Posted by Mark Halper

Frozen_Schuylkill_River,_Philadelphia_Shuvaev Wiki

Cold call: When it’s frigid enough for Philadelphia’s Schuylkill River to look like this, as it did last week, who you gonna call for electricity? Dial nuclear.

It’s been a little over a week since bone-chilling, skin-mangling, tear-freezing temperatures gripped more than half the population of the United States and Canada, and the results are in: Nuclear Power 1, Polar Vortex 0.

It seems that America’s nuclear power stations, more so than its over-challenged gas-fired and coal-fired plants, kept the place warm, the lights on and businesses running when the sub-zero Fahrenheit numbers swept across the midwest to the eastern seaboard, taunting “see if you can survive this.”

Americans did get by – except for an unlucky few – thanks in large measure to nuclear power, which was able to stand up to the challenging conditions where other power sources could not, and which chipped in with a much higher share of the supply than normal.

To bring you the story in more detail, I’m going to crib from a few other sources, like Forbes Magazine. It ran an edifying piece headlined “Polar Vortex – Nuclear Saves the Day” by scientist James Conca, who noted that nuclear – and to a lesser extent wind – “stepped up to the plate to relieve natural gas and coal when they failed to deliver on demand.”


Keep in mind that coal and natural gas are the leading sources of electricity generation in the U.S., far ahead of nuclear. In the nine months through October 2013, coal’s share was 39 percent, natural gas was 28 percent and nuclear’s was 19 percent according the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration.

But not during a polar vortex, which in case your eyes and ears were frozen shut and you didn’t even hear about the whole thing, is basically when Arctic air spins further south than normal.

As Conca noted: “In New England, natural gas electricity generation faltered so much that regional grid administrator ISO New England had to bring up dirtier coal and oil plants to try to make up the difference. Nuclear energy didn’t have many problems at all and actually became the primary provider of electricity in New England, just edging out gas 29% to 27% (Hartford Business). Oil generation made up 15% while coal accounted for 14%.”

What went wrong with fossil fuels? Conca explained: “Coal stacks were frozen or diesel generators simply couldn’t function in such low temperatures. Gas choked up – its pipelines couldn’t keep up with demand – and prices skyrocketed.”


Ah, prices. Environmental impact aside, one of the great criticisms of the world’s reliance on fossil fuels is that they are subject to wild price volatility. The polar vortex delivered a jarring example. With many of the frozen states reliant on natural gas both for heat and electricity, the ravaging laws of supply and demand kicked in.

Yes, even all that “cheap” natural gas associated with America’s fracking craze is susceptible to the forces of market economies and the vagaries of weird weather.

“In Nebraska, natural gas prices were up more than 300 percent,” Conca reported, noting that in that state, a temporary boost in wind energy’s contribution to the grid helped keep down costs.

“The tight constraints on fuel supplies sent prices for gas soaring in New York City from about $13 per million British thermal units over the weekend to nearly $50 on Monday,” the Washington Times reported amid the event. “Wholesale electricity prices also soared from about $139 per megawatt hour to $225 on Monday in New York.”

In contrast, nuclear prices remained steady.


What’s more, the cold did not stagger the plants. On the contrary, output rose.

“Nuclear did quite well throughout the vortex period,” Conca wrote in Forbes. “The entire fleet operated at 95% capacity, a ridiculously high value (NEI).”

World Nuclear News chimed in on the same note, pointing out that nuclear plants in Canada as well as the U.S. operated at over 90 capacity.

WNN cited U.S. trade body the Nuclear Energy Institute, which described American nuclear reactors as “unfazed” and noted that “No nuclear energy facility has reported unusual issues during the cold snap, due in part to Nuclear Regulatory Commission and plant procedures to ensure continued safe operation in extreme weather conditions.”

“Without nuclear, we would have had blackouts, and real public danger at these temperatures,” Conca concluded.

The vortex episode reminds us that nuclear is not a lumbering, centralised, un-resilient dinosaur, as detractors would have it. Rather, nuclear power’s stringent engineering and expert operators makes U.S. reactors more dependable in a crisis than other more “flexible” energy sources like fossil fuels or intermittent renewables. It is an ultra-reliable source of “base load” electricity.


Not only do we need nuclear power, but we should be developing new and even better reactor types than what the world operates today. As steady as the current fleet of reactors were in during the frosty spell, there are improvements on the horizon. Molten salt reactors and other high temperature models, for instance, could lower nuclear costs, improve on nuclear’s already impressive safety record, and mitigate waste and weapons proliferation concerns.

Of course, you could also read the wintry fossil fuel jams as a call for more fracking for natural gas and for more pipelines, to help keep the gas fired plants running in the future.

But do we really want that? Do we really want more fossil fuels, the finitely available stuff that with its greenhouse gas emissions (nuclear generation does not release CO2) is contributing to extreme weather? (That’s not to say that climate change specifically set off last week’s deep freeze, but the overall correlation between CO2 and the increasing incidents of unusual weather patterns is there). Do we want to subject ourselves to the ongoing price volatility that has forever been the whim of the fossil fuel industry?

That thought alone is enough to send a sub-zero shiver down the spine. Nuclear, on the other hand, can keep the fires burning.

Photo is from Shuvaev via Wikimedia 



  1. James Arathoon says:

    As you say northerly countries without reliable access to lots of sunshine, Canada, Northern Europe and Russia etc. have more of a reason to invest in new nuclear technologies than those with reliable access to lots of sunshine.

    The trouble is there is an old nuclear guard in Britain (and elsewhere) who say Generation III nuclear new build must be built at any cost now. Part of the price we pay for this strategy here in Britiain is that Generation IV technological initiatives are starved out of the game almost entirely:

    1) if there is no need to get commercial insurance. why fund Generation IV with passive decay heat removal systems
    2) if there is no need to get commercial insurance why fund Generation IV with less chance of dispersing radioactivity into the environment when something goes wrong.
    3) if there is no need to get commercial insurance why fund Generation IV nuclear with failure modes that can be controlled and mitigaated against.
    4) if there is no need to reduce the amount of long lived nuclear waste and pay for its storage on a commercial basis, why fund Generation IV initiatives. When there is no economic incentive to improve, why not leave 50 year old or more problems to continue to fester without a solution?
    5) if there is no need to generate nuclear energy on a commercially competitive basis why fund Generation IV nuclear development at all?
    6) if there is no need to bring down costs why try to think about how to build simpler nuclear power stations quicker and more cheaply, with less regulatory overhead?
    7) if there is no need to maintain skills in the industry on a commercial basis without government help, why not devise plans to have new Generation III nuclear power stations up and running in the mid 2020’s without any thought as to how they will be staffed?

    If nuclear fission is so good (and I do believe it can be made so) why should not the nuclear industry change to become a net source of income for the public purse, rather than an ever growing net drain upon it?

    The very high risk in Britain is that Generation III nuclear will not live up to even our lowest expectations on cost and performance, and that here (and potentially in France and Canada as well) the plans of the old guard will continue to be taken seriously for just long enough for large parts of the vocational nuclear skill base to be lost with little or no thought to the long term public good.

    Half of the UK’s nuclear workforce will be lost by 2025, this is exactly the date when the government now expects 8 new Generation III nuclear reactors to start up in the UK fully staffed. Do the government expect the existing nuclear industry to pay to have a new generation of nuclear engineers and technicians trained up with necessary operations experience ready for 2025, without any intermediate commercial projects to train them up on?

    What happens if barely one new reactor is ready by this time? Who bares the cost of keeping this new nuclear workforce underemployed, yet ready for later action in the Nuclear Industry?

    If you want “Nuclear to keep the fires burning” as I do, then funding for Generation IV is an absolute necessity, not something to be ignored at all costs.

    • Kyle says:

      This legislation asuemss that Yucca Mountain will never open.It would indeed be a sad day to see such a great facility closed because of some uneducated knee-jerkers in congress pandering to their like minded constituencies.

  2. Joe says:

    Please provide links to support your assertion that: ” but the overall correlation between CO2 and the increasing incidents of unusual weather patterns is there”

  3. Bob Herderhorst says:

    I concur that nuclear power is the way to go now and in the future. There is a lot of education of people that needs to be done to get everyone to understand that nuclear power is the safest (as measured by number of deaths per terawatt of electricity generated) of all power generation systems. Nuclear is safer than coal, solar, wind, hydro, biomass etc.

    I understand that unfortunately the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant (600 MW I believe) will not be applying for another license extension for 20 years. The local environmental and anti nuclear community had put up such a commotion, that the owning company threw in the sponge as not worth the effort to fight the environmentalists. The electricity was less than 5 cents per KW for the future that they were offering to the utilities, but no real enthusiasm by the utilities, in view of the anti nuc types and protests etc. This is a real shame as the money has been spent for the plant years ago, and it had many more years of service where it could have provided cheap, safe and reliable electricity to Vermont and New England. It seems as though the folks of New ENgland have not read and / or understood Frederick Bastiate’s parable of the broken window fro the early 1800s.

    Some how we need to educate people better to the benefits of nuclear power. Perhaps the new generation of small and inherently safe nuclear reactors will find more acceptance with the younger generation of citizens.

Leave a Reply

Sign up for our Weinberg Next Nuclear Newsletter
* = required field

I warmly welcome the Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s evidence-based approach to the energy debate, and enthusiastically support its mission to raise awareness of next-generation nuclear energy amongst NGOs and the general public.

— Mark Lynas


Our latest blog on the nuclear report from the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords. We need...
- Wednesday May 3 - 2:36pm

Recent Posts

Three Mile Island – the real disaster

by Suzanna Hinson (June 2nd, 2017)

Nuclear in Africa

by Suzanna Hinson (May 16th, 2017)

Engineers echo politicians: SMRs could help the UK post-Brexit

by Suzanna Hinson (May 11th, 2017)

Breaking the cycle of indecision: nuclear report by the House of Lords

by Suzanna Hinson (May 3rd, 2017)

Posts Archive


  • Economics (89)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (17)
  • Proliferation (32)
  • Regulation (8)
  • Safety (63)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (23)
  • Uncategorized (53)
  • Waste (52)
  • © The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
    Read our data protection policy

    Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation