There's been good dialogue regarding my last blog post concerning the Indian Point Energy Center. And I appreciate the many thoughtful comments, including some in which we disagree.
But that's the point of having a conversation, isn't it? To share views, listen and to draw conclusions based on facts. That's what I specifically hoped would emerge from my "Myths Vs. Facts" blog - and that's what has begun.
We work hard to provide safe, clean and reliable electricity for millions of people. This includes many of our own employees and families who work in the area and are part of the communities we live in.
So, as we continue to discuss such issues, I encourage you to check out additional independent, third party reports that shed light on nuclear power and how it's a vital component of the U.S. energy mix.
Looking forward to hearing thoughts and sharing comments on nuclear power, "Green" and energy issues - and solutions for our country.
Here's some more places to get facts:
- The New York Independent System Operator's (NYISO) Power Trends 2011report. The NYISO has said that shutting down Indian Point without replacing the electricity it generates would lead to rolling blackouts. They also reported the potential for loss of critical transmission voltage support, which is needed to maintain power flow to the metropolitan New York area.
- The City of New York's PlaNYC report. This states that closing Indian Point without a viable and relatively clean replacement option would jeopardize reliability, significantly increase prices, worsen local air quality, and make it very challenging to achieve our goal of reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions 30% to achieve the Mayor's sustainability goals by 2030.
- Charles River Associates on behalf of New York City Department of Environmental Protection. "Every replacement option studied will result in a cost increase to energy consumers throughout the state, either through increased market prices or subsidies to new generators. If the market is allowed to function without subsidies for new generation, consumer prices will see marked increases."
Follow Jim Steets on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@indian_point
Where the the director of communications for solar, wind and waste bio char folks?
Trillion dollar cancerous disasters, million years cancerous wastes, and civilization ending proliferation,
but got to keep getting those 500M$ in breaks per reactor per year.
Meanwhile Solar wind and waste only gets 1% of what fossils and nukes get.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/business/energy-environment/nuclear-commission-expected-to-vote-on-new-reactors.html?_r=1&src=tp
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/business/energy-environment/nuclear-commission-expected-to-vote-on-new-reactors.html?_r=1&src=tp
State officials released findings last week that Indian Point could close with little impact on ratepayers and reliability
http://nyack.patch.com/articles/indian-point-can-close-with-little-impact-state-committee-says-400fbb4f
But Jim Steets.Director of Communications, Entergy Nuclear- you already know your paycheck is in jeapardy, now don't 'ja.
ROFLMAO
“The residents of New York State who are in close proximity to Indian Point deserve the opportunity to be heard on this important safety issue,” Paulin said. “Federal law requires meaningful participation from the public when significant changes are enacted, and the NRC’s actions do not comport with open and fair government practices.”
Located in Westchester County, the Indian Point facility poses potential dangers to New York State residents if safety concerns are not heeded. Part of Assemblywoman Jaffee’s district falls into the Emergency Planning Zone, which is the area within the ten-mile radius surrounding Indian Point.
"Indian Point's operator has no legal or moral right to jeopardize the safety of millions on New Yorkers by cutting corners on safety," Assemblywoman Jaffee stated. "This brief makes the sound legal case that the NRC had no grounds to issue a waiver to Indian Point, and we believe it is critical the court rule on the side of public safety in this instance."
http://pelham.patch.com/articles/sen-paulin-assemblyman-castelli-file-brief-against-indian-point-safety-exemption
Beats nuclear if you ask me.
Black swan likelihood.
Risk = likelihood * consequence, and not consequence alone.
Time to Mothball Indian Point Nuclear Plant? | OnEarth Magazine
Water use is also a big concern. Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants: Electricity’s Thirst for a Precious Resource | Union of Concerned Scientists
But how would the world be different?
We wouldn't have global warming. But global warming is the unintended consequence of fossil fuels. What would be the unintended consequences of our fissile fuels?
To answer this a little math is necessary.
Right now there are approximately 500 nuclear power plants around the globe that provide about 5% of the world's energy. So if nuclear power provided all of our energy needs, there would currently be about 10,000 nuclear power plants world wide
Of the 500 current plants, 5 or 1% have had major meltdowns. If we extrapolate that 1% failure rate to the 10,000 that would have been here, there would have been 100 major meltdowns planet wide, and the world would be facing a terrible crisis - a different crisis from global warming to be sure. But a crisis just the same.
A GENETIC crisis of mind-boggling proportions. We would have a world where death from cancer would be a virtual certainty; horrible birth defects would be normal; where fertility problems would be almost guaranteed and the worlds population would be in decline.
We must not replace the unintended consequences of fossil fuels with the unintended consequences of fissile fuel
They said in the 50s that we would be living on Mars today.
They said in the 50s that world hunger and poverty would be solved by today.
Its really not a genetic crisis. Low low radiation doesnt harm anyone.
You can do better.
First, a glance across the Pacific, where the month began with the revelation that the Japanese government purposely downplayed their assessments of the Fukushima disaster–hiding the worst projected scenarios from the public from soon after the March earthquake by classifying the documents as personal correspondence–and ended with discovery of yet another large leak of radioactive water from one of the crippled reactors.
Closer to home, the lone reactor at Wolf Creek, Kansas, was shutdown on January 13 after the failure of a main generator breaker was followed by a still-unexplained loss of power to an electrical transformer. Diesel generators kicked in to run the safety systems until external power was restored, but the plant remains offline while a Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspection team tries to figure out what went wrong.
On the morning of January 30, a power failure caused a reactor at Exelon’s Byron Generating Station to scram, which in turn required a wee bit of venting......
http://www.truth-out.org/san-onofre-one-leaks-other-doesnt-yet/1328630509
And much more, and it's only Feb.............
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017442370_guest07berkey.html
Where does the 300-600 gallons of oil used to lubricate and cool the wind turbine go? Doesn't sound like it doesn't contaminate the environment, in fact per megawatt produced it seems much more damaging to the environment....
If it can be operated safely, then the cheapest and most environmentally-sensible thing to do is to keep doing so until the end of its life. The issue is how to assess the chances of that safe operation.
If you were discussing the prospects of building a new plant at that site, then the economic and environmental picture would look very very different.
Materials devived energy (Solar) will ultimately be cheaper than any form of machine derived energy. Why? The passivity of the process
Reality---need a baseload. Other reality, nuke sucks, it is not the answer.
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html
http://thoriumremix.com/2011/
Nuke sucks, always has always will. We can't trust nuke, we can't trust the nuke industry and the so called regulators that are really just promoters of nuke. Sure, fine to have an industry champion, for say, drywall (unless nasty Chinese drywall), but the whole nuke thing is a joke, a lie, a travesty.
Here are some of the lies.
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/largest-lies-of-nuke.html