New Englanders would save hundreds of billions of dollars and avoid deadly power blackouts by replacing state-mandated renewable energy projects with nuclear and natural gas power, a study released today by a coalition of New England think tanks finds.
Alternatives to New England’s Affordability Crisis, a new study released by a coalition of New England’s free-market think tanks, estimated the effects of trying to meet the region’s energy needs through 2050 with nuclear and natural gas plants instead of wind and solar power.
The findings are striking:
- Meeting New England’s 2050 energy needs with nuclear power would cost $415.3 billion and reduce the region’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions by 92%.
- Meeting the region’s 2050 energy needs with natural gas would cost $106.9 billion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 24.5%.
- Meeting the region’s 2050 energy needs with a mix of nuclear and natural gas plants would cost $195.8 billion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.
Each of these options comes with the added benefit of avoiding power blackouts caused by relying too heavily on wind and solar power, which cannot run continuously, as nuclear and natural gas plants can.
All of the nuclear and natural gas options are significantly more affordable than the construction required by current renewable energy mandates imposed by five of the six New England states.
Meeting the region’s energy demand by sticking with those renewable energy mandates due to the NetZero by 2050 climate mandate would cost New Englanders a stunning $815 billion, the coalition found in its previous 2024 study. That’s $399.5 billion more than it would cost to go nuclear and $708 billion more than it would cost to build more natural gas plants.
TO READ THE FULL REPORT:
- Click beneath report to expand screen for full view.
- Click on side arrows to flip the pages.
- Click on “+” or “-” to zoom in and out on pages.
