Skip to main content

New York Attorney General Joins Fight Against Indian Point

By Eric McErlain
From yesterday's New York Daily News:
State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo will join the fight to shut the Indian Point nuclear power plant, just 25 miles north of New York City in Westchester.

Cuomo will announce today his support of Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano in his legal battle with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency that oversees Indian Point, the Daily News has learned.

Cuomo's office will provide the support through research, advice and lawyers for court appearances.
As I'm sure many recall, Cuomo's father, former Governor Mario Cuomo, helped lead the fight that eventually led to the closure of the Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Andrew Cuomo is completely overstepping the bounds of his office.

If Indian Point were to be shut down, New York state would be seriously short of generation capacity.

Andrew Cuomo is creating a conflict of interest with the New York Public Service Commission, whose mandate is to "guarantee safe, secure, and reliable access to energy, telecommunications, and water services for New York's citizens and businesses." (from their homepage). The NY PSC is tasked with ensuring (in a regulatory fashion) that there is sufficient generation capacity to meet the needs of the NY ISO's grid.
July 13, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Anonymous said…
Andy Cuomo wants to follow in his father's footsteps, Mario having shut Shoreham down after its construction was complelted and it was operating at low power.

I knew this would happen with the election of Elliot Spitzer as governor and Andy Cuomo as NYS AG. Hillary and Chuck are their US Senators, too, and they'll likewise ingratiate themselves with the Riverkeeper crowd. Beware of Clinton for the Whitehouse; watch what happens to the NRC and the state of regulation with her ascendency to power.

I thank God that I have moved out of NY State to one down south where some common sense still prevails.

New Yorkers deserve exactly what they have voted for themselves.

I only hope the country won't follow their sad example in 2008.

Regards,

Paul Primavera
July 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said…
If New York wants to pay more for their power, then so be it.

I do find it strange that individual in power can try to bankrupt honest companies in their own state and look like heros.

I think that the state should be required to buy the Indian Point reactors from Entergy for the price of $1500 per kW electric. Once the state owns the plants honestly, they are then free to shut them down. I am sure that the citizens would revolt at that type of state spending.
July 13, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Royce Penstinger said…
Entergy bought the plants knowing the licenses expired in 2012 and 2015. If our community is successful in seeing Entergy's license renewal application denied, why should we then buy the plants? They are unsafe reactors, and need to go...if we can stop relicensing, Entergy's onlyy choice to to spend our money decommissioning the site, and that reality looks more real with each passing day as the Anti Nuclear Movement gets organized.
July 18, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more