differential of average capacity as evidence in favor of nuclear energy production for long-term returns on investment in this relatively new realm of energy production. The current federal government policy, including the new Inflation Reduction Act, seeks to incentivize the construction of unreliable offshore wind farms with energy investment tax credits of up to 30% if the offshore project begins before January 1, 2026.
Overall, nuclear energy has significant advantages from societal, national security, climate, cost, and energy production perspectives. In the second part of this two-part series, the authors will discuss the specifics of nuclear energy benefits and address the potential negatives of nuclear energy production.
