A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up
A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up
Shuttering of New York facility raises awkward climate crisis questions as gas – not renewables – fills gap in power generation
Shuttering of New York facility raises awkward climate crisis questions as gas – not renewables – fills gap in power generation
When New York’s deteriorating and unloved Indian Point nuclear plant finally shuttered in 2021, its demise was met with delight from environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.
But there has been a sting in the tail – since the closure, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up.
Castigated for its impact upon the surrounding environment and feared for its potential to unleash disaster close to the heart of New York City, Indian Point nevertheless supplied a large chunk of the state’s carbon-free electricity.
Since the plant’s closure, it has been gas, rather then clean energy such as solar and wind, that has filled the void, leaving New York City in the embarrassing situation of seeing its planet-heating emissions jump in recent years to the point its power grid is now dirtier than Texas’s, as well as the US average.
Environmentalists wanted it gone because it was old, ill maintained, harmed wildlife by raising river temperature, and had leaks...
It faced a constant barrage of criticism over safety concerns, however, particularly around the leaking of radioactive material into groundwater and for harm caused to fish when the river’s water was used for cooling. Pressure from Andrew Cuomo, New York’s then governor, and Bernie Sanders – the senator called Indian Point a “catastrophe waiting to happen” – led to a phased closure announced in 2017, with the two remaining reactors shutting in 2020 and 2021.
A leaky nuclear reactor upstream from a major metro area isn't a good thing...
The reason it was closed wasn't carbon emissions, that would be ridiculous.
It was closed because it was unsafe
While it was a net benefit to close this specific plant, fossil fuel power plants pump radioactive particles into the environment along with other pollutants.
Oh good info. I am Pro Nuclear and Pro renewable. I think modern reactors have a real place in our future grid, but yeah old leaky reactors we should get rid of.
I trust nuclear can be built safely, problem is I don't trust the humans building, maintaining, and running it to not cut corners. I flat out didn't trust nuclear that's run for profit as shareholders will demand cost cutting to maximize profits, and I didn't know if I'd trust publication funded nuclear to stay properly funded.
It doesn't have to be capitalistic.
Having our energy grid be for profit is a ridiculous idea anyways.
And the Navy has been training nuclear engineers for decades, without any major accidents despite almost all of their reactors being shoved into ships and submarines and training takes 18-24 months and being offered to kids literally right out of highschool.
Nationalize the energy grid and require government certification/contracts fornuclear plant operators.
Hell, most Navy nuclear engineers would literally jump ship to that just to be off a ship. But loads more would sign if the pay/bonuses was in anyway comparable to what Navy gets.
Just because capitalism makes something impossible doesn't mean it's impossible. Just that it's incompatible with capitalism.
But you have to compare its safety with what will replace it. Gas is known to produce fumes that poison the air we breathe and warm the climate. This will lead to people dying.
So which is worse? I suspect the answer is gas because we consistently underestimate the danger from fossil fuels and overestimate the danger from nuclear. But you’d have to do some kind of risk assessment to be certain.
But you have to compare its safety with what will replace it.
Specifically this plant?
I'm hoping by "gas" you mean natural gas and not gasoline, but yeah, natural gas is better than an untrustworthy reactor because of the risk involved. Not forever, but right now it's better than if we kept running a plant that will eventually have catastrophic failure.
Once turbines are spun up, it all pretty much runs itself. If you automated the oil purifiers it could conceivably run for years even decades on its on it's own and not have any issues.
But we don't take that chance, because something might go wrong.
The quality of this plant was shit, so the potential risk outweighed the known benefits and it needed shut down.
That doesn't mean nuclear power is bad.
It means this one specific plant is bad after 60 years of operation and being one of the first plants constructed. It doesn't mean we can't build a modern plant that's built to last and maintain it.
Shutting it down even if that means a temp return to fossil fuels for this one relatively tiny area for a few years is worth avoiding a nuclear meltdown a couple miles upstream of NYC...
It's basic risk assessment
how was it leaking radioactive material into the water? It's a PWR plant, that's not coming from the reactor itself.
Oh, seems like the spent fuel pool was leaking. Cool, not even the plant itself, literally just the waste storage. Fascinating.
With that logic they should be ripping out every hydroelectric dam as well.
If ones cracked and keeps springing leaks, yeah, that shit needs fixed.
But you don't exactly "rip out" a dam...
I think you're just one of many people who think one bad nuke pant makes them all bad.
One flawed anything doesn't make all of anything bad, especially when the bad one is one of the first made in the world and there have been ridiculous amounts of advancement in the field.
Hell, it was 20 years after we really figured out nuclear physics when this was built, and 3x that long till it was decommissioned. It just wasn't good anymore.
You all treat energy policy like it was highschool sports rivals.
I've always been pro nuclear. But what I've come to understand is that nuclear accidents are traumatizing. Anybody alive in Europe at the time was psychologically damaged by Chernobyl. Don't forget also that the elder Xers and older worldwide lived under the specter of nuclear annihilation.
So you've got rational arguments vs. visceral fear. Rationality isn't up to it. At the end of the day, the pronuclear side is arguing to trust the authorities. Being skeptical of that is the most rational thing in the world. IDK how to fix this, I'm just trying to describe the challenge pronuclear is up against.
I'm pro nuclear based on the science, but I'm anti nuclear based on humanity. Nuclear absolutely can be run safely, but as soon as there's a for profit motive, corporations will try to maximize profits by cutting corners. As long as there's that conflict I don't blame people for being afraid.
"Afraid" after seeing unfettered capitalism cut corners in every way it can, with zero regard for human life.
I am not sure it's fear so much as it is a logical response to the current situation to not want more nuclear in this context when renewables are so much cheaper.
I am not "afraid" of nuclear power, I just think it's a really bad option right now and that its risks, like all other forms of power generation, need to be considered carefully, not dismissed out of hand.
This comes off as you're anti nuclear but you know you can't say that, so you do the trick where you say you're pro butttt.
Except that modern nuclear technologies like LFTR are objectively way safer, and even with 60s technology and unsafe operation, nuclear has fewer deaths per MWh than just about every other form of energy generation. It's just that nuclear's failures are more concentrated and visible.
Oh absolutely the corporations are going to want to maximize profit. There are just a lot of things they can't get out of, especially when it comes to safety.
The nuclear industry (in the US) since TMI has had a heavy amount of oversight from its regulatory body. That the plants pay for, too, which is good.
You got it. I've had this discussion and the anti nuclear boils down to "somewhat, somehow, something, someone, maybe, possibly, perhaps may go wrong. Anything built by man could fail". There's no logic, just fear.
At this point, you can be economically anti-nuclear. The plants take decades to build with a power cost well above wind/solar. You can build solar/wind in high availability areas and connect them to the grid across the states with high power transmission lines, leading to less time that renewables aren't providing a base line load. One such line is going in right now from the high winds great plains to Illinois, which will connect it to the eastern coastal grid illinois is part of.
We also have a hilarious amountof tech coming online for power storage, from the expected lithium to nasa inspire gas battery designs, to stranger tech like making and reducing rust on iron.
There is also innovation in "geothermal anywhere" technology that uses oil and gas precision drilling to dig deep into the earth anywhere to tap geothermal as a base load. Roof wind for industrial parks is also gaining steam, as new designs using the wind funneling current shape of the buildings are being piloted, rivaling local solar with a simplier implementation.
While speculative, many of these techs are online and working at a small scale. At least some of them will pay off much faster, much cheaper and much more consistently before any new nuclear plants can be opened.
Nuclear's time was 50 years ago. Now? It's a waste to do without a viable small scale design. Those have yet to happen, mainly facing setbacks, but i'm rooting for them.
the solution is never build an RBMK plant ever again. And invest in gen IV designs, which are inherently safe, and have basically no active safety features, because they dont need them.
I use to be very pro nuclear. I'd write letters to papers and such explaining how the waste, which is the main concern most people have, is not as big of a problem as people think - and that certain manufacturing processes produce other waste products that are very bad and people just don't think about those...
Anyway, I changed my mind some time back. There are three main things that have turned me against nuclear.
- The first thing was that I read a detailed analysis of the 'payback time' of different forms of energy generation. i.e. the amount of time it takes for the machine to produce more energy (in dollar terms) than it cost to build and run it. Nuclear fairs very poorly. It takes a long time to pay itself back; but wind was outstandingly fast; and solar was surprisingly competitive too (this was back when solar technology wasn't so advanced. That's why it was surprising). So then, I got thinking that although nuclear's main advantage over coal is its cleanliness, wind is even cleaner, and easier to build, and safer, and pays itself off much much faster. And Australia has a lot of space suitable for wind power... so I became less excited by nuclear energy.
- The second thing is that as I grew older, I saw more and more examples of the corrupting influence of money. Safely running a nuclear power-plant and managing waste is not so hard that it cannot be done, but is a long-term commitment... and there are a lot of opportunities for unwise cost-cutting. My trust in government is not as high as it use to be; and so I no longer have complete faith that the government would stay committed to the technical requirements of long-term safe waste management. And a bad change of government could turn a good nuclear power project into a disaster. It's a risk that is far higher with nuclear than with any other kind of power.
- The third and most recent thing is that mining companies have started turning up the rhetoric in support of nuclear power. They were not in favour of it in the past, but they smell the winds of change, and they trying to manipulate the narrative and muddy the waters by putting nuclear into the mix. They say nuclear is a requirement for a clean future, and stuff like that. But that's not true. It's an option, but not a requirement. By framing it as a requirement, they trigger a fight between people for and against nuclear, and it's just a massive distraction form what we are actually trying to achieve. If the fight just stalls, the mining companies win with the status-quo. And if nuclear gets up, they win again with a new thing to mine... It's not nice
So yeah, I'm not so into nuclear now. It's not a bad technology, but the idea of it is a bit radioactive, just like the waste product.
Don’t forget also that the elder Xers and older worldwide lived under the specter of nuclear annihilation.
This movie didn't help.
(Good movie by the way; Jack Lemmon's "I can feel it" line at the end of the movie really scares the crap out of you.)
Being skeptical of trusting "authorities" is only rational if you're still living with boomer information. There are plenty of designs now that would have made Fukushima a non-issue. Until fusion comes along, nuclear is easily our best option alongside renewables.
Well there are plenty of rational arguments against nuclear. Its very expensive and time consuming to build, so its better to build renewables that can start generating power in a couple of months vs at least a decade for nuclear.
Then they are actually pretty significantly more polluting than renewables due to the amount of concrete they use. And decommissioning them is a costly and expensive process that also releases a lot of carbon. And theres only one permanent storage facility in the world for nuclear waste. And theres the fact that due to needing a constant and highly skilled workforce, they need to be near population centres but far enough away that people feel safe, which makes it hard to plan.
And also specifically for the reactors mentioned in the article, they were built in the 60s, they are not nearly as safe as modern reactors.
I am sympathetic to the don't trust the powers that be viewpoint. For example I just assume everything an economist says is the exact opposite of what we should do.
What I look for is multiple independent groups able to present the same data showing the same results. For example I trusted the first Covid vaccine because Universities and multiple government agencies of different countries agreed. If it was just the Orange White House administration lawyers claiming this shit is the bomb yeah I am not getting it.
Guess we need to basically just keep saying "look you don't trust the government, and that's fine. Here is the science for all these other places"
Also the nuclear waste is a big problem, it will be around for thousands of years. We have a nuclear plant near us and none of the waste has ever left the site, it just keeps getting added to big casks on a concrete slab outdoors and is a big potential vulnerability.
Most radioactive waste is just mildly contaminated and has a relatively short danger period in the realm of a century or less. The truly dangerous stuff represents the smallest amount of waste and that's the crap people have been trying to put very deep underground for decades. For whatever reason the political will just hasn't been there. For now it rests on-site in casks designed to keep it safely stored for a very long time, but it will eventually need a permanent home.
Coal waste is a bigger problem
There is a simple answer that nobody will implement. Thorium reactors, very veyy low chances of meltdowns
But the governments won't do it because you can't convert thorium to bombs
Disagree, sorry.
Thorium is unproven in a commercial setting, molten salt reactors in general are plagued with technological difficulties for long term operations and are limited currently to just a few research reactors dotted about the globe.
There's no denying that originally a lot of the early nuclear reactors chose uranium because of its ability to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons proliferation but nowadays that's not a factor in selection. What is a factor is proven, long-lasting designs that will reliably produce power without complex construction and expensive maintenance.
FWIW, I'm an Xer against nuclear power, but not for the reason you outlined: it's because it's an overall bad approach to energy generation.
It produces extremely long-lasting waste, on timescales humans are not equipped to deal with. It has a potential byproduct of enabling more nuclear weapons. The risks associated with disaster are orders of magnitude greater than any other power generation system we use, perhaps other than dams. It requires seriously damaging mining efforts to obtain the necessary fuel. It is more expensive.
We have the tech to do everything with renewables and storage now.
It's not my trauma, it's my logic that leads me to be generally against nuclear. (Don't have to be very against it, no one wants to build these now anyway.)
There have been more deaths and major environmental disasters with fossil fuels than with all nuclear accidents combined (including the less reported ones that happened in the 50s and 60s). Nuclear plants are generally safe and reliable. They do not produce excessive waste like wind (used turbine blades) and solar (toxic waste from old panels that cannot be economically recycled).
Nuclear is the superior non-carbon energy source right now. Climate change is an emergency, so we shouldn't be waiting on other technologies to mature before we start phasing out emitting power plants in favor of emission-free nuclear plants.
You make a really good point with the comparison to dams. It's not that it's not a great way to generate power, but it is a fact that the worst case scenarios for failure are really really bad. It's perfectly rational to worry about that. Consider, for example, how both dams and nuclear plants have been targeted by Russia in Ukraine. No one is worried if they smash a few solar panels
Shut up Xer they said it's a security problem don't use your logic
I beg you Lemmy, dont be like a redditor that just reads the purposefully inflammatory headlines and gets mad over it. Always assume a headline is supposed to get a specific emotional response from you and read the article.
For this one the environmental concerns people had were not about carbon emissions, they were about groundwater contamination
It faced a constant barrage of criticism over safety concerns, however, particularly around the leaking of radioactive material into groundwater and for harm caused to fish when the river’s water was used for cooling.
The plant as well as NYs other plants that face a lot of criticism were built in the 60s long before much of the modern saftey measures and building techniques that make Modern reactors so safe. And thats why they were decommissioned, they were almost 60 years old and way past their initial life span. Not because of "Dumb environmental activists think taking nuclear power offline will decrease carbon emissions" like whoever wrote this headline is trying to get you to assume.
You are not immune to propaganda.
Modern is a misnomer. Most of our plants are 30+ years old. After 3 Mile Island, nuclear development ground to a halt in the US. No new nuclear power began development after 1979 except 2 new reactors at the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia that were approved in 2009.
And only one reactor at Indian Point came online in the 60s. Units 2 and 3 came online 12 and 14 years after unit one. And unit 1 was decommissioned in 1974 as it is, shortly after unit 2 came online.
In any case, why not fix the issue rather than just shutting the plant?
And that does not make the headline "inflammatory." It is accurate. People just assume that nuclear will be magically replaced by renewables. But you can't just do that. You can draw a direct line from the closure of Indian Point to the construction of 3 natural gas turbine plants.
Three natural gas-fired power plants have been introduced over the past three years to help support the electric supply needed by New York City that Indian Point had been providing: Bayonne Energy Center II (120 MW), CPV Valley Energy Center (678 MW), and Cricket Valley Energy Center (1,020 MW).
In any case, why not fix the issue rather than just shutting the plant?
Because just patching up an old faulty nuclear power plant thats past its expected service life is a recipe for disaster. Hence why we have service lifetimes for these things in the first place?
And that does not make the headline “inflammatory.” It is accurate
It absolutely is inflammatory. Its specifically trying to conflate environmental concerns of polluted groundwater with carbon emissions, to make it seem like the people who voiced those concerns are idiots.
In any case, why not fix the issue rather than just shutting the plant?
Because the bean counters counted the beans and found that it wouldn't be profitable.
Besides the text of the article, there is the issue that environmentalist fear-mongering about nuclear energy caused extreme hesitance to build a new plant and that has lead directly to greenhouse gas emissions increases.
Indeed, we are not immune to propaganda.
Environmentalists can't stop oil and gas companies from drilling and fracking and spilling and polluting. If nuclear was profitable environmentalists wouldn't be able to stop it either.
The only reason we have so many nuclear plants is because the government subsidized them because they produce material that can be used in weapons. Just the reactor on its own isn't profitable for decades, which is too long for a company to wait for a return even in the good old days before profits needed to grow every quarter.
Well when you consider that reactors at the time werent as safe as they are now, and that we had several high profile nuclear reactor failures at around the same time, that were all pretty narrowly stopped from becoming even worse disasters and all those reactors were "Perfectly safe" until they werent and also just how deeply awful the effects of radiation is. Do you think its actually "fear mongering" or reasonable concern? I suppose the difference depends mostly on which side of the argument you are on.
The plant should have been closed for updating and modernization, not just closed permanently.
Nuclear is the only way we will get to carbon neutral emissions anytime soon.
You cant really just keep "modernising" ancient reactor designs forever. Eventually you'll need to close them down and build something else.
And realistically it makes way way more sense to build Wind power than nuclear to get us to carbon neutral. We can build a 50mw wind farm in 6 months.
For comparison Hinkley Point C in the UK was announces in 2010 and is currently expected to be commissioned by 2029.
That means if we built wind instead we would have built 1900MW of capacity in the time it would have taken to build the NPP and by the time the reactors would generate power for the first time the wind farms would already have generated 17 GW/years of power. If we stopped building more wind farms when the NPP completed it would take the reactor 14 more years just to catch up to the wind farms. And if we continue to build wind farms nuclear literally never catches up as total wind capacity would overtake the capacity of the NPP by year 13.
Yes you can make arguments about the uptime of wind, but I think ive made my point. And thats not even factoring in the cost/MW of capacity.
THANK YOU ffs
Modern nuclear technology is much safer than older stuff, additionally when the older plants are well maintained they are much safer than they're made out to be.
This is one of those cases where pop culture doesn't match reality and as a result people who are half informed do more damage to their cause by rejecting the good in pursuit of the great.
I'm 112% for replacing old outdated and unsafe infrastructure.
However, a new, updated, far safer plant will not get built to replace this one. Or any that close in the US until some people die off or shit really hits the fan energy-wise and people get more desperate. This is the least favorable time to build "safe" things.
This plant needed to be closed, but something has to replace it. And unless people start forcing renewables, shit like this is just the norm. Plant closes, nothing replaces it except fossil fuels, emissions go up.
additionally when the older plants are well maintained they are much safer than they’re made out to be.
This one was leaking radioactive matter into the river upstream of NYC...
Even just primary fluid leaking into secondary is a giant issue.
Radioactive matter in the river means containment leaked to primary, then leaked to secondary...
If you don't know why that is so bad, you really shouldn't be talking about how safe nuclear power is. Because even tho you're right, you don't know why.
If you don’t know why that is so bad, you really shouldn’t be talking about how safe nuclear power is. Because even tho you’re right, you don’t know why.
You're kind of gaslighting people by equating "this instance of a 70 year old badly maintained plant" to "how safe nuclear power is".
Besides, I am pretty certain some oil and gas lobbying prevented better maintenance here.
As long as they are run by corporations, they will not be well maintained.
The plant was from 1956, nearing a century of age by now. Old plants like this one explode in their running costs and typically accumulate more and more maintenance incidences each year, ultimately becoming a security risk.
The main problem though is that countries betting on nuclear power do fuck all with renewables, which makes it unsurprising that you have to resort to other means to fill potential gaps to replace them. In this case they could've built renewables, or even other nuclear plants, for several decades already in order to replace this ancient one.
Articles & comments like this are basically just paid propaganda pieces by the nuclear lobby.
Calling 68 years 'nearing a century' as a comparison is a bit of a stretch.
It is really old in nuclear power plant tech terms and needed to be replaced. A combination of renewable amd nuclear is the way forward, but people treat nuclear safety concerns like they do airplane crashes, acting like the sky is falling even when there are no deaths for years and safety keeps increasing.
Yeah, article just offhand mentions that radioactive material was leaking into the river...
That means there was multiple ongoing leaks between multiple systems that need to be completely separate for safe operation.
If the stacks were still good, they should have replaced the reactor. But if those leaks were ongoing and either weren't addressed or couldn't be fixed, then it's incredibly doubtful any maintenance was being done.
Any nuclear plant that's leaking radioactive material needs shut down till it's repaired.
And this one was just in such bad shape it couldn't be repaired.
The industry also thinks the problem is regulations. It isn't. If you have your shit in order, federal regulators have been willing to issue new nuclear plant permits and extend old ones. The actual probably is that the tech is fundamentally unaffordable; nobody wants to buy what they're selling. SMRs are not likely to fix this, and there doesn't seem to be any other fission tech on the horizon that would, either.
Two things I think we should do is subsidize reactors for reprocessing old nuclear waste, and put SMRs on ships. There are reasons for both that don't directly show up on balance sheets.
You can't claim to be an environmentalist and be anti-nuclear energy at the same time.
Depends on where you're talking about. In Australia the right wing are using nuclear as a diversion to slow down the transition to renewables, so they can stay on gas and coal longer.
There's no nuclear power in Australia, and the time needed to create the industry, train or poach workers, create a plant and get it up and running makes no environmental or economical sense compared to what they are already set to achieve with wind, solar and storage.
If you've already got nuclear up and running, use it, but each new plant needs to be compared to the alternatives for that specific location, and the track record of the nuclear industry and government in that location.
Amazing how the argument works both ways, almost as if it's all bullshit and a post-hoc rationalization instead of an evidence based approach to policy.
There is no pre-existing system = great! No golden handcuffs and no entrenched powers. Start with a clean slate with tech developed by other nations
There is a pre-existing system = great! So everything is built up, all we have to do is run things a bit harder. When you have a hundred plants it isn't that much more difficult to build one more.
I get it. Jane Fonda was cute back in the day and she made a movie about nuclear being scary. Arguments are crafted to fit the scary instead of the emotion instead questioned. And I do get it because I was raised to believe in god.
Yes you can
Nuclear is is the most stable and carbon neutral form of energy production to date. Not to mention the safest. And that's not even considering EOL disposal and recycling figures that always get brought up with Nuclear but no one ever seems to talk about for Solar and Wind when their components reach end of their service life and have basically no plan for how to recycle or dispose of them in any way that isn't a landfill.
Of course. The problem with waste is still there and you can also replace Nuclear with renewables, like Germany did. Nuclear shut down, coal also 20 % down, renewables on record heights.
Nuclear waste is no where near the problem propagandist make it out to be. And Germany shutting down nuclear plants is not the benefit you think it is. They might be using less coal (all the 2023 stats I've seen do not reflect that) but they are still using oil and gas and their energy imports of fossil fuels went up in '23. Shutting down nuclear plants has caused them to become less energy green, not more.
Like I've said, most of the people who support nuclear energy are ANTI-environmentlists. They don't support it for the world. They just support it to rub their dicks in environmentalism's face.
Yes you have repeated your mind reading claims multiple times and attacked people instead of ideas.
Absolute horseshit take.
I don't understand where you think the most environmentally friendly power production option is anti environmental. It produces the least amounts of greenhouse and uses the least amount of land per kW produced. A properly run plant has no contamination of its environment, high level waste can be run through reactors again and again until fully expended and becomes low level waste that can be stored at the facility indefinitely. Where in the world are you getting the idea that nuclear power is bad for the environment?
Sounds like environmentalists need to support nuclear, a carbon-free power source. Then complaints like yours vanish.
Hard to imagine how anyone who's concerned about climate change could see shutting down a carbon-free energy source as a "green win".
There's a legitimate argument that we can't grow our way out of climate change, and the real solution to our emissions problem is degrowth and descaling of our obscene rates of consumption. In that sense, had they been closing the plant with the expectation of drastically reducing energy demand, it might have made sense.
Its not as though nuclear energy produces no waste, just extremely low levels of CO2 waste. But if you're just going to replace energy demand (and continue to grow energy supply) with new coal/gas consumption, who are you fooling except yourselves?
In that sense, had they been closing the plant with the expectation of drastically reducing energy demand, it might have made sense.
I really hate this kind of reasoning. Even if we do manage to reduce our energy consumption, closing the nuclear plant would still be more harmful to the environment because we could have closed fossil fuel plants instead. Unless, of course, we'd manage to reduce energy consumption so much that we wouldn't need any non-renewable energy sources - which I don't think is very realistic assumption. Certainly not realistic enough to make such a gamble on.
The only way closing the nuclear plant would have been beneficial to the environment would be if the act of closing it would have caused a reduction in our energy consumption that is greater than the energy the plant itself was producing (minus some extra energy from fossil fuel plants that take up its "emission budget" to increase their own energy production). Which is also quite unrealistic. I actually think it makes more sense that it achieved the opposite effect, since closing the plant took up activists' effort and environmental publicity, which could have been used to push for reducing consumption instead.
Blame solarbros and their useful idiots.
There's a SHIT TON of propaganda surrounding solar because average people can get duped into buying it.
It's a lot harder to rip people off with other forms of energy because communities need to make a collective decision to use them.
Any moron can get suckered into buying solar, which is why you see so many scumbags and useful idiots shilling it on forums
I don't think I can agree with you there. Solar power is an incredibly valuable technology, in many ways more so than nuclear. If we were replacing this nuclear energy with increased solar I'd have no complaint. The problem is solar is already growing as fast as it can with or without shutting down any nuclear plants, so what it's actually replaced with as discussed in this article is fossil fuels. Hopefully the solar curve can catch up eventually and shut down those fossil fuels as well, but it's ridiculous to ditch nuclear before then.
So unexpected !
environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.
That doesn’t sound right, it’s fossil fuel simps that are anti-nuclear
More likely they wanted it to be updated
Environmentalists have only come around to nuclear in the last half-decade or so. For a long time after 3MI and Chernobyl, nuclear was the devil.
There was a genuine split on the issue in environmentalist communities. The Sierra Club, for instance, has pretty much always been an advocate for nuclear when it replaces coal. The WWF has also advocated nuclear as a means of reduced mining and drilling.
But both of these endorsements are predicated on long-term waste mitigation and clean-up of industrial sites. The Yucca Mountain waste deposit site that never got built, for instance. Or modernized thorium recyclers to handle the byproducts of traditional uranium waste that the US declined to develop or deploy.
They also almost universally disapprove of the manufacture of plutonium, both because it contributes to higher levels of plant waste and because the plutonium becomes fissile material capable of ending all life on earth.
So it isn't just "environmentalists came around on this lately". Its a whole host of modernizations and waste management actions that NEVER GET BUILT and are then used to prod environmentalist groups into protest.
Must be a regional thing
My whole life nuclear was pushed
After Fukushima there was a pretty widespread movement to get rid of nuclear power.
They probably definitely wanted it closed. To bad they didn't guess the likely alternatives that would take its place, an push for that too...
Literal power vacuum
One of the biggest environmental groups in the world is vehemently anti nuclear
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/issues/nuclear/
As someone who was vehemently pro nuclear, unfortunately we missed the boat. The time to invest heavy in nuclear was 50 years ago and instead we did the opposite. Renewables have caught up and nuclear is so far behind that it makes zero sense to build any new reactors when we can just build out more renewable power gen and battery storage for less money and without the whole nuclear waste handling problem.
There does seem to be a portion of green types who are anti nuclear. You only heard those voices on the issue because the fossil fuel people knew they would benefit anyway.
Renewables are great but you take them when you can make them. Batteries to store it seen to be more expensive than anyone is willing to pay. Nuclear is expensive and only worth running at full throttle. The gaps are filled by fossil fuels which can be fired up very quickly.
Fuck biomass, that's just chopping down trees to burn them. The fuck is green about that?
Environmentalists are always and forever the prime movers in national politics, don't you know? Cause they've got billions of dollars at their disposal and an enormous base of employees to draw on for electoral activism and lots of friendly former-environmentalists in positions of elected / appointed authority.
Who can forget the wise worlds of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, when he warned us all of the threat of the Environmentalist Industrial Complex?
Eh. No shortage of useful idiots on these forums saying solar should replace nuclear.
They just don't understand how the power grid works.
Fucking anti nuclear dipshits.
I blame The Simpsons, much like South Park and their climate change denial, they've probably cemented the opinions of millions of people.
Nuclear power is expensive. If a plant is no longer safe to operate, it may make sense to shut it down for good.
Building the same capacity in renewables is often cheaper and faster than repairing an old plant or even building a new one.
Building the same capacity in renewables
People do not realize this is a tricky question. Because, no, replacing, say, 1000MW of nuclear with 1000MW of solar and wind actually DOES NOT give you the same capacity. You have to consider capacity factor, which is a measure of how much power it produces versus its theoretical maximum.
Nuclear generally has a capacity factor of 90%. They are essentially always pumping out their nameplate capacity except during shutdowns for maintenance and refueling.
Solar and win have capacity factors of 20-30%. They spend most of their time producing less than their nameplate capacity.
So you need ~3.5 times the amount of solar and wind to match the lost capacity of a nuclear plant. And that does not even consider the issue of storage.
The term environmentalist has so much stupid baggage tied to it.
I’m tired of having to share labels with people who refuse to do anything other than small superficial personal choices. Folks who will baulk at the suggestion of a carbon tax, their energy bills going up, more nuclear plants being built near them or, subsidies and infrastructure for low income people who are seriously hurt by such changes.
This is a systemic problem that requires systemic changes that will fundamentally alter things we take for granted right now. It’s going to suck and it’s going to be hard, there is no easy simple way out.
Oh my favourite are the environmentalists pushing for EVs as if replacing an existing car with an EV is somehow greener. It's good to push new sales to EVs but it's bad to get people to drop still functioning cars for an EV. Then there is the power grid issue which is going to be a minor social and economic disaster at this point because seemingly no one is ready for it.
Before some knob assumes anything this is not a pro-ICE comment and I actually own an EV, this is someone urging society to think actions through before committing to them. A lot of unintended consequences have come of the various steps done to push EVs.
Ideally we work to remove the need to own a vehicle in the first place.
My favorite are people out here advocating for battery/hydrogen buses and trains, like we have overhead/third-rail electrification! IT IS A SOLVED TECHNOLOGY! It is older than internal combustion engines, for pete’s sake!
I see this as a failure to build renewables. Wind and solar and batteries are and were able to solve this, but changing infrastructure costs time, money and skill. The closing of the NPP was foreseeable, so is the climate change.
New York just completed the building of a 130MW wind farm off the coast of Long Island. The largest one in the country.
That doesn’t replace the 2 GW (peak) Indian point reactor, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Their 40 year license with the nuclear regulatory commission ran out and they felt that getting it relicensed was too expensive. Yeah a bunch of folks were hyperbolic about it, but holding a 40 year old reactor to modern standards isn't bad either. It's still economics that is holding nuclear back.
Their 40 year license with the nuclear regulatory commission ran out and they felt that getting it relicensed was too expensive.
No, they applied for a 20-year renewal but faced pushback from the state of New York and were forced to close in a legal settlement.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47776
Indian Point’s owner-operator, Entergy, retired Units 2 and 3 before their operating licenses expired as part of a settlement agreement with New York State. Entergy had been seeking a 20-year license renewal for both reactor units since 2007. However, New York challenged the renewals, citing environmental and safety concerns resulting from the plant’s nearness to New York City.
Nuclear power is among the most "green" power sources around. The simple fact that this debate exists shows a lack of education surrounding the whole thing.
This isn’t an issue about closing down a nuclear plant because of misinformation about nuclear power plants. This plant was old and leaky and was harming local wildlife. It needed to be shut down.
Out Greens had the same idea. They wanted to close almost 6 gigawatt of nuclear and replace it all with gas plants. People thought they lost it. Then the invasion in Ukraine happened and gas prices went crazy. Nobody took them seriously after that and they are losing voters fast.
The people who wanted it shut down talked about local safety issues like groundwater contamination. Green advocates generally understand that nuclear is better for CO2 and it's dumb to shut them down. Feel like the article is muddying the issue by using 'green' to mean multiple things.
YOU understands it is dumb to shut them down. You are not necessarily the average green advocate. The average anything advocate / activists these days are usually much dumber than the general concerned citizens.
I'd argue that impressions like that are given by somewhat misleading articles like this.
Germany enters the chat.
Germany's electric energy emissions steadily went down despite exiting nuclear power because Germany actually invests in renewables.
Analysis of current situation without nuclear power (English translated)
Here, let the german Deputy of the Federal Chancellor and Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection tell you about nuclear energy. Starts at 24:56.
My English isn't good enough to translate it all in detail, but these are the basics:
Germany shut down all nuclear power plants but 3, which will shut down soon. So we will be nuclear free in the future, no going back from there. Then he talks about the nuclear power plants in France, which are all ailing and will be extremely expensive to repair (at least 1 billion euros per power plant). They are only still working because they belong to the state, otherwise they would have been insolvent long ago. A newly planned nuclear power plant is already so expensive to plan that most investors have backed out. If this power plant is ever built, it will supply the most expensive electricity ever produced in Europe.You sure, though? "Not least as a result of the energy crisis, greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector rose by 11 million tonnes of CO₂equivalent or 4.5 percent in 2022. This was due to the increased use of coal. "
Which is not surprising due to volatility of renewables and closing last nuclear power plants. They also import a lot from ... France AFAIK.
Not quite
why the fuck do people still think nulcear energy is bad for the environment? it scales easily enough to displace coal and gas and petrol.
I took a tour of this plant, having lived about 20mi south of it, little city called NYC. One issue this particular plant kept getting called out on, but couldn't remediate (????) was low amounts of tritium leaking into the groundwater.
Even after installing a large network of sensors around the plant, they still could not identify the source, after several years... As an engineer, that's the kind of 'small' detail which tickles the Spidey senses, indicating something more serious is afoot, organizationally.
Jane Fonda was easy on the eyes, made a movie about how bad nuclear power is.
looks like shit to me
Why is it the people who can't even spell nuclear always forget about the waste.
The reason waste isn't being brought up is because modern designs do not produce nearly as much waste, and much safer waste, than previous technologies. Breeder reactors are able to produce more fissile material than they consume, and produce only waste products that have short half lives (less than 100 years). This is a long time from human perspectives, but it means that we do not have to design functionally indefinite storage for these materials any longer.
Well, considering the ones clammoring for it, specifically, are ANTI-environmentalists, forgive me if I have a hard time trusting a source of energy that's proven to be catastrophic for most life in the past. I get it: people are talking about how totally safe it is now, but again. It's specifically ANTI-environmentalists saying this and pushing for nuclear. I'll wait for people with genuine compassion for the environment and not contrarians to accept it before I do.
considering the ones clammoring for it, specifically, are ANTI-environmentalists
forgive me if I have a hard time trusting a source of energy that’s proven to be catastrophic for most life in the past.
Nuclear power, EVEN COUNTING CHERNOBYL, 3 MILE ISLAND, AND FUKUSHIMA, is safer than coal, oil, natural gas, and even wind and hydropower.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/abstract
Who would think that's a green victory?
Because it was leaking radioactive matter into the river upstream of one of the most densely populated areas in this hemisphere...
Considering all releases to the environment from the plant, including the Hudson River, for 2010 Entergy calculated an annual dose of about 0.2 millirem whole body and 0.7 millirem to the critical organ. This compares to a normal average yearly dose per person of 620 millirem from background radiation and other sources such as medical tests.
As far as I can see that's not a big deal. Just sounds scary right?
lets take bets. Was it scheduled decommissioning? i.e. EOL shutdown If so this entire article is kind of redundant. (it still serves a point in bringing awareness but it's still funny)
Was it scheduled decommissioning? i.e. EOL shutdown If so this entire article is kind of redundant.
The operators of the plant applied for a 20-year license renewal. New York challenged that renewal due to "environmental and safety concerns." As such, the plant was forced to shut down.
So, no this was not an EOL shutdown.
I'll buy "How can you do the right thing in the wrong way?" for $1000
I don’t think anyone in NY expected anything except natural gas plants to replace Indian Point at least for the short term. Its a lot simpler to build a few combined cycle and peaker units in the short term than to find property in the NYC metro that can meet peak load using renewables and battery storage. Longer term, several gigawatts of off-shore wind, enough transmission build out for upstate/Canadian hydro, some battery storage (although im not convinced we’ll build out nearly enough), and very rarely used peaker plants will get us close enough to zero carbon emissions.
honestly, gas turbine plants are wild. GE literally makes a set that'll run on highly pure oil straight from the middle east. Shit's wild.
I don’t think anyone in NY expected anything except natural gas plants to replace Indian Point at least for the short term.
Odd the protestors anti-science types that I talked to at the time seemed to think we were going to get renewables to replace it. They must have all been from outside of NY state. All of them. Over months.
I may not like nuclear, but if we want to decarbonise we need some more of it. Maybe before phasing out older and unsafe plants, we can start to build a new one in its place? I don't know this is not my field
Yeah, on one hand nuclear energy is very safe, runs 24/7, and doesn’t belch greenhouse gases and poisons into the air. But on the other hand, it’s expensive, takes a long time to build, and many people are irrationally afraid of it.
Unfortunately, I think the real-world decisions are going to be dictated 99% by economics. But that can turn back into a good thing as green/renewable energy gets cheaper and cheaper.
and many people are irrationally afraid of it.
I wish we had some place where all the anti-nuclear, flat earthers, theists, anti-GMO, vaxxers, etc. could live and pray in peace....far away from the rest of us.
surprised pikachu
Headline and quoted blurb do seem to omit the fact that NY will be tapping into Canadian hydro in 2027 as well as some wind projects.
Are there any plans to modernize the plant? It will probably take billions to meet modern standards, but I'd imagine that it would be cheaper than building a new plant
For now, the state seems more interested in building out other green renewables like wind and solar. I haven’t seen any plans to refurbish or replace Indian Point.
New York State did just launch a new solar wind farm that will produce 130 MW of power. It’s the biggest one in the country.
Radioactive waste emissions went up? That's pretty odd.
No really, coal has pretty high nuclear emissions, but these are vented into the enviroment, instead of controlled and contained.
That's why they cordoned off half of 19th century Europe, they used coal stoves and had become an irradiated wasteland.
The ecological cost of a nuclear plant is mostly front-loaded; over that, it uses a few truckloads of fuel a year and produces an equivalent amount of waste (which can be reprocessed or stored). So if you already have nuclear plants which are in good order, you want to sweat them. Whether it makes sense to build new nuclear infrastructure in an age of cheap renewables and improving energy storage, however, is a different question.
, rather then
Hmm. I don't need to read the article, then.
If you ever see someone shilling solar over nuclear, it's because they are useful idiots succumbing to propaganda.
You can sell solar to any moron, which is why there are so many dipshits on these forums shilling it without understanding it.
They went up because they turned on other non green energy instead. The ones who made this decision are the same who you are supposed to trust for nuclear energy.
Nuclear and renewables are for different purposes and are complementary. Taking an all-or-nothing approach to energy will drastically delay net-zero generation.
oh, the old "base load" lie? the one that exists because large power companies want to keep milking their massive investment power plants to generate more ROI.
think about it, it stipulates that a "base load" power plant should be running all the time to cover the load on the grid, but what would be the point of renewables then? you're not going to magically consume more power just because wind/solar are producing more.
no, if you actually want renewables used, you need secondary power generation that can be ramped up or down in minutes not weeks that can be adjusted based on grid load and renewable production, but that would mean less uptime for the lucrative big power plants.
Here is a copypasta from another user:
*When it comes to generating electricity, nuclear is hugely more expensive than renewables. Every 1000Wh of nuclear power could be 2000-3000 Wh solar or wind.
If you’ve been told “it’s not possible to have all power from renewable sources”, you have been a victim of disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.
This is all with current, modern day technology, not with some far-off dream or potential future tech such as nuclear fusion, thorium reactors or breeder reactors.
Compared to nuclear, renewables are:
- Cheaper
- Lower emissions
- Faster to provision
- Less environmentally damaging
- Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel
- Decentralised
- Much, much safer
- Much easier to maintain
- More reliable
- Much more capable of being scaled down on demand to meet changes in energy demands
Nuclear power has promise as a future technology. But at present, while I’m all in favour of keeping the ones we have until the end of their useful life, building new nuclear power stations is a massive waste of money, resources, effort and political capital.
Nuclear energy should be funded only to conduct new research into potential future improvements and to construct experimental power stations. Any money that would be spent on building nuclear power plants should be spent on renewables instead.
Frequently asked questions:
- But it’s not always sunny or windy, how can we deal with that?
While a given spot in your country is going to have periods where it’s not sunny or rainy, with a mixture of energy distribution (modern interconnectors can transmit 800kV or more over 800km or more with less than 3% loss) non-electrical storage such as pumped storage, and diversified renewable sources, this problem is completely mitigated - we can generate wind, solar or hydro power over 2,000km away from where it is consumed for cheaper than we could generate nuclear electricity 20km away.
- Don’t renewables take up too much space?
The United States has enough land paved over for parking spaces to have 8 spaces per car - 5% of the land. If just 10% of that space was used to generate solar electricity - a mere 0.5% - that would generate enough solar power to provide electricity to the entire country. By comparison, around 50% of the land is agricultural. The amount of land used by renewable sources is not a real problem, it’s an argument used by the very wealthy pro-nuclear lobby to justify the huge amounts of funding that they currently receive.
- Isn’t Nuclear power cleaner than renewables?
No, it’s dirtier. You can look up total lifetime emissions for nuclear vs. renewables - this is the aggregated and equalised environmental harm caused per kWh for each energy source. It takes into account the energy used to extract raw materials, build the power plant, operate the plant, maintenance, the fuels needed to sustain it, the transport needed to service it, and so on. These numbers always show nuclear as more environmentally harmful than renewables.
- We need a baseline load, though, and that can only be nuclear or fossil fuels.
Not according to industry experts - the majority of studies show that a 100% renewable source of energy across all industries for all needs - electricity, heating, transport, and industry - is completely possible with current technology and is economically viable. If you disagree, don’t argue with me, take it up with the IEC. Here’s a Wikipedia article that you can use as a baseline for more information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy *
Here is some info about the only construction projects in the US from the last 25 years:
-
The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned after the expenditure of at least A$12.5 billion leading Westinghouse to file for bankruptcy in 2017.
-
Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors). The current cost estimate of A$37.6-41.8 billion is twice the estimate when construction began. Costs continue to increase and the project only survives because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts. The project is six years behind schedule.
-
The Watts Bar 2 reactor in Tennessee began operation in 2016, 43 years after construction began. That is the only power reactor start-up in the US over the past quarter-century. The previous start-up was Watts Bar 1, completed in 1996 after a 23-year construction period.
-
In 2021, TVA abandoned the unfinished Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama, 47 years after construction began and following the expenditure of an estimated A$8.1 billion.
who the fuck is downvoting this?
I’d really rather put all that money and effort into developing fusion power plants. In 20 or 30 years, we should actually be building commercial ones. And the promise of that is far beyond anything nuclear plants could ever deliver.
I can see, maybe, building a few more nuclear plants to cover the gap, but a widespread effort to build many more new ones? The resources for that really up to go elsewhere.
But, with regards to the Indian point power plant, the plant was shut down because it was old and damaged and leaking into the local environment. That particular plant very much needed to be shut down, not because it was a nuclear power plant, just because that particular plant was too old and broken to continue safe operation.
Well, no. It's not feasible because of lack of energy storage. There is no way you would power from renewables through winter with current technology. Period. Ask Germans, one of the most renewable countries in Europe and one of the biggest pollutors at same time.
If we invent energy storage for such large scale then it's just a matter of building plenty of sources.Germany right now has about 60-70% renewable electricity in the summer and about 50% renewable in winter. 100% is absolutely achievable. You need to install more capacity than you need of course and there will be times where you generate much more power than you need. That is not a problem because a) renewables are cheap to install and b) you can use that excess power to charge batteries or synthesize hydrogen.
Those in turn can be used for times where power production might now be enough otherwise. We have the technology, we are deploying it right now and by the time the last coal plants are shut down, it will work.If we start building nuclear power today, we get less capacity slower for a higher price.
How much of those costs are due to obstructionism by anti-nuclear folks like yourself?
Also, breeder reactors are not "potential future tech". There are numerous contemporary breeder reactors designs, and the very first nuclear reactor to generate grid power in the United States was a breeder reactor.
The environmental advocacy groups are their own enemy.
Lol, anti-environment propaganda. Also, it's really hard for me to accept nuclear energy as a source, considering how dangerous it can be, and because of the fact that ANTI-environmentalists are pushing for it so hard.
But wind turbines kill birds!
Fossil fuel advocates always have a reason to fight for their paymasters.