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
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...
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.
Sounds less like it needed to be closed than that it needed to be repaired. It wasn't a problem because it was a nuclear plant, that was actually good and we need more nuclear plants. It was a problem because it was poorly maintained.
It was also a problem because it was a nearly 70 year old power plant design that would likely cost less to replace with a modern design from scratch than to try and repair the existing facility.
But anti-nuclear sentiment is strong enough that people don't understand how much they have improved since the 1950s so they assume a new plant will be as bad for the environment as this one.
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.
I'm aware, but, if we push for nuclear in the US right now, it will be for profit, and that's why I'm apprehensive. If we can keep it public and ensure proper funding, then I'm for it.
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.
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
According to you. I believe the opposite.
We need to measure the actual dangers (in terms of lives lost, illnesses, etc.) and risks (in terms of probability of various outcomes) involved in order to arrive at an informed conclusion regarding this issue.
Natural gas kills people every day. This plant might, hypothetically, kill people in the future. Barring strong evidence that the second outcome is dramatically larger or more likely, the default should be to avoid killing people now.
Welp...
The US government spent well over six figures teaching me nuclear engineering...
Seriously, it's fucking expensive.
So if you think this comes down to a matter of opinion. That's fine.
Feel free to keep thinking you're the expert. It legitimately doesn't matter in the slightest, I was just trying to help you understand.
Well I’m afraid you’re doing a very poor job of it. If you are truly an expert on this topic it should be easy for you to provide some research that supports your position here. If there is any. Or you can just assert you’re a brilliant expert who should be unquestioningly believed on the basis of a comment on Lemmy. We’ll have to see which is the more effective educational technique.
It does matter, unqualified opinions holding equal weight with expert opinions/analysis is a serious issue in society.
First we have no way of confirming that this person is really an expert and considering they have shown no real advanced knowledge of the topic, count me skeptical.
Second, this completely misunderstands the nature of science and expertise. Science works because it is a process that uses documentation of evidence to arrive at logical and probabilistic conclusions. Experts are not magical unicorns that spray forth truth. They are experts because they have a deep familiarity with the research in their field. Their roles is to share this research, not boldly state opinions and then fall back on their authority when challenged. That is the rhetoric of demagogues.
In fact, I think it is precisely this misunderstanding about the nature of expertise that has led to the problem you’ve described but misunderstood.
He absolutely isn't an expert. He may very well have done what he claims, but if so the military training he received simply teaches him to diligently read from a book and follow the steps listed there. He's no more an expert based on this training than someone is an artisan baker for following the recipe on the back of a box or Betty Crocker.
On a large scale, sure.
But I'm only going to sink so much time into explaining stuff for one person.
On Reddit it was different because 10s even 100s of thousands of people might read a chain of comments.
Smaller communities tho, if someone doesn't get, whatever.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Being afraid of what can go wrong is still being afraid. It's not an insult.
Being afraid does not mean it's irrational or unjustified.
It's risks are pretty minimal, in the grand scheme. I won't say non-existent of course. The possibility of a release is always there, but the impact is going to be measured in negative public perception, not deaths. One of the reasons the plants cost so much to build is because they have to stick a real big concrete dome over the dangerous bit.
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.
And let's not forget that every reactor type was "very safe" at the time. It's true, every power plant can have problems and fail, but if a nuclear one does, consequences could be WAY worse.
First off, RBMK (Chernobyl) wasn't safe as designed. In the US, the style of reactor wouldn't have made it through the required licensing.
Second of all, the consequences being way worse is an exaggeration. If a nuclear power plant has a small release, the (real, scientific) impact would be minimal. If it has a large release then something else happened and the reactor containment was destroyed and whatever massive natural disaster did that is causing waaaaayy more problems. We're probably all dead anyway.
People are afraid of radiation because you can't see or smell or hear it. Which is probably a good thing considering you are surrounded by it all the time.
Someone recently said to me that if people had been introduced to electricity by watching someone die in an electric chair, they'd refuse to have power in their homes. People were introduced to radiation by an atomic bomb.
People: "I'm going to enjoy this sunny day with my shirt off and no sunscreen"
Same people: "I don't want a nuclear plant anywhere in my country."
Also fun are the 5G haters who don't realize that 5G is being delivered over 3.4 ghz to 4.2 ghz but they're ok with the wireless home phones doing 2.4ghz. Also fun fact for those who don't know but you can actually destroy cellular tissue with ultrasound if the amplitude is high enough. Of course the range for this is very short and ultrasonic imagers don't have the power to do this but ultimately this can be summarized as "everything is dangerous if you use enough of it" which just seems obvious and shouldn't need to be mentioned.
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.
As someone who works nuclear field adjacent (and has pretty frequent convos with people working for Plant Vogtle, the plant that's nearly done adding 2 units in Ga) I completely agree about the expense. You can't do full scale nuclear quickly or cheaply enough for it to realistically compete over the short term. Honestly, somewhat rightfully so. I wish every industry had the regulatory hurtles to cross before they got to impact the environment. And they have to pay for their regulators.
As for SMRs, I'm also hopeful there. Mostly because of you could get a small enough one you could literally take it anywhere in the world and power a small town with ease.
there is one cool thing about nuclear though, if you know what you're doing they're ripe for government subsidy investment. One and done, they'll run for like 30-50 years. No questions asked. It's really just the upfront build cost that's the problem.
The georgia plant just opened 7 years late and 17 billion over cost. It is already running residents $4+/month in fees, with up to $13+/month being discussed, and that outside of the cost of electricity. It far, far over ran even huge government subsidies, with the feds putting up 12 billion.
There are much better places to put those billions now than in incredibly late and overly expensive "modern" nuclear.
To be completely fair to them, a ton of the delay was over lawsuits. I mean, you'd definitely end up dealing with those regardless of where you put upa NPP, but just giving them that small benefit f doubt there.
I'm a customer of theirs, paying the stupid fee. They got all celebratory about getting to the end and now the bill has to be paid and oh look, it's the customers paying. Joy.
I work nuclear industry adjacent, so I guess it's job security. And with that disclaimer I'll add this:
Building new plants is definitely going to take too long. If we get small modular reactors that will help. Same way if we get better batteries for solar and wind storage or new tech in geothermal. The simple point is that we are 50+ years behind. We gotta try anything and everything. It's our only hope at this point. And no matter what, it's going to cost. Money, land, your view from your backyard. People aren't willing to sacrifice anything to get it done, and that's how it's going to end for us if we don't change. And that's true for literally every problem we have. Nimby-ism will be the death of us.
this
most of that is going to be skill issues. "modern nuclear reactors" are multiple factors simpler than existing gen 2 and 3 plants. The problem is that they don't exist, and nobody wants to fund them right now.
If none of them have been built, then they aren't "modern" reactors. They are "theoretical" or "promising designs," with any improvements being just as "potential" as other unproven techs.
they are modern reactor designs, forgive me for not speaking like an autistic nerd who has a hyper fixation on weird shit for 12 fucking seconds.
They are modern reactors. Just like the RBMK is an old and antiquated reactor, even though they aren't being built anywhere. Same thing for BWR reactors, which aren't nearly as common as PWR even though they may be built every so often.
While renewables get build without subsidies, because they pay off anyway.
there are a lot of subsidies for renewables right now. They both have use cases, and different advantages. Nuclear is just particularly apt for the exact situation we're in right now.
As economists say, diversify investments.
You mean being in need of green energy as soon as possible? I don't see nuclear helping short term.
not immediately, but a very low carbon energy source that lasts for upwards of half a century? That's incredibly invaluable.
Especially if something were to plateau in solar or wind power for example.
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.
That specter's back though.
Not quite the same level as the cold war, but yeah, it's back baby
That's putting it mildly. Most people alive at the time were as certain as they could be that a nuclear apocalypse was right around the corner. Kids were told as much in school. Right now it's floated as a possibility, but most people don't take it seriously or aren't aware of it much at all.
Nor will they. Nuclear bombs have been coopted by the ever churning content machine that is western media into "this is an explosion, but it's really fucking big".
Shit, look at what's happened to Godzilla. We have Godzilla Minus One vs Monsterverse Godzilla. I don't think I need to break down how trivial Monsterverse Godzilla is by comparison. "Very big, very cool, big explodey lizard wow" is about all Godzilla amounts to in the West, and it is a walking metaphor for a nuclear bomb.
Why would anyone be afraid of something so trivialized? We've been fucking powerscaled into not caring about nuclear bombs.
Nuclear weapons weren't "coopted." It's extremely unlikely because any country that uses would similarly be glassed. Sure, it's not zero, but probably not too far off.
I clearly meant nuclear bombs as a concept.
i'm sorry, we power scaled a 3kilometer wide sun on earth?
As far as something to be afraid of on a day to day basis, yes. This is speaking of both the real world and fiction. Fiction is obvious as to why, Goku can fucking blow up galaxies or some shit. Superman becomes God at some point or whatever.
In the real world, when is the threat of a singular nuke ever the case? Seriously, when? It's always total thermonuclear annihilation. You never hear about a singular nuke. Most people fear being shot or stabbed more than total nuclear annihilation. The idea is too abstract.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
Well i didn't know this. I will read up more on this. Thank you.
that's true, but so is everything that hasnt been built since the decline of nuclear power. Frankly i don't think it really matters anymore. We struggle to build existing gen 2 and 3 plants now, we don't have gen 4 plants off the ground yet, and thorium is in that camp.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
Citation needed. It received a 40-year permit to start because that was the max permit issued.
Lots of things last well past their "expected service life." That is why there is the word EXPECTED. The problem was in the spent fuel pools. They could build brand new ones.
Tell me, what was the expected service life of the Brooklyn Bridge? Should people avoid it because continuing to use it is "a recipe for disaster?"
The fact is, intensive inspections would have been required for another permit to continue operating.
Listen, if you think we should build newer and better nuclear power plants, I am right with you. But until that happens, we cannot just flush what we have down the toilet.
Should we build wind and solar? Absolutely. But we also need green power that works when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, and that is what Indian Point gave the state of NY for decades.
It cites a "green win." The groundwater issue is absolutely a green issue.
But even then, those pushing to close it down claimed it would be replaced by green energy. The National Resourced Defence Council claimed that "Indian Point Is Closing, but Clean Energy Is Here to Stay." The claimed that "because of New York’s landmark 2019 climate legislation and years of clean energy planning and investments by the state, New York is better positioned today than ever to achieve its ambitious climate and clean energy goals without this risky plant."
So, yes, it was absolutely advertised as a climate win that the NY would easily replace it with renewable energy, even when those 3 gas turbine plants were being bought online.
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, nuclear can be profitable. It's just that fossil fuels are more profitable.
But this is also where the government needs to step in. There should be a carbon tax to account for the climate change externality. Also, clean sources of power including nuclear should be subsidized.
Keep in mind that while environmentalists maybe can't stop it, some of them happily join a coalition with NIMBYs and indeed, fossil fuel companies to stop nuclear.
Even if the government did start heavily subsidizing nuclear, it will take a decade for new plants to come online. In the meantime, hundreds of gigawatts of renewables will come online, and storage and efficiency technologies will improve immensely. Like I said in another comment, if renewable power lowers the price of electricity, the nuclear plant will take even longer to be profitable.
We can keep the existing plants we have going. And even in the future, I believe there is space for nuclear. It is still far more consistent at generating power.
And I doubt renewables will make power cheaper.
Listen, the companies building gas turbine generators are not stupid. They know they will run for decades. Renewable energy, while good, just cannot meet increasing demands for power on its own.
Except it already has. It's cheaper (hence a lower electricity price) to build new wind or solar than it is to continue operating a coal power plant. And because they're renewable the only real costs are the initial construction and some fairly easy maintenance. Without the fuel costs the real price of electricity will go down over time. A rooftop solar system will pay for itself after 7-10 years and from then on the electricity is essentially free.
Meanwhile, when Vogtle 3 came online last year electricity prices in Georgia went up 3% because they passed along the cost of construction to customers.
Plus, building a nuclear power plant takes decades. Vogtle 3 started planning in 2006, and took a decade to build and didn't come online until last year. In the meantime the price of solar dropped by 75%, and we've added 38 GW of solar capacity. Wind went down in price about 25% and added 130 GW of capacity.
So I'd rather wait a decade to tear down the gas turbine generators - or power them with biofuel somehow - than wait for a nuclear plant to come online.
I've checked and rechecked my power bill. Definitely not cheaper.
I live in the Great Lakes, where essentially it is cloudy 90% of the time from October-April. My home has a relative roof that faces east and west, not south. Rooftop solar does not pay for itself here so easily. And that is besides the regulations the power companies have placed on it, essentially eliminating even net metering and only giving you pennies for excess power production.
The planet can't wait a decade while we build out renewables. We have to keep what nuclear we have going at least.
I guess the regulatory environment in PA is nicer, because I can buy 100% renewable electricity for around 3¢/kWh cheaper here than the standard price for dirty energy from the utility. I don't have rooftop solar either and can't because of a big tree, but I still benefit from more renewables.
But I agree that if we're going to have nuclear be a significant component of greenhouse gas reductions we're going to have to keep the ones we have. Mostly because new ones won't produce anything but carbon emissions for 10 years while they're being built, while solar and wind will start producing power even before the projects are finished.
P.S. The fact that we don't have offshore wind on the Great Lakes is a waste of good cold air.
The Great Lakes presents a difficult problem for offshore wind. Since it is fresh water and not salt water, you have to deal with far more ice. Ice beats the shit out of anything left on the lake. Though, with climate change going the way it is, maybe it won’t be a problem at all.
Yeah, here in Ohio things are run by Republicans. The party of small government wants to block most renewable development in the state. And renewable energy is certainly no cheaper here. They have also helped utilities more to more fixed cost billing that makes solar (and also electrifying in place of natural gas) not economically feasible for many.
And I’m not sure picking a supplier that promises renewables, anyway. It’s not like you get to pick and choose the electrons that come to your home. You get whatever is on the grid.
There was a pretty big scandal about companies promising 100% renewable and not giving it a few years back, so they cracked down on that and I'm confident that I'm at least paying for renewable electrons to get put onto the grid.
PA does a lot of things bad (cough PennDOT cough) but it does a good job of electricity supply and is pushing renewables hard.
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.
This is a great point about renewables: A partially finished solar or wind power installation can produce some power and start recouping costs. A nuclear plant doesn't start bringing in income until it's completely finished, so all those billions tied up in design and construction are a liability for a lot longer.
You didn't factor in that nuclear only takes forever because we haven't done it in a long time and have lost all of the knowledge and skilled builders that know how to do it. If we properly pursued new nuclear plants in the US on a federal and state level it would absolutely be the best option.
I know you touched on it but the battery storage needed to make wind reliable would be enormous.
I'm a firm believer nuclear and renewables are what we need to be spending our time and money, not one or the other but both.
I didn't, because its not true.
France has been building new reactors consistently since they started in the 50s and yet their latest reactor Flamamville 3 has been under construction since 2007.
The only people that can do Nuclear quickly are China through a combination of lesser safety standards, their totalitarian government, and the massive scale at which they are building them.
You don't need batteries to make windows viable, there are lots of solutions, the most obvious being to just overbuild it.
I'm not, nuclear just doesn't make sense to build right now, nuclesr is a medium tern solution to a long term problem that needs immediate solutions.
You get way way more MWs per $ with wind. Wind farms can be built in 6 months and start generating power immediately. Even the fastest NPPs can't compete. Wind farms can be built anywhere because they take no workers to operate and requite much less lightly skilled workers to maintain and no water to oeprate (so arent affected by droughts). They are less hindered by planning regulations, nimbys and protest groups, can be built onshore or offshore and also don't have the chance to make an area uninhabitable for generations.
The only advantages nuclear has is a smaller footprint which is mitigated by wind being dispersed and stable output. Which is something that can be compensated for in wind.
Canada's CANDU reactors were built in the 60's and are providing Ontario 60-80% of its power.
Shitty design and build are the main problem. Not the age
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.
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.
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.
Where have I ever said nuclear power is unsafe?
You're inventing me saying something and accusing me of gaslighting because it disagrees with an opinion you happen to have.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is and how unlikely it is now for me to ever attempt to try and help you understand anything?
As long as they are run by corporations, they will not be well maintained.
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
You sure can indeed. But running with one leg isn't as efficient as two.
Its a wrong analogy. We have limited resources and investment in renewables are faster and more efficient. Every dollar spent on nuclear doesn't go in renewables, so its better to focus the effort.
Nor with a stick up your ass
Are you saying that building nuclear power plants is analogous to having a stick in one's ass?
No, I just thought that was as glib response to a complex issue as the one you provided (and along with the original post)
Hey man, thanks for the insightful and intelligent response then.
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.
https://www.greentechrenewables.com/article/can-solar-panels-be-recycled https://orsted.com/en/insights/the-fact-file/can-wind-turbines-be-recycled As volumes increase, the economics of recyling will increase as well, as will the developed techniques for recycling.
"the market will solve this problem" but woke?
The claim was that renewables don't have a recycling story. I gave references showing that's not true and the comments that these efforts are early days and ought to improve with scale. Your glib response adds nothing
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.
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?
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.
At some point you have to acknowledge nuclear power (particularly from planes dating back to the 60s/70s) as their own waste problem.
And you can try to address this waste with more modern clean up techniques. Or you can decommission these old plants. But just waiting for derelict facilities to crumble, on the ground that "Nuclear Good / FF Bad" means another generation of Fukushima like events that drive people further from nuclear as a long term solution.
That's not a legitimate argument because the West combined emits less CO2 than just China. The economy of the West is growing, but emitting less carbon because of more green power sources, one of which being nuclear
A lot of that is still the Wests carbon, just because our products and materials are now coming from China doesn't mean we are absolved from the responsibility of those emissions. This is why reduce was meant to be the biggest part of reduce, reuse, recycle, and this means degrowth.
Also the economy of the West is shrinking because of the depletion of easy to access fossil fuesl, despite renewables.
Another interesting article about one of the most polluting sectors, the steel industry. It explains that green power sources might mean more fossil fuels not less and it also talks about why China can't adopt clean steel production to the same level we can.
Not even remotely true, per capita.
Because a lot of Chinese people still do sustenance farming. They don't add to carbon, they actually might be carbon negative since they grow crops
That hasn't been true in decades.
I've met them in Yunnan last year, lmao, you have no idea, you've never been to China so shut the fuck the up
It's funny to hear folks call you a Wumao "never even been to China" in such short order.
It takes a lot of time and money to travel the world. But I'm sure you have an abundance of both, right? I certainly don't, which is why I post Chinese Propaganda for a living.
You should not comment on things you don't have basic knowledge of
Uh huh
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.
We got one, boys.
Learn how the power grid works before commenting further.
Here's a video to get you started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1BMWczn7JM
Wow you are unpleasant
So unexpected !
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/
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?
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?
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.
Best time to plant a tree was 50 years ago. Second best time is now.
Sure, if we could snap our fingers and have a bunch of nuclear plants it would make sense. But the tech is all ancient, and the regulatory structure is oppressive. It will take decades to build out the amount of nuclear capacity we need and cost inordinate amounts of money, and we've already passed the tipping point where renewables are the better choice.
Just as an example, it took us 14 years to build a single reactor in the Vogtle plant costing over $30 billion dollars. We'd need massive reforms to the regulations and supply chain for building reactors to bring those numbers down and that just won't happen fast enough.
Even China, who is the world leader in nuclear power these days is slowing down building of new reactors in favor of renewables, and they do not have the regulations and supply issues we have in the USA.
Please don't be so defeatist.
I wouldn't call it defeatist, nuclear should never be more than a stopgap to 100% renewables. if anything, it's awesome that we've gotten far enough with renewables that switching to them entirely is now a viable proposition. It sucks that we spent so much time dependent on fossil fuels when we could've been using nuclear, but the past is the past and the future is bright.
I will say, small modular reactors might have a place in the energy mix. They would be fantastic for more isolated grids where stability is difficult to achieve with 100% renewable energy. Think small island nations or remote areas. Also would be good for emergency and disaster recovery scenarios. We (as in the USA) also already have the supply chain to build them somewhat efficiently since we use them on our aircraft carriers. Just needs some tweaking to work well on land and for the regulations to loosen up to make it economically feasible.
Battery tech isn’t there yet, the production and sourcing isn’t green enough and the assurances aren’t there
A few years ago you would be right but we're just about there, especially once sodium ion batteries become more mature which is definitely going to be a "next few years" thing, not a speculative maybe it'll happen someday thing. There's also ways to store power other than chemical batteries, like pumped storage hydro.
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.
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.
Or the issue of space occupied, nuclear plants don't take up anywhere near the same amount of space as renewables.
I know. The price per kWh is still better with renewables and the speed of construction doesn't even compare.
There are a lot of people who do not. In any case, as I said, there is still the issue of storage. Nuclear is great because of the consistency of generation. It meets base loads. I believe there is plenty of space for both nuclear and renewables.
And you want to talk speed of construction and price per kWh, well, look at gas turbines. There is a reason Indian Point was replaced with those and not renewables. Yes, we have to pay a premium for consistent clean power, but it is worth it.
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.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-completion-south-fork-wind-first-utility-scale-offshore-wind-farm
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.
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
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.
No nuclear plants were shut down in 2022. Emissions rose because gas was expensive and more coal was burned as a result. The downward trend has since resumed.
In 2023, Germany imported about 12 TWh from France which is about 2% of the total power consumption. Germany tends to export more energy than it imports. Imports and exports are a very normal thing because of the European power grid.
France has its own set of problems with all their nuclear power, namely very high (tax funded) maintenance costs and lack of cooling water in the dry summers.
Import/export is of course a very normal thing. However I bet those imports were mostly during winter and exports during summer. Again, it's not a problem of averages, it's a problem of peaks happening mostly during winter. If there is a windless day during winter, Germany would either have to import a lot of energy or burn tons of coal and gas.
Of course France's nuclear power plants are not without issues, but look at the CO2/pollution emission map for Europe.
Not quite
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)
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.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29772
If they had to apply for a renewal, then their old license ran out.
That is exactly what EOL is.
i meant planned EOL, as most of frances reactors are quickly approaching.
So when my driver's license expires after 8 years, my driving ability has reached EOL, and I should not be able to renew. Sound logic there.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Other plants have been granted license renewals and are operating just fine.
I never claimed that the license couldn't be renewed nor that it wouldn't be running fine.
The license period had a pre-determined END and it's LIFEtime has not been extended.
Surely the very existence of a time limit to the license must mean that the option to not renew it after a certain time has been anticipated when the license was originally issued.
And for all that it does not matter, whether that was the correct decision or not, whether other plants had their licenses renewed orwhether these other plants are operating just fine.
You sounded like you were claiming that. Do you realize there is a difference between the end of a LICENCE and the end of something's functional life? You were claiming that because the LICENCE was only good for 40 years (the longest license the feds issued) that it was somehow the end of the PLANT'S useful life.
As I said elsewhere, they applied for a 20-year renewal, NY sued, and the high costs of fighting for the renewal led them to settle and shut it down. But NONE of that means that the plant was some falling apart scrapheap that needed closed, which is what I took from what you said.
This may be somewhat pedantic but the plant's functional life ended when the license ran out.
The planned/ hoped for EoL may have been longer but if there was a 40 year license then the end of that license is also the end of the initially licensed lifetime. Otherwise they could have just issued a 50 or 60 year license.
That doesn't mean lifetimes cannot be extended, many plants run longer than initially planned.
But not renewing a license is hardly a premature shutdown,
As already stated, I didn't make any argument about its functionality and it has no bearing to my argument.
That said, other have claimed that the plant was apparently leaking, which does sound like an argument against renewal.
You are being intentionally obtuse. Thank for helping climate change to kill us.
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
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...
As far as I can see that's not a big deal. Just sounds scary right?
It assumes a normal distribution spread out over an equal area. Which isn't really something we should be assuming.
But yeah. 0.7 millirem is the equivalent of eating 70 bananas.
So if that was the most anyone got, it's not a big deal.
But we shouldn't be assuming that.
It was under federal regulations, but this is American industry we're talking about. "Within regulations" doesn't always mean "safe".
So it's also only if you eat sea food from there.
It does sound like a lot of fuss over nothing tbh.
Mate, why keep asking questions?
If you want to learn more, try reading something more than a single article.
Like, nuclear engineering school sucked a lot, and was a while ago for me. You're wanting to ask a teeny tiny question, wait for me to respond, re-read the same article, then ask a follow up.
This is the absolute least efficient way for you to learn things. Especially nuclear exposure and all the ramifications.
Like, it would be different if you had a simple question or two that you asked in one comment for someone to help you understand.
I'll buy "How can you do the right thing in the wrong way?" for $1000
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.
The cheaper renewable energy gets the less economic sense a nuclear power plant makes. If you design a multi-billion-dollar plant for an expected electricity price and that price drops in half before the plant is completed now it won't make a profit for twice as long.
For sure. If renewables are already significantly cheaper, and that’s because the cost has been falling and falling, how much cheaper will they be in another decade?
For nuclear, maybe the only hope is if SMRs ever take off and benefit from some economies of scale. If you can just order a handful of modular reactors from the factory and be selling electricity within a year, that changes the whole dynamic.
Unfortunately I think the latest I read about it is that SMRs are currently more expensive per watt than the traditional nuclear plants, and they’re focusing on remote areas and industrial heat and stuff like that. If that’s correct, we might need a solar-like rapidly dropping price for them to compete for mainstream grid power use.
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.
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.
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.
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.
surprised pikachu
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.
Hmm. I don't need to read the article, then.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
More information
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.
We don't have 20-30 years to wait for a "maybe".
We need to drastically reduce emissions yesterday. The way to do that is water, wind, solar.
That’s why we’re investing in renewable green energy in the meantime. Any new nuclear power plant would take a decade to build at least. They don’t just pop up overnight.
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.
So, why don't they have storage then, if it is easy? I also doubt 50% during winter when clouds and short days. Summer is not a problem, winter is when everybody is consuming a lot of energy for heating.
There is not a lot of storage yet because the goal is only to be climate neutral by 2045 and right now, more power generation has the priority. There are limited funds.
I never said it was easy. I said it was more economically viable than constructing dozens of nuclear reactors.
On the contrary, it's one of the biggest economic transitions ever.
Wind turbines make up the biggest share of regenerative capacity in the German power grid and there tends to be more wind in winter:
Sorry it's not the best diagram and it's in German.
The numbers appear to be TWh of power (that's why it doesn't add up to 100). The percentage above each month is the percentage of regenerative sources. 2023 it never dropped beneath 50% except 47 in February.
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.
If you have any data at all that shows that the price is a function of regulation, I would encourage you to share it.
Nuclear costs orders of magnitude more than renewables. You need to offer strong evidence to account for that difference being due to regulation.
I never said the cost of nuclear was a function of regulation. I do believe that NIMBYism has a lot to do with it.
The thesis of your remarks seems to indicate that you think that nuclear power generation is inherently more expensive, and I'd be interested in hearing your non-circular reasoning for that implicit assertion. So far, all I've heard is "Nuclear is more expensive because it is."
A study by MIT in 2020 found that most of the excessive costs related to building nuclear plants are due to lack of decent standardization. Part of the problem is that because of emotional opposition to nuclear, the industry has had little opportunity to actually deploy any of the modular reactor innovations that have been developed in the last 50 years.
Here's a link to the MIT article: https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118
Again, I'm interested in hearing your reasoning for why nuclear is more expensive, other than "it just is" and "renewables are better".
My reasoning is based on the about 80 years of history we have building these.
They did sort of standardize around some reactor designs, and nothing is or was stopping companies from forming consortiums to reducing R&D and manufacturing costs.
They have had 80 years to do it and they have not. Nuclear is very, very challenging power generation that has an easy side of runaway reaction, not a low cost mix of things.
Nuclear has had plenty of time to prove itself and to lower its costs. It has failed to do so and renewables and storage are now so cheap that nuclear no longer makes any real sense.
But yeah, I doubt we are changing each other's minds.
The environmental advocacy groups are their own enemy.