Daniel Poneman
Analyst · Stephen Gengaro with Stifel
Well, it's a great question. And it's an interesting relationship and it's an evolving relationship. So look, if you look historically, coal for decades provided 1/2 of the electricity in the United States. About 20% came from nuclear, about 20% from natural gas and the other 10% really mainly from hydro and in more recent years, obviously, wind and solar have been coming on strong. The whole secular decline of the coal industry has now and the rise of natural gas has obviously squeezed coal down to, I think, about 20%. And nuclear, even though the capacity additions have really slowed down, it continues to contribute about 1/5 of the overall mix.
Why? Because even as wind and solar build up their capacity factors are just not at all in the same ballpark as nuclear, which the industry has worked very hard to get capacity factors in excess of 90%. So that 20% figure, even though the installed capacity has shrunk as overall share has held strong because of the basically [ 7/24 ] contribution it makes. And by the way, more than half of the carbon-free power of the country comes from that nuclear segment, which relates to the other part of your question.
So as wind -- and this has been written up extensively. In the analytical literature, there's -- which we could point you to. Wind and solar need to have a firm dispatchable power to maximize their contributions and to optimize it precisely because, a, they are intermittent. You don't get a solar when the sun is not shining. You don't get wind power when the wind is not blowing. And by the way, we're not talking about bridging 2 or 3 hours or maybe not even a couple of days, you're talking about seasonal shifts, right?
And so in other words, to backstop that power, you need firm dispatchable power, and nuclear is the only significant carbon-free way to do that because there are a lot of people who have been talking about the possibility of batteries, but batteries are just not there yet in terms of the level of capacity that's required and the price point, quite frankly. So in some academic literature, you'll find that if you want to actually substitute all batteries and renewables and try to get the job done that way, you would need, I think, 6 to 8 weeks of battery storage, and we have only 43 minutes collectively in the nation.
So nuclear is a very good complement to renewables, and that's a trend that you're seeing. And by the way, people are leaning into that if you have been reading about the Natrium reactor being developed by TerraPower, they have an ability to basically while they are running [ 7/24 ] for those hours of the day that the grid does not need that power, they can heat up salt, and that salt is actually a form of energy storage that can itself backstop the deployment of more renewables.
So again, I don't mean to be too long-winded. But the bottom line is I think what you're seeing as a secular trend is growing recognition that nuclear has really an indispensable role to play as a complement to renewables and in the overall effort to decarbonize the power sector, very ambitious goal the President set forth to decarbonize all power generation by 2035. And of course, everyone is trying to get to net zero by 2050 and whether you ask the analysts at the International Energy Agency or the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, how to get to net zero, all agree that you need a significant expansion of nuclear energy.