Skip to main content

Closing Indian Point Could Be Costly

By
From the New York Times:
CLOSING the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan could have dire consequences for the county’s economy, according to a new report by the Westchester Business Alliance, a coalition of regional groups.

Electricity bills would soar, and job growth — as well as property values — would suffer, said the report, which was issued on Jan. 31.

The study, prepared by Energy Strategies, consultants in Albany, said that closing the two reactors at Indian Point without creating alternative energy sources — which are not on the horizon — would cause electricity prices in Westchester County to rise more than 150 percent by 2017. Under the consultants’ estimates, the average annual residential electric bill in Westchester would jump to $2,500 from $1,000.

More here. For those who don't remember, the National Academy of Sciences came to similar conclusions in a study they completed back in 2006. And several years prior to that, NEI conducted an economic benefits study of Indian Point and found that for every dollar the plant spends, the U.S. economy produces $2.35 as a result (p. 23).

In two years I'm sure we'll see another study concluding the same intrinsic value of Indian Point to its community.

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
See what you get for ingratiating yourselves with the Democrats?

NYS Governor Spitzer, NYS Attorney General Andy Cuomo, Westchester County Commissioner Andy Spano and Representative Mark Green do NOT care about IPEC, NY State, or electrical supplies. They are DEMOCRAT. Remember that.

This is real simple. When in doubt, vote AGAINST these kinds of people always and everywhere.
February 12, 2008 at 7:58 PM
David Bradish said…
This is real simple. When in doubt, vote AGAINST these kinds of people always and everywhere.

That's a pretty bold yet unsupported statement. NEI's public opinion polling has shown over the past few years that more Democrats favor nuclear energy than oppose it.

We need to continue this trend. Why? Because nuclear energy has to be a non-partisan issue if it is to survive in this country. Nuclear plants will operate for 40-60 years . Do you really think the country will elect Republicans the entire time?

Cuomo and Spitzer are just two vocal opponents of IP. They don't represent the Democratic norm anymore.
February 13, 2008 at 7:31 AM
Matthew66 said…
I would note that neither Spitzer nor Cuomo has issued a press release saying "over my dead body" in relation to Unistar Nuclear's announced intention to submit a COL application for Nine Mile Point (see Unistar confirms Nine Mile Point as EPR site). Spitzer and Cuomo would still need to convince Sheldon Silver and Joseph Bruno of the merits of their views before NY state could take actual action.
February 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Anonymous said…
Well, Dave, if Obama or Hillary win in 08, you'll see what I mean. Individual Dem people may support nuke power, but the majority of their politicians don't. Let's hope, however, that YOU are correct and I am NOT. I truly would like that outcome; then you'll be able to say, "I told you so." But I really think it'll be the opposite way around as Obama or Hillary say McCain is just another Bush.
February 13, 2008 at 2:08 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