Skip to main content

Fossil-Fuel Bias in Indian Point Water Permit Debate?

John Wheeler at This Week in Nuclear keeps hitting hard against New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation:

In my further research on this topic I discovered a damming piece of evidence that proves NY State is giving preferential treatment to fossil fuels while at the same time imposing unfair regulations on neighboring nuclear energy facilities, the largest competitors to fossil fuels.

Stop by for the whole story.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Would it be possible to sue in court under the "equal protection" clause of the constitution? Treating parties differently under the law is illegal. This seems to be a clear case of that.

Jim Hopf
Jason Ribeiro said…
The compromise screen solution that John Wheeler proposed is the best environmental solution from almost any angle. Closing the plant down will cause more fish to be harmed because more gas and other less environmentally friendly solutions would have to replace Indian Point. Building cooling towers would divert power production to thermal fossil solutions in the interim and again, create a greater thermal signature than if Indian Point were allowed to run as is. The screen solution will add a margin of improvement to the plant's already very low environmental footprint at a reasonable cost - it's a win-win for everyone to go this route.
Marilyn Elie said…
DEC has required closed cycle cooling NOT cooling towers. Cheaper radiator style systems are commo
n in the industry. Wedge wire has not been used in fast moving rivers like the Hudson and was rejected at Oyster Creek as ineffective. It does nothing to prevent thermal pollution that is so deadly to the river Eco system.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…