New Englanders would save $400-$700 billion by replacing planned wind and solar projects with nuclear or natural gas
BOSTON — 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 Energy Suicide, released by New England’s free-market think tanks along with Americans for Prosperity Foundation, 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 virtual press conference discussing the study can be watched live on Tuesday, January 13 at 11:15 AM or anytime after on-demand on the Current.
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 also significantly more affordable than the estimated high prices that will result from 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 would cost New Englanders a stunning $815 billion, the coalition found in its previous 2024 study (ADD LINK). 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.
“Rhode Island’s special Senate Energy Commission, chaired by Senator Sam Zurier, has the unique opportunity to evaluate the staggering costs and risks of the suicidal path of our state’s Act On Climate legislation and to recommend a realistic new path for our state,” said Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, one of the groups sponsoring this report. “Our analysis shows that New England and Rhode Island can meet our future energy needs and climate goals more affordably and reliably by focusing on proven, dispatchable technologies rather than betting our future primarily on intermittent and expensive sources of energy.”
The new study was produced by Always on Energy Research. It draws on data from ISO-New England, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and the Weldon Cooper Center, and includes detailed modeling of generation capacity, cost-of-service, and peak demand scenarios through 2050.
Alternatives to New England’s Energy Suicide offers a fact-based framework for policymakers, regulators, and the public to assess the economic and reliability consequences of competing energy strategies.
The full study can be found HERE.
