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

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …