More

Indian Point Nuclear Plant Should Be Closed, Report Says

First Posted: 10/17/11 03:41 PM ET Updated: 12/17/11 05:12 AM ET

A report released Monday says southern New York State's Indian Point Energy Center should be closed, despite pressure to keep it open.

The Indian Point Energy Center is located along the banks of the Hudson River in Westchester County, less than 40 miles north of New York City.

The report, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Riverkeeper, suggests that the plant can and should be closed, in favor of readily available alternative energy options, according to a press release.

The report, from consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics, claims that shuttering the nearly 40-year-old plant when its current license expires in 2015 would not mean a need for greater capacity in the region's electric grid until 2020.

In the aftermath of the disaster in Japan, closing Indian Point is important for safety reasons, according to the NRDC. The nuclear power plant is located within a mile of a seismic fault, and is located within the largest metropolitan area in the U.S.

An Associated Press investigation after August's East Coast earthquake found that the earthquake risk to many of America's nuclear plants is much higher than previously estimated.

Even though the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) believes the nuclear plant is safe to operate for another 20 years, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has expressed his belief that alternatives to Indian Point can be found.

The NRC found that Indian Point "doesn’t have adequate protection against earthquakes," making it one of "the most vulnerable [nuclear power plants] to a seismic disaster in the entire nation," according to an NRDC blog post by Frances Beinecke.

The NRDC report claims that the region's energy needs could be met, or exceeded, through wind and solar energy and by increasing the efficiency of existing natural gas plants. They noted, however, that they do not support new natural gas plants until efficiency is improved.

The NRDC suggests that if half of the currently proposed renewable projects are built by 2020, they would provide 580 megawatts of electricity. Combining this with a 1.5 percent reduction in electricity consumption each year, totaling 1,550 megawatts of efficiency measures for the area surrounding New York City, would effectively replace Indian Point's 2,000 megawatt capacity.

Additionally, building several currently-proposed electric transmission lines from upstate New York and New Jersey would further satisfy future energy demands.

A report obtained by The New York Times in July said that closing Indian Point may not be so easy. This report estimates that closing the nuclear plant would increase reliance on fossil fuels in the region, adding five to 10 percent more emissions from carbon and nitrogen oxides to the air around New York City and increasing energy costs in the region by $1.5 billion annually.

Closing Indian Point in 2015 could also mean decreased electric grid reliability and increased power outages for New York City, according to some experts.

Earlier this month, Indian Point operator Entergy hired former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to promote the plant's safety in television and newspaper advertisements. Referring to the Giuliani ad campaign, an Entergy spokesman told The New York Times, "Our goal is to reassure people about the safety of Indian Point."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

A report released Monday says southern New York State's Indian Point Energy Center should be closed, despite pressure to keep it open. The Indian Point Energy Center is located along the banks of ...
A report released Monday says southern New York State's Indian Point Energy Center should be closed, despite pressure to keep it open. The Indian Point Energy Center is located along the banks of ...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 262
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
07:34 PM on 10/19/2011
Need a shower after the comments from Genders and alvdh1. Thought HuffPost had a higher class of comment posters. Signing off for good.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:34 PM on 10/20/2011
You were nothing but a source of misinformation. You came in sure that green was a scam and nuke power was cheaper and safe. You did not have one link to backup your assertions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
02:45 PM on 10/20/2011
Sorry for your bad experience. The antinuclears seem to be down to the b-team.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeffrey Williams
Don't worry ! Nothing is going to be OK !!!
04:54 PM on 10/19/2011
The plant is old and outdated not to mention earthquake pron ... it should be decommissioned and something should be built in its place that is more efficient. In those forty years the area has seen a population that has grown around it and they would be effected if there was a crisis.

Our eco impact on our enviroment that we tend to take for granted is being polluted more and more each day ... nuclear tech needs re evaluated and old plants need replacing at best.

As for the conditions of living in a nuclear disaster call someone in Fukashima or Chernoybl, I'm sure you wont find many Pro Nukers in those area's of the world !
08:53 PM on 10/19/2011
Support for nukes by people living near nuke plants approaches 90%. Coal - not so much. Nuke plants produce zero pollution.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
11:52 AM on 10/20/2011
Site your unbiased source.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:35 PM on 10/20/2011
You mean the people who work at the plant? LOL!
12:30 PM on 10/19/2011
Close Indian Point today and do what tomorrow? As an environmental sustainability director I battle apathy and ignorant zealotry every single day. Ignorant zealotry is worse, because there are no apathetic activists. Even this article states that the NRDC could support new natl gas plant if EFFICIENCY is improved. As a country we're wasting our time by not VEHEMENTLY getting behind making SOLAR the DEFAULT source of our power, heating, and vehicle fuel. Wind is a waste of hardware and human resources. Get OFF the anti-nuke bus, people!
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:45 PM on 10/19/2011
Where do you get this BS?

How many disaster will it take for you to get it?

Nukes are all just a cooling system failure away from meltdown and the spewing of cancer causing waste all over the world, causing the deaths of thousands.

Just losing grid power is an "emergency cooling" situation.

Rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels are cheaper, or soon will be, than nukes, new coal, and oil wars. In combination, these green energies are 24/7, forever, clean, safe, ready to replace all fossil and nukes in 7-15 years, Carbon, land and fresh water negative.

Solar: http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf 1-2 cents per KWH after the first 20 years and the loan is paid off.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/

Far more solar than any other energy: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/

http://www.sunelec.com/ 75 cents per Wp.
cheapest new solar panels 1-2$/Wp http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm

Wind 6 months energy payback: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/EnergyBalanceofWindTurbines.html 3 months

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/18/offshore-wind-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy-eu-climate-chief-says/

http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt waste bio char energy plant. 100 GW electricity
02:24 PM on 10/19/2011
Genders: You bring nothing to the discussion. I hope you don't speak with young people. Please remove yourself from this thread. Thanks.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:03 PM on 10/19/2011
As long as we have responsible institutions strictly watching over our nuclear power plants (and the companies that own them), only natural disaster is really liable to cause such failure, which with the kind of planning they're talking about in this article can be avoided. Modern cooling systems aren't just a cheap AC - they're fairly sophisticated devices held to high performance and maintenance standards.

Of course if we ever get fusion reactors off the ground (so to speak), we'll only need the old fission reactors to get them started, after which they can be disabled until needed again. Looking at the current problems researchers are encountering, I believe a malfunction would most likely cause the fusion reaction to simply stop, rather than go critical as the fission reactors do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tribilin219
AND NO ONE IN JAIL YET, Why?
05:46 PM on 10/18/2011
Close them down, Close them all down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
06:14 PM on 10/18/2011
No, I don't think NRDC and Riverkeeper should be closed down just for their unsupported biases against nuclear. Freedom of speech!
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:46 PM on 10/19/2011
Phase them out, starting with closing the most dangerous plants right away.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
04:59 PM on 10/19/2011
...and replacing them with new nuclear power plants.
photo
PoloniumMan
"It worked." J. Robert Oppenheimer
06:16 PM on 10/21/2011
Which ones are the most dangerous...the ones that haven't killed anyone or the other ones that haven't killed anyone?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:54 PM on 10/18/2011
Every reactor is just a cooling system failure away from meltdown, and explosions spewing cancer death world wide. FACT.

Earthquakes and floods happen to NY. FACT.

Offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels, and rooftop solar can supply all the energy and fuels NYC and the world need. Cheaper than nukes. (maybe not solar in NYC yet, but in sunny areas), faster to install. 24/7 in combination. Carbon and land negative.

We must close the most dangerous reactors now. The temporary increase in fossil use is well worth the reduction in risk.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
01:27 AM on 10/19/2011
I think you have to balance the potential harm of the nuclear power plant with the harm inflicted by an event that would actually trigger a meltdown.

For example: The tsumani in Japan that killed nearly 20,000 people.
If it takes an event that kills 20K to destabilize the reactor, and the reactor damage didn't kill anyone, then does it make sense to spend money on making a better reactor, or would it make more sense to allocate those resources to prevent a tsunami from killing people by the truckload.

Back to the US:
If a tsunami of sufficient magnitude where to hit the Hudson river valley, and it were powerful enough to travel the 40 miles upriver and destroy the reactor, then what would it have done to the 10+ million people that live in the area, and would the radiation be the least of their worries, given that they're dead already from the tsunami?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:41 PM on 10/19/2011
Didn't kill anyone? Cancers. You keep "forgetting" the cancers.

What balance? Expensive, slow to install, waste proliferation, terrorism and disasters.

Nuke power is a total bust.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:31 PM on 10/19/2011
"I think you have to balance the potential harm of the nuclear power plant with the harm inflicted by an event that would actually trigger a meltdown."

Am I missing something...is an event that would trigger a meltdown not part of the potential harm of a nuclear plant?

The fact is that the reactor did not "survive" the tsunami because TEPCO failed to implement safety regulations, and the government regulators did nothing about that failure. The tsunami took out an incredible number of lives and amount of property, but the nuclear disaster is ongoing. It is essentially a man-made disaster created by the arrogance and complacency of the Industry and government. It is diverting the resources that could be used to recover from the natural disaster, and will do so for generations.

Your back to the US remarks...
"same difference", as my kids used to say. Natural disasters by themselves leave incredible loss of life and property...nuclear (man-made) disasters leave in their wake tragedy for generations.
04:01 PM on 10/19/2011
Actually not since the cooling system is backed by multiple battery and fossil fuel systems rigidly maintained with NRC inspection.

The only reactor damaged in Japans orders of magnitude worst disaster than any remotely predicted for NY, was damaged by corruption not the black swan event.

What Gender calls waste biofuels really is compost necessary to maintain soil and recyclables. What's left can supply only a tiny amount of energy.

Nuclear power has never killed anybody safest form of power there is bar none while not so renewables have killed hundreds of thousands in various accidents.

Solar is currently 70 cents a kwh when backed up by filthy gas plant producing far more GHG's than the solar saves and when 5 times sized transmission builds are included. If the gas was replaced with green storage costs would soar to a buck and a half a kwh. Wind is about 40 cents a kwh cheaper.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
05:45 PM on 10/19/2011
Gee, some of it is backed up by really toxic nuclear.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:44 PM on 10/20/2011
Backup systems fail in test and in disasters. 32 reactors in the USA failed their ECCS tests. NYC is due for a large earthquake soon.

Waste Bio fuels is not compost, it's stuff we dump, sewage, and stuff that rots, not composts, rots in the fields emitting massive amounts of methane.

Cancer, you keep "forgetting" the cancers. If you deny the cancers, you also deny that coal causes cancer, right?

Rooftop solar reduces transmission grid load. Nukes increases grid load.

Wind is 6 cents per KWH, Solar 12-15 cents per KWH, Nukes 15-30 cents per KWH, and waste bio fuels 3-12 cents per KWH. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
04:09 PM on 10/18/2011
IAEA issued their report on Fukushima decontamination
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/pre_report.pdf

They had 12 specific recommendations (as well as a number of approvals of existing actions); here's my summary of the 12:
1. Should "avoid over-conservatism which could not effectively contribute to the reduction of exposure doses."
2. Improve "coordination among the main actors"
3. Strengthen "involvement of and cooperation between various stakeholders."
4. Use "appropriate indications/markings... and simple instructions" at access points to the evacuation area.
5. "avoid classifying as “radioactive waste” such waste materials that do not cause exposures that would warrant special radiation protection measures."
6. Communicate about and focus on dose levels rather than "contamination concentrations".
7. Have a (public) "data management plan."
8. On agriculture, remove "some of the conservatism ... by taking into account ...the results obtained from the demonstrations sites."
9. "waste in urban areas [obviously] contains very low levels of radioactivity." "It is effective to utilize the existing infrastructure for municipal and industrial waste."
10. "Before investing substantial time and efforts in remediating forest areas, [assess] if such remediation has benefit in reducing doses"
11. "continue the useful monitoring of freshwater and marine systems."
12. "The national and local governments should cooperate" "to actively pursue appropriate end-points for the waste"
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:47 PM on 10/19/2011
Big business cuts corners till things break. FACT.

Nuclear power is too dangerous.
photo
PoloniumMan
"It worked." J. Robert Oppenheimer
04:49 PM on 10/19/2011
The safest plants are also the most profitable. The marginal cost of nuclear production, which includes regularly scheduled maintenance, is very low, so there isn't anything to be gained by avoiding maintenance activities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
09:49 PM on 10/19/2011
Genders' comments are meaningless. FACT.

It must be true, cause I put "FACT" after it, and in capitals, too.
02:26 PM on 10/18/2011
Fukushima problems were corruption and tidal wave related.

Nothing to do with Indian Point with toughest in the world NRC regulation and whistleblower legislation.

Clearly the Fukushima reactor was not operated according to design with corrupt managers and regulators colluding to keep a far below design requirement 7.5 meter tsunami wall and switchgear and backup in harms way. That would never be allowed to happen in a Western regulated reactor.

7.5 Meter plus high tsunami's occur every decade in the pacific rim. Over a thousand years the chance a thousand plants on that rim will be hit by one is close to 100%. That reduces the currently NRC approved 1 meltdown incident per AP-1000 reactor per 5 million years to 1 in a thousand max - well out of design spec. The exact equivalent of driving a modern vehicle with a hand but no disk brakes - well out of spec but unlikely to cause an accident most days.

Tepco management and regulators were well aware of this abysmal state having been warned many times. Unfortunately,in the Japanese culture where media, politicians, regulators, business and voters work in a kind of corrupt consensus, whistleblowers are non existent.

The Japanese got exactly what they deserved - a very painful lesson that democracy requires citizen participation - voting counts. Unfortunately the rest of the world is paying a price for their complacency.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:48 PM on 10/19/2011
Big business will always cut corners till things break. What magical land of perfect people do you live in?
03:44 PM on 10/19/2011
That's why we engineer for fail safe in modern reactors.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:27 PM on 10/19/2011
They pull some mean tricks but if you were right, then we wouldn't have any reliable cars, computers, cell phones, anything. Things like this are what the government exists for, and why small government it an increasingly impractical goal.
02:21 PM on 10/18/2011
This religious fascination with not so renewables is a demonic waste of precious time and treasure in our fast approaching civilization ending AGW struggle.

Clean and green, zero environmen­tal footprint nuke power plants are routinely build around the word in 4 years and cost less than 3 cents kwh,

For example, AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installati­­ons over the last twenty years all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh when the 1.5 cent a kwh fuel and O&M cost is included.The last one was completed in 2007 in Europe.

Google "cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx"

WInd farms the next cheapest green alternativ­e use far more capital per kwh costing over $15B/Gw and rising or 30 cents a kwh when the required massive amounts of filthy radon, GHG and fine particulat­e spewing low efficiency gas backup and a 5 times sized transmission grid are included. Far cheaper and less GHG's to skip the wind and just use high efficiency gas. Replace the gas with green storage and costs zoom to almost a buck and a half a kwh,

Here's the world's foremost climatolog­ist James Hansen speaking directly to low information green warming deniers who dispute his contention that a warming precipice is fast approaching..

Google "bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansenenergy-koolaid"
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:57 PM on 10/19/2011
This religious fascination with nuclear power is a s a demonic waste of precious time and treasure in our fast approaching civilization ending AGW struggle.

Clean and green, zero environmental footprint rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio fuels plants are routinely build around the word in 4 years and cost 6-15 cents kwh going down to 1 cents per KWH for solar after 20 years.

Meanwhile nuclear power is irradiating the entire planet one disaster at a time. Causing cancers deaths in the thousands, insidiously, under the rates of background case and identical to "natural" cancers, thus the Perfect Mass murder.

New nuclear power in the USA is at most optimistic estimated at 15 cents per KWH and going up. But you will hear 3 cents. A world nuclear lie, that does not include capital costs.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/18/offshore-wind-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy-eu-climate-chief-says/

http://solarcellcentral.com/companies_page.html first solar 2.5$ per Wp installed.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/ rooftop solar cheaper than nukes.

with Waste bio fuels as the "backup" and the source of the chemical and fuels we need, there is no excuse for nuclear power.
03:53 PM on 10/19/2011
Rather than using Genders circularly quoted greenie nonsense with assumptions that are never actually stated, I use actual costs of actual builds.

Solar is currently 70 cents a kwh when backed up by filthy gas plant producing far more GHG's than the solar saves and when 5 times sized transmission builds are included. If the gas was replaced with green storage costs would soar to a buck and a half a kwh. Wind is about 40 cents a kwh cheaper.

What Gender calls waste biofuels really is compost necessary to maintain soil and recyclables. What's left can supply only a tiny amount of energy.

Heres the expert engineers at Duke Energy with their latest solar build a real solar project just online.

Google "biofuelsw­atch.com/s­olar-farm-­starts-ope­ration"

$43 a watt average, 18% capacity factor, 50 cents a kwh at Dukes discount rate.

Nuclear power has never killed anybody while renewables have killed hundreds of thousands in various accidents.

AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installati­ons over the last twenty years all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh when the 1.5 cent a kwh fuel and O&M cost is included.T­he last one was completed in 2007 in Europe.

Google "cnnc.com.­cn/tabid/1­68/Default­.aspx"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:13 PM on 10/18/2011
Wind and solar to offset a nuclear plant?!!! These people are nuttier than I thought.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:55 PM on 10/18/2011
Yes you are.
07:30 PM on 10/18/2011
Or more cynical. They know the gas interests won't mind their rosy predictions.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
10:36 AM on 10/18/2011
People like NRDC have effectively blocked the development of new nuke power plants for almost 30 years. The last commercial reactor brought on line was Watts Bar Plant in 1996. Construction began on This reactor in 1973 and was delayed right along the way by folks just like NRDC. The objective here is to restrict the availability of electricity to drive up the cost and reduce consumption. Reducing consumption can be a good thing as long as it's through efficiency and not because people can no longer afford electricity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gottlieb
hated by left since 1973 and right since 1982
01:59 PM on 10/18/2011
Economics has blocked new plant construction. After the Washington Public Power default on nuclear plant construction bonds in the 1980s, no one is going to lend money for a nuclear power plant. The only ones being built now have federal loan guarantees. Scapegoating environmentalists is a favorite of nuclear power apologists.
02:21 PM on 10/18/2011
Clean and green, zero environmen­tal footprint nuke power plants are routinely build around the word in 4 years and cost less than 3 cents kwh,

For example, AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installati­­ons over the last twenty years all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh when the 1.5 cent a kwh fuel and O&M cost is included.The last one was completed in 2007 in Europe.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:58 PM on 10/19/2011
Thank god someone can stop this million year cancer causing waste spewing disaster called nuclear power.
photo
FDRliberal
Terminating teabag ideology with extreme prejudice
09:17 PM on 10/17/2011
An increase in fossil fuel output is the short term price we have to pay to avoid nuclear apocalypse. In meantime further develop, grow and utilize the many alternative sources of energy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
06:01 PM on 10/19/2011
Not when energy efficiency and energy conservation are considered as the alternative.
09:07 PM on 10/19/2011
Nope won't work. The entire third world wants to use energy like we do. THey are waiting.
07:58 PM on 10/17/2011
I say...dont do anything...let the plant operate until something catostrophic happens,and radiates NYC and New England...then we can all sit around and be monday morning quarterbacks.. Isnt that the way these things are handled???
07:42 PM on 10/17/2011
There are fault lines all over the country. I am not sure where people think wind and solar will replace the capacity of a nuclear plant get their ideas. Study how many wind turbines it takes to produce the power of one AP1000 reactor. The plants are safe. The technology is improving all the time. We have to drasticly reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. And where do these people think New Yorkers are going to reduce consumption by 1.5 percent a year?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:59 PM on 10/18/2011
rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels can produce many times Fossils and nukes. Cheaper then nukes now.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/18/offshore-wind-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy-eu-climate-chief-says/

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/
07:35 PM on 10/18/2011
I do suport both wind and solar power. I am looking into using some solar power for my house. I have seen the wind farms all over this country and most of the time they don't seem to be producing. I do not know why. The large solar plant that was planned for Nevada was delayed because of its high demand for water. Again I am not sure why it needs so much but maybe some one else here does. I belive it takes over 300 wind turbines turning 24 hours a day to produce the power of 1 AP1000 reactor. I do belive wind and solar have thier place but so does nuclear. The technology keeps improving.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
06:05 PM on 10/19/2011
Gee when you limit the scope to just wind and solar it seems pretty scary. Those of us who include combined heat power, energy efficiency, energy conservation, wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal, thermal gradient, pyrolysis biomass, fuel cells, landfill gas and sewage treatment gas are not at all scared. You are using typical paid nuclear power poison factory shill arguments.
07:43 PM on 10/20/2011
You can factor out fuel cells. Concentrate on just the need for electricity. You state conservation a noble goal but you have not mentioned economic and population growth to increase demand. What happens to an off shore wind turbine durring a huricane? You are using fantasy.
07:05 PM on 10/17/2011
I just read in HP's sister publication that solar doesn't work.

http://energy.aol.com/2011/10/07/solar-panels-dont-work-and-no-one-knows/?icid=maing-grid7

And the utility loses 60% of the power that it generates before it gets to the customer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/realestate/commercial/25cogen.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=building%20generates%20its%20own%20electricity&st=cse

See 7th paragraph.

So lets burn more fossil fuel and export even more money to the thieves in the middle east and then complain about how the price of everything is so high.

What' s our whining governor been smoking? He's going to be as bad as his dad, who was the worst governor that New York State had in my lifetime.
photo
FDRliberal
Terminating teabag ideology with extreme prejudice
09:15 PM on 10/17/2011
Mike as a extreme_right_winger you must be lonely in NYC. Lol
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
01:34 AM on 10/19/2011
Yeah, if you hang out with the freaks in the village or the lower east side, a conservative would likely stand out. All the normal people live in midtown, have jobs, don't live off of mommy and daddy's trust fund, and contribute to the world we live in, and have a generally conservative mindset.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:01 PM on 10/18/2011
wow, some panels are faulty. At least the planet didn't get irradiated, huh?

Most studies show panels lasting better and longer than expected:

Solar: http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf 1-2 cents per KWH after the first 20 years and the loan is paid off.

But Chernobyl, TMI and Japan just aren't enough disaster for you.

Cut back on your Valium.

Wake up.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Sunwyn Ravenwood
Farewell my friends, time to go...
07:01 PM on 10/17/2011
Indian Point should be shut down because it was built in a ridiculous place. I am all in favor of nuclear power, but building the power plants so close to major cities is entirely irrational. We have a BIG country, there is room in the Midwest for hundreds of reactors. North and South Dakota together have less than 2 million in population. No shortage of water either. Just build berms around the plants to keep out flood
07:40 PM on 10/17/2011
It doesn't travel all that well, centralizing all the power to one location would not work.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Sunwyn Ravenwood
Farewell my friends, time to go...
10:31 PM on 10/17/2011
So come up with a better idea.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whysaduck
08:41 PM on 10/17/2011
This Midwesterner wants no nukes and certainly not more, no way Jose. BTW Dylan Thomas would be ashamed of you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Sunwyn Ravenwood
Farewell my friends, time to go...
10:32 PM on 10/17/2011
Stick it in your ear.