Skip to main content

Closing Indian Point Could Be Costly

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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 …