Skip to main content

If not Indian Point, then What?



On Tuesday, Rod Adams posted an analysis of a letter to the editor about replacing Indian Point with a natural gas-fired power plant. Rod walks through the calculation of the amount and cost of the gas needed to fuel that alternative. The numbers are huge - by Rod's estimate the fuel costs alone would exceed $550 million per year. Check it out at this link and kudos to Rod.


Note: For more information, also see David Bradish's 2008 post at this link.

Comments

Sterling Archer said…
The cost doesn't matter! Since New York went to Obama in the electoral college, he can be depended upon to sell T-bills to the Chinese and pay for the natural gas that way, so that New Yorkers don't have to pay for it. Price is no object!
Anonymous said…
What does Obama have to do with this thread? Has he ever utterred a word opposing Indian Point? There are plenty of teabagger web sites to post this stuff. Stick to the subject.
SteveK9 said…
Anonymous: Thanks, could not have said it better.

It may take something like having Exelon close down Oyster Creek and then people watching the electric bills jump to combat this idiocy --- trouble is, it will take a long time for the lesson to sink in.
Anonymous said…
The struggle to increase gas capacity in the northeast is an even bigger struggle than the nuclear/antinuclear struggle.


Upshot: There is not now, nor will there be in the immediate future, any excess gas capacity to replace IPEC's generation.


It took over 12 years to install the vastly reduced Millennium pipeline, and there are no plans for any new pipes.


Therefore any talk about replacing IPEC with gas, is purest naive nonsense.


We need not compute anything, to put the lie to Matthiessen's pipe dream.
Anonymous said…
The National Academy of Sciences studied the question of replacing Indian Point back in 2006.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11666&page=R1

Their conclusion?

"While the committee is optimistic that technical solutions do exist for the replacement of Indian Point, it is considerably less confident that the necessary political, regulatory, financial, and institutional mechanisms are in place to facilitate the timely implementation of these replacement options. The importance of this issue cannot be overstated in developing options for maintaining a reliable electric energy supply for the New York City metropolitan area."

In other words, New York City is in deep do-do (e.g., blackouts) without Indian Point.
DocForesight said…
For as offensive as it is to blaming Obama in this, can we agree that it is equally offensive to use the "teabagger" or "denier" smear?

The fact is, eliminating IP would cause intense hardship on New Yorkers and provide nothing in environmental benefit - in fact, it would inflict more harm. Can we stick to the facts and recognize our real adversary - anti-nukes - and not merely our political ones?
Anonymous said…
Wasn't there also some move to ban docking of LNG carriers in Northeast ports? So you can't pipe it, you can't ship it, how are you even going to transport the fuel to a generating site, much less build the darn thing and it's millions of tons of CO2 emissions.
Anonymous said…
There are plenty of teabagger web sites to post this stuff.

"Teabgger" is it? Since when did NEI Nuclear Notes become a porn blog? We don't need that kind of Democratic Underground-style filthy language here. Stick to the subject? How about starting with not using gutter language?
Anonymous said…
To our anonymous moral overseer:

The term also has non-obscene definitions. Some of the Tea Party groups have referred to themselves using this term.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/15/snapshots-of-teabaggers

Your choosing to default to the obscene definition is not my fault or concern. Do you also complain on the ESPN web site every time they mention balls?
Anonymous said…
"Can we stick to the facts and recognize our real adversary - anti-nukes - and not merely our political ones?"

This is hilarious coming from DocForesight, as this is perhaps the only thread on this blog he's commented on that he HASN'T tried to turn into an anti-Obama discussion.
Anonymous said…
I withdraw above comment, was confusing DF with someone else. My apologies Doc. There's a lot of (off-topic) Obama-bashing on this blog, and sometimes it's hard to keep track of who said what.
Anonymous said…
The term also has non-obscene definitions.

Oh, stop it. Just stop it. Don't try to make jerks out of us. We knew what you meant, and you did, too. So just stop it.

If you wanted to refer to the anti-tax increase, anti-big government, anti-government takeover protesters, there were other terms you could have used. But you chose a term that had the most obscene connotations. Like I said, we don't need that DU-style filth here.
DocForesight said…
@Anon (#?) -- Apology accepted. I try diligently to leave comments that are substantive, occasionally humorous - even though it takes some effort.

We can "thank" people like Rachel Maddow for the spread of the "teabagger" smear. The Tea Party Patriots could hardly be convicted of conjuring that moniker to their movement. And I'd be willing to bet that a high percentage of them are strong proponents of nuclear power plants.

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…