Candler Hall

202 Herty Drive

Athens, Georgia 30602
TEL 706-542-6705 | FAX 706-583-8266

6 May, 2019

School of Public and International Affairs

Center for International Trade and Security

Executive Summary
This brief examines the issues of climate change, rising energy demand, and energy vulnerability
as they pertain to US national security. Acknowledging energy investment trends among other
global powers, the brief determines that the best course of action is to pursue a diversified energy
portfolio, moving away from the current emphasis on coal and natural gas toward nuclear and
renewable energy sources.
By employing a data-driven analysis of sunshine hours, wind-power resource, and current
nuclear generation trends across the United States, different regions within the United States are
targeted for nuclear and renewable expansion. The South-West is ideal for solar expansion, the
Mid-West and Coastal regions for wind, while nuclear expansion is flexible -it should be
determined by national nuclear organizations following legislative discussion with state level
governments.
By accounting for regulation in electricity markets, the following states are identified as targets
for renewable expansion: California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico.
Nuclear expansion, as addressed before, will have to be determined at a future date following
negotiation.
In order to manage this proposal, the Department of Energy must spearhead a national objective
to reach a reduction of fossil fuel generation to 55% of the energy portfolio by 2020, pushing
nuclear to 25% and renewables to 20%. This will be accomplished through the joint efforts of
federal energy agencies, private companies, and state-level governments to ensure that the best
R&D from the respective sectors is implemented where desired, to push non-carbon emitting
generation. In doing so, the United States will be insulating itself from the potential negative
externalities of the fossil fuel generation market.
This plan will require broader level federal cooperation to ensure that national budgets and cross-
administrational directives will coalesce over time. If the plan isn’t pursued across
administrations, the energy grid transformation will not be complete.
Introduction and Examination of Problem
The current United States Energy portfolio is insufficient to meet current national and
international demands. When considering aspects of population growth, climate change, and risk,
the current emphasis on fossil fuels is unsustainable on all fronts.
Climate Change
Coal and natural, comprising approximately 64% of current US electricity generation, are the
primary drivers of carbon emissions, serving as a significant contributor to man-made climate
change.1 Though natural gas is far cleaner than coal, it far exceeds emission rates for non-fossil
fuel sources. When including US population growth into the equation as a proxy for increasing
national energy demand, the future will necessitate an increasing volume of fossil fuels. This
growth will exacerbate the current rate of US carbon emissions, catalyzing climate change
symptoms over time.
Undiversified Energy Portfolio
In addition to this consideration of supply and demand, there is an inherent risk involved with
placing more than 50% of any portfolio invested into a single stock. As such, if there is ever any
supply shock to natural gas or coal, the national energy grid would be extremely vulnerable. This
worst-case scenario would introduce numerous national security concerns, as a weakened United
States would be open to both foreign and domestic aggression.
In this national security context, one can consider a targeted attack on coal and natural gas
reserves as the most immediate threat. If these resources are depleted by any factor, the entire
electricity generation system would be under risk, leaving US economic and security
infrastructure extremely weak. Though this is a worst-case scenario, it is feasible to imagine a
situation in which these resources are rendered depleted on a regional scale, rendering the
security of a state or county vulnerable. This economic/security shock is something that must be
accounted for through preemptive energy policy.
Looking Abroad
Looking abroad, other great powers are addressing their growing energy demands preemptively.
The most pertinent case is that of the People’s Republic of China pursuing a nationalized civil
nuclear expansion in tandem with increased nuclear research and development. This focus on
nuclear energy is a long-term investment in increasing electric generation potential within China.
China is further pursuing an expansion in its renewables sector, showing that it is pursuing a
diversified portfolio.
This pursuit of diversification suggests that other nations have addressed the issue of an
undiversified energy portfolio, whether the reasoning be due to climate change, sheer lack of
energy supply, or resource driven risk assessments, setting a clear example for the path the US

1
“What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?” U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Pol 2
must follow to continue its influence on the global stage. Failing to do so allows China, and other
states pursuing robust nuclear and renewable programs, to claim energy leadership. This sets the
foundation for energy innovation and policy for medium to long term, which may lead to
diminished influence and risks to national security.
Course of Action
This case in mind, the United States must diversify its current energy portfolio within the next 20
years to emphasize a turn toward nuclear and renewable generation sources.
This brief will identify target regions within the United States for this expansion, deciding ideals
sites for new solar, wind, and nuclear plants. This will be done through a geographic analysis of
current solar irradiation, wind power, and nuclear generation to identify states with maximum
capacity for renewables expansion or lack of presence for nuclear expansion.
Geographic Resource Analysis
Solar Resource
Employing data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, looking at the
average percentage of annual possible sunshine by state, one can create a heatmap showing the
states providing the greatest potential return on solar panel investment (Figure A1).2 Based on
this graphic, the greatest potential return per state lies in Arizona, with the surrounding
Southwestern United States close behind.
This in mind, the targets for solar expansion likely lie within this region, with a potential outlier
in Florida. Comparing this analysis with an installed plant map from the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (Figure B1), there is a visible lack of solar plants in the states of
Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado.3 This opportunity cost suggests that there
may be external factors to consider, such as legislation, popular will, or otherwise.
Wind Resource
With data from the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
a heatmap of potential wind generation is generated (Figure A2).4 Based on this graphic, the
ideal states for wind expansion lie in the Mid-West. However, looking at Figure B1, there is a
large concentration of wind plants throughout this region.
Introducing external data on potential wind power resource (Figure B2) shows that there is a
significant opportunity lost in potential wind generation in near-shore coastal areas.5 The West
Coast shows average wind speeds above 10 meters per second with very few wind plants in the
area (Figure B1). This highlights this area as a region for wind expansion.

2
“Sunshine – Average Percent of Possible,” National Climatic Data Center.
3
“US Energy Mapping System,”Energy Information Administration
4
“U.S. Installed and Potential Wind…” WINDExchange.
5
“U.S. Wind Power Resource…” WINDExchange.

Pol 3
Nuclear Resource
Unlike solar and wind resource, nuclear resource is not restricted geographically. Though there is
a current need to remain near flowing bodies of water for nuclear cooling systems, molten salt
reactors and further innovation in the civil nuclear industry will allow for expansion beyond this.
As such, there are large swaths of land shown in Figure A3 with no nuclear presence, rendering
them potential targets for new nuclear expansion. However, there are market level issues present
that would prevent nuclear expansion that will be discussed later in the paper.
Current Legislation to Consider
Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
States hold the responsibility of low-level radioactive waste disposal if generated within their
state.
National Environmental Policy Act
This requires any major federal action with the potential to affect the environment to be
accompanied with an environmental impact report.
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPA2005)
The EPA2005 was developed with the express intent of ensuring future jobs with secure,
affordable, and reliable energy, as detailed on the Department of Energy’s website.6 It held three
key goals:
1. Reaffirm a commitment to competition in wholesale markets
2. Strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s power, recognizing that regulation is
necessary to protect fair competition in markets
3. Provide for the development of a stronger energy infrastructure
This led to increased energy funding toward several energy development projects, with a strong
on nuclear innovation.
Challenges and Counterarguments
Political Will
There is currently limited political will supporting an expansion of nuclear and renewables
sources of generation. Currently, coal and natural gas support baseload and dispatchable
degeneration, respectively, at prices far cheaper than the non-carbon emitting alternatives. This
economic difference is so strong that many nuclear power plants meant to continue operation for
years to come, are in the process of being shut down as they are less economically viable than
natural gas-powered ones.

6
“Energy Policy Act of 2005,” Department of Energy.

Pol 4
Beyond this, there is an inherent stigma attached with both nuclear and renewables. Nuclear
energy is seen as a serious risk, considering the catastrophes at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl,
and Fukushima. Renewables have been intrinsically attached to partisanship, especially with the
2019 introduction of the Green New Deal, rendering them politically divisive.
Climatological Misallocation
As a large portion of the argument for nuclear and renewable expansion is driven by man-made
climate change, there is a strong argument that the United States is not the primary contributor.
Looking at global emission levels and general use of fossil fuels in generation, the onus falls on
developing economies such as India, China, or Brazil, where the growth of industry is leading to
a spike in energy demand. Figure B4 demonstrates that the primary source of carbon emissions
globally rests in the Asia Pacific region.
This analysis serves as a counterargument to a nuclear/renewable expansion based on
environmentalism. It purports that it would be inefficient to implement further environmental
measures within the US and that efforts should be more targeted toward international agreements
reducing emissions in the developing world.
Funding
Any sort of energy grid will require a massive stimulus package from the federal government. To
cover the costs of development, generation, installation, and maintenance will render billions
over time. Looking at Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 in Georgia, it clear that actual costs may far
exceed estimated costs. The reactors being built at this site, after significant cost over-runs and
still unfinished, come to nearly $25 billion. For a nuclear expansion that may require
construction of 10 to 20 new reactors over the next 20 years, there is a potential for nearly $500
billion in nuclear development costs alone. This will be in addition to any renewable expansion,
general R&D, and typical fixed/variable costs.
As such, this policy proposal will require cooperation across administrations to develop a multi-
term path to raise the funds necessary for this expansion. This fundraising will have to be paired
with private support through both funding as well as individual research and development.
Current State-Level Regulatory Environment
In addition to the broad level federal legislation outlined earlier in the paper, it is important to
consider that energy markets are divisible at the state level. At this point, there is a serious
difference between regulated and deregulated markets. Georgia, a regulated utility market, has a
strong environment for nuclear energy, as there is an independent body regulating prices to the
consumer and producer. This is because a utility company, Georgia Power, owns the electric
transmission lines and any other energy infrastructure. This is not the case in deregulated
markets, resulting in movements away from higher cost sources of energy. Within deregulated
markets, it will be difficult to push for expansion into sources that don’t have popular political
support or are economically costly because competitive markets will naturally lead to cheaper

Pol 5
sources like natural gas. Figure B3 shows a map of current regulatory markets within the United
States.7
Nuclear Proliferation and National Security
Nuclear expansion is the most energy efficient form of generation. It is, however, marred by the
inherent security risks that come with the process. Post-use, nuclear fuel remains radioactive and
fissile, allowing it to be employed within nuclear weapons. If the nuclear cycle within the US
isn’t closed, such that nuclear waste can be properly disposed or repurposed, then spent fuel
proliferation risks would render nuclear expansion infeasible.
Costs8
Capital Costs
Wind Turbines:
Offshore: $120/MWh
Onshore: $60/MWh
Solar Panels: $70/MWh
Nuclear Reactor: $155/MWh
Additional Costs to Consider
Renewables are land-intensive methods of energy generation. As such, the cost of land will be
large. They will further require an improvement in human capital, to create a workforce capable
of creating and maintaining these facilities.
Nuclear power will similarly require an expansion in education to develop nuclear engineers
capable of developing and maintain nuclear power plants. Furthermore, disposal and/or
reprocessing costs in the nuclear cycle are an additional cost.

7
“Map of Deregulated Energy…” Electric Choice.
8
Christian Bogmans, “Falling Costs Make … Affordable,” IMF Blog.

Pol 6
Proposed Policy Recommendation
Objectives
By 2040, the US will generate the physical capital necessary for the potential electric generation
portfolio to reflect the following values:
Source Proposed Share of Portfolio (%)
Nuclear 25%
Renewables (Wind, Solar, etc.) 20%
Fossil Fuels (Coal & Natural Gas) 55%

Target States
The ideal states for federally targeted expansion are those with regulated market structures in
order to support nuclear expansion. Renewable expansion may be economically viable within
deregulated markets provided favorable climatological factors.
1. Solar Expansion
New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada, as regulated electricity markets (Figure B3) are the mostly
likely to be open to federally targeted investment in renewables expansion. With higher amounts
of annual sunshine, they would be ideal targets for solar expansion. Figure B1 shows a
geographic lack of development in Utah and Nevada, suggesting a growth potential for solar.
2. Wind Expansion
The Mid-West is relatively full of wind turbines, as a region of interest. The coastal West,
however, is relatively untouched. California and Oregon provide deregulated electricity markets,
which provide a barrier to wind expansion. Washington is a regulated market, however, and
would be the ideal target.
It is important to consider left-of-center political leanings in these regions. With this assumption,
it is possible that federal spending on wind expansion in California and Oregon may be met with
support regardless of the given market structure due to political support of environmentally
conscious policies.
3. Nuclear Expansion
Nuclear expansion is difficult to ascertain given the facts of the paper, as there is calculus of
legislation and political prerequisite. It is more beneficial to allow nuclear regulatory agencies to
develop a list of targets for nuclear expansion.
Target Organizations
In order to implement any sort of policy, it is necessary to work in tandem with both public and
private organizations. Working with these groups ensures an efficient and long-lasting

Pol 7
implementation process. Public side organizations to consider are the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and
the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Private organizations are TerraPower, Flibe
Energy, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Duke Energy, Tesla, and the Southern Company. All these
organizations are involved in R&D, fundraising, or implementation of nuclear/renewable energy
systems in some capacity.
The Office of Management and Budget in conjunction with Congress and the President must
work with the Department of Energy in ensuring that this energy proposal is treated with
urgency, as the effects of this policy have a large time lag and must thus begin as soon as
possible. As such, annual budgets must increase federal funding for R&D in both nuclear and
renewable energy, with an introduction of public-private partnerships toward the implementation
of nuclear reactors or renewable energy farms. Referring to the Chinese case, one can see the
increased efficiency introduced through the centralized nature of their energy operations,
suggesting that the US would benefit from national investment into our grid as well.
Conclusion
The Department of Energy must spearhead a national policy supporting an expansion of nuclear
and renewable capacity. It must target the states of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico for solar
expansion. The coastal regions of California, Oregon, and Washington will be targets for wind
expansion. Nuclear expansion will be handled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and related nuclear bodies mentioned earlier in the
paper, in conjunction with private companies and state-level governments.
If the United States does not pursue such a diversification of its energy portfolio, it risks a
vulnerable energy grid given a shock to its fossil fuel energy systems.
Thank you,

Karan Pol
Bernard Ramsey Honors Scholar
Economics AB/International Policy MA
University of Georgia Honors Class of 2021

Pol 8
Appendix A: Data and Evidence
Figure A1: Average Percentage of Annual Possible Sunshine by State
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Figure A2: Potential Wind Power Generation by State (GWh)

Source: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Pol 9
Figure A3: Nuclear Generation by State (GWh)
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Figure A4: US Consumption by Energy Source 1960-2017

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018

Pol 10
Appendix B: Additional Visuals
Figure B1: Current Wind, Solar, and Nuclear Power Plant Location
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Figure B2: U.S. Wind Power Resource at 100 Meter Hub Height
Source: Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Pol 11
Figure B3: Map of Deregulated Energy States
Source: ElectricChoice.com

Figure B4: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018

Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region

18000.0
16000.0
14000.0
12000.0
Million Tons

10000.0
8000.0
6000.0
4000.0
2000.0
-
1981
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979

1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017

Year

North America S. & Cent. America Europe CIS

Middle East Africa Asia Pacific

Pol 12
Appendix C: R Code
library(readxl)
library(tmap)
library(tigris)
library(dplyr)
library(leaflet)
library(haven)
library(ggplot2)
library(colorspace)
library(tmaptools)
library(countrycode)
library(sf)
library(raster)
#Energy Policy Expansion
#Sunshine Data Potential
Sunshine2 <- read_dta("Sunshine2.dta") #had to import as .dta file; for some reason this doesn't work with xlsx
colnames(Sunshine2)[colnames(Sunshine2)=="ïname"]<-"NAME"
states <- states(cb=T)

states_merged <- geo_join(states, Sunshine2, "NAME", "NAME")

pal1 <- colorNumeric("Reds", domain=states_merged$avgperansun)
states_merged2 <- subset(states_merged, !is.na(avgperansun))
popup <- paste0("Average Percent of Annual Possible Sunshine", as.character(states_merged2$avgperansun))

leaflet() %>%
addProviderTiles("CartoDB.Positron") %>%
setView(-98.483330, 38.712046, zoom = 4) %>%
addPolygons(data = states_merged2 ,
fillColor = ~pal1(states_merged2$avgperansun),
fillOpacity = 0.7,
weight = 0.2,
smoothFactor = 0.2,
popup = ~popup) %>%
addLegend(pal = pal1,
values = states_merged2$avgperansun,
position = "bottomright",
title = "Percent")

#Winddata Potential

Pol 13
Winddata <- read_dta("Winddata.dta")
colnames(Winddata)[colnames(Winddata)=="ïname"]<-"NAME"

states_wind <- geo_join(states, Winddata, "NAME", "NAME")

pal2 <- colorNumeric("Blues", domain=states_wind$windgwh)
states_wind2 <- subset(states_wind, !is.na(windgwh))
popup2 <- paste0("Wind Generation Potential 2015", as.character(states_wind2$windgwh))

leaflet() %>%
addProviderTiles("CartoDB.Positron") %>%
setView(-98.483330, 38.712046, zoom = 4) %>%
addPolygons(data = states_wind2 ,
fillColor = ~pal2(states_wind2$windgwh),
fillOpacity = 0.7,
weight = 0.2,
smoothFactor = 0.2,
popup = ~popup) %>%
addLegend(pal = pal2,
values = states_wind2$windgwh,
position = "bottomright",
title = "GWh")

#Nuclear Data Current

nucleardata <-read_dta("nucleardata.dta")
nucleardata$NuclearGWH <- replace(nucleardata$NuclearGWH, is.na(nucleardata$NuclearGWH), 0)

states_nuclear <- geo_join(states, nucleardata, "NAME", "NAME")

pal3 <- colorNumeric("Greens", domain=states_nuclear$NuclearGWH)
states_nuclear2<-subset(states_nuclear, !is.na(NuclearGWH))
popup3 <- paste0("Nuclear Generation by State", as.character(states_nuclear2$NuclearGWH))

leaflet() %>%
addProviderTiles("CartoDB.Positron") %>%
setView(-98.483330, 38.712046, zoom = 4) %>%
addPolygons(data = states_nuclear2 ,
fillColor = ~pal3(states_nuclear2$NuclearGWH),
fillOpacity = 0.7,
weight = 0.2,
smoothFactor = 0.2,
popup = ~popup) %>%

Pol 14
 addLegend(pal = pal3,
values = states_nuclear2$NuclearGWH,
position = "bottomright",
title = "GWh")
#US Consumption Portfolio
gendata<-read_excel("USGenerationPortfolio.xlsx")
colnames(gendata)[colnames(gendata)=="US"]<-"Year"
attach(gendata)

plot(Year, Nuclear, col="green", type="o", ylab="Consumption(Mtoe)", main="US Consumption by Energy Source")

lines(Year, Solar, col="red", type="o")
lines(Year, Wind, col="blue", type="o")
legend(1965, 700, legend=c("Coal", "Solar", "Wind", "Nuclear", "Gas"), col=c("black", "red", "blue", "green", "orange"),
fill=c("black", "red", "blue", "green", "orange"), bg="transparent")

Pol 15
 Works Cited
Bogmans, Christian. "Falling Costs Make Wind, Solar More Affordable." IMF Blog. April 26, 2019.
Accessed May 05, 2019. https://blogs.imf.org/2019/04/26/falling-costs-make-wind-solar-more-
affordable/#post/0.

"Energy Policy Act of 2005." Energy.gov. Accessed May 05, 2019.

https://www.energy.gov/downloads/energy-policy-act-2005.

"Map of Deregulated Energy States & Markets (Updated 2018)." Electric Choice. Accessed May 05,
2019. https://www.electricchoice.com/map-deregulated-energy-markets/.

"BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018." BP Global. Accessed May 05, 2019.
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-
economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf

"Sunshine - Average Percent of Possible." National Climatic Data Center. Accessed May 05, 2019.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcn/comparative-climatic-data.

"U.S. Installed and Potential Wind Power Capacity and Generation." WINDExchange. Accessed
May 05, 2019. https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/321.

"U.S. Wind Power Resource at 100-meter Hub Height." WINDExchange. Accessed May 05, 2019.
https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/324.

"US Energy Mapping System." United States - Maps. Accessed May 05, 2019.
https://www.eia.gov/state/maps.php.

"What Is U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA)." U.S. Energy Information Administration. Accessed May 05, 2019.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3.

Pol 16