Energy is integral to all facets of life—from our economy to national security to everyday products. How much do you know about energy security in the United States? Play this “Two Truths and a Lie” game to find out!
A. The public supports conventional energy sources as a crucial component in energy security.
B. Nuclear energy can positively contribute to energy security.
C. Reliance on renewable energy is the best way to create energy security.
Let’s take these statements one at a time:
A. Truth! The U.S. can achieve energy security and cease relying on foreign nations for fuel, electricity generation, and critical minerals by adopting abundance as its guiding principle. Few Americans support phasing out fossil fuels entirely, preferring a healthy energy mix. Those residing in swing states overwhelmingly favor more domestic oil and gas production. Recent polling shows 66% of respondents support continuing the domestic production of oil and natural gas—including 63% of respondents aged 30 and under.
Conventional energy sources—coal, oil, and natural gas—still account for 83% of the U.S.’s existing energy mix. Coal and natural gas plants cumulatively supply almost 60% of the U.S.’s electricity supply.
Coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power produced here in the U.S. are much cleaner and more sustainable compared with supplies from other energy-producing nations.
B. Truth! Nuclear power is the most reliable baseload source today because it is powered almost 24/7, even accounting for maintenance, and works 93% of the year. Although nuclear accounts for just 18.6% of utility-scale electricity generation, nuclear is the most scalable and efficient clean energy source that can complement oil, natural gas, and coal.
A growing share of Americans—56%—support the construction of new nuclear power plants.
Nuclear facilities boast a low environmental footprint, needing just one square mile of land to produce one gigawatt (GW) of energy. Utility-scale solar and wind projects, in contrast, require 75 and 360 times more land, respectively, to produce the equivalent amount of electricity.
C. Lie! Focusing on pivoting the country’s energy portfolio to 100% solar, wind, electric vehicles, and battery storage, in order to achieve the Biden-Harris administration’s goals of “net-zero” carbon emissions, is economically and environmentally unrealistic.
Solar and wind power plants suffer from low generation capacity—meaning they don’t operate at maximum power 100% of the time. Solar facilities just operate 24.6% of the year, while wind turbines only function 36.4% of the year. Aside from planned outages for maintenance, natural gas plants operate 56.6% of the time and nuclear plants run 93% of the year. Solar and wind don’t produce much electricity compared to fossil fuels or nuclear, accounting for merely 3.9% and 10.2% of utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S., respectively.
Hasty federal and state net-zero emissions targets destabilize the electric grid and raise costs for households and industries.
Bottom Line:
Pushing 100% renewables, namely solar and wind, is in conflict with energy security. It has shown to make the U.S. dependent on our adversaries for energy and minerals, and creates rising costs for consumers. There is a better path forward that will continue the United States on a path of good environmental stewardship without compromising America’s security and quality of life.
The federal government must take the necessary steps to cut red tape, impose fewer burdensome regulations on industry players, and allow equal access to leases on public lands and waters.
To learn more, read the Policy Focus on Energy Security.