American ambivalence to nuclear power is an enduring reality that has survived events and politics in a truly unique way. Americans embrace what they think is the economic and energy virtues of nuclear power while simultaneously fearing the grotesque consequences of a major release of radiation. It's a kind of cognitive dissonance, or better, a kind of doublethink, where two conflicting ideas co-exist in one brain.
The poster child for all of this denial is the Indian Point nuclear facility on the banks of the Hudson River of New York City. What can be said about without objection is as follows: It never should have been built so close to NYC and 20 million people and could not be built there under today's rules; It is historically the worst and most dangerously operated plant in the US; Its operations have improved to an uncertain degree under its' new owners, the Entergy Corporation of Louisiana; Its license to operate is about to expire, and Entergy wants a new 20 year license.
Everything else is chaos and dispute. Is it cheaper than alternate sources of power? Is it safe? Is it necessary? Is the NRC doing its' job?
These are questions that need discussion and debate. But so far, as with much else concerning nuclear power, no such reasoned debate exists. And the doublethink continues.
Time for full disclosure: After careful review of what is known about the plant, I am and have been of the view that it is dangerous, expensive and unnecessary. Here's why.
Indian Point is expensive and getting more so: The evidence is clear. First, the true cost of nuclear power is much higher than the published cost because so much is subsidized by the taxpayer. If you add the numerous taxpayer subsidies for the production of nuclear fuel, for the disposal of nuclear fuel, for the Hudson River water Indian Point takes and pollutes for free (3 billion gallons a day!), insurance and others, to the cost of producing power, it simply isn't cheaper. Second, the nuclear industry has managed to create pricing policies that allow it to charge the highest possible rate, not its' actual cost of producing power. The result is a cash cow that makes over 50% of its' equity back annually, a $2 billion dollar annual overcharge.
Indian Point is dangerous. Earthquake faults underneath, terrorism vulnerability, fire safety defects, unworkable evacuation plans, aging equipment, spent fuel deposits, corporate arrogance and most importantly an inept NRC have combined to present an unacceptable level of danger. The chances of a significant meltdown at Indian Point remain small; the consequences are so terrifyingly immense that it can't be tolerated.
Indian Point is unnecessary. There are other existing sources of power; there are new sources of power; there are better ways to transmit power to NYC from areas of surplus. And smartest of all, there are ways to reduce demand without hurting our economy or our communities.
I understand there are other viewpoints, and that I could be wrong. But in the absence of a substantive discussion, 2012 is likely to see all these issues land smack in the middle of our political discourse. The relicensing application before the NRC will be considered and decided; the pollution of the Hudson will be considered and decided; a major lawsuit about fire safety will be decided (full disclosure again: The suit Brodsky v. NRC was brought and argued by the author is this article).
In the battle over Indian Point, lined up on one side is a strong coalition of politicians (NY's Governor Cuomo, and many other electeds), public interest groups, celebrities, and a growing segment of the public. On the other Entergy (with a huge budget for media), the NRC, Mayor Bloomberg, and apparently Barack Obama.
These dichotomies can't go on forever. They are of national and international significance and it is very likely that all will come to a head very soon and 2012 will be the year of decision for Indian Point.
Follow Richard Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/richardbrodsky
Pol: Don't fuel with Indian Pt.
Clearwater: Indian Point Evacuation Plans Lacking
The ongoing Sydney Test could well be the "Tipping Point" in Indian cricket
New York State Wins Review of Nuclear Plant Accident Plans
So what's the point of the exercise?
Bereft of useful ideas Brodsky simply rehashes old laundry lists from 1995, wishing once again to be young, relevant, and electable, forgetting about the 99% who want no infrastructure reductions, blanking his mind to the 80% who favor nuclear power, and the 67% of Westchester residents polled by Marist college in 2007 who favored Indian Point, whose ranks swelled to 70% in 2008, to the lack of any significant popular backlash from Fukushima in our area.He is disastrously out of touch with 99 percenter political reality,
What could the man be doing?
The answer is obvious. He is trying to excite his base.
But it is no longer 2001.
The question for Brodsky today is: Does he HAVE a base? He knows this, and so he backs down his "antinookist" fervor a notch, hoping to snare a few moderates with his reasonableness.
Can it work?
I doubt it.
Brodsky speaks for the 10%, and the 90% have valid , respectable needs for Indian Point, that no amount of Brodsky folderol can erase.
So Mr. B.... what have you done for us lately?.... the 99%, I mean?
Any & every exaggeration seems allowable to these science-fictionists, Luddites in the truest sense, who wish to jerk the world back to 1900 simply to comply with their paymasters at the Tamarind foundation, the G.R.A.C.E. foundation, & the Tides foundation, as Asian countries, beyond the reach of such faux moralizations and prepackaged fear mongering, zoom past the USA in power generation, in wealth generation, and in positive political narrative.
We are in a lifeboat.
We cannot ride in the lifeboat, and choose our lifeboat at the same time.
All opposition to American nuclear power serves other, covert agendas
more in line with the Solyndra agenda,
than with uplift for the populace.
Readers are being hornswoggled.
A "conspiracy by cloud" propaganda cadre makes this junk up.
Media loves it, just like they would love a beheading, a plane crash, or a revolution.
The problem is, its false, and it harms us all.
The short term conclusion is that there is no reason to shut down plants immediately.
Long term:
Re-evaluation of seismic design basis
Re-evaluation of beyond design basis events in particular loss of off-site power and means to cope with loss of off-site power
Hydrogen venting
Spent fuel pit monitoring
What else would you expect ?
The cost of fuel disposal is subsidized? There is no fuel disposal, that would be Yucca mountain, utilities have been paying a fee to the US gov't for years to support Yucca mountain and have also paid for onsite storage in the interim, there is no subsidy, in fact they have paid for something they have not received
Nuclear liability insurance is subsidized theoretically since it is provided by the US gov't, however utilities have paid more into it then claims paid out so at this time it is not a subsidy
Nuclear power sells at the going commercial rate and nuclear is always the first choice generation, you never see a nuclear plant idle if it is capable of running, why would the utility purposely run a more expensive plant? the answer is they don't, nuclear is the cheapest to run
We visited my grandparents in Westchester at least once a month my entire life. Driving past Indian Point, and later in life, taking Metro North past Indian point, always caused my heart to skip a beat.
There are too many ways for problems to happen, too many millions of people in harms way to allow the plant to continue operating.
We cannot say "I'm sorry" or "It never happened before" after the fact.
We need to be proactive. To keep damage to occurring, not repair the damage later.
We need reality-versed leaders.
( I see a dearth of such folks....don't you?)
Shut it down, now!!!!!!!!
Offshore wind is far cheaper than nukes.
Waste bio char can provide the 24/7 backup for wind. also half the cost of nukes.
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/
But absolutely no new nukes, and end the 500M$ per reactor per year nuke breaks.
Pimping nukepimp.blogspot? I'll bet you a proton and two neutrinos that you are a sock for Callme Ish. Same level of intelligent comments. In fact, I'm sure of it!
hi genders, glad to see you all around today
No such thing as bio char.....How am I gonna' bar-b-que my steaks then?
And Mr. Brodsky's education & qualifications are in Radiation Protection, Emergency Planning, Reactor Engineering, Nuclear Plant Operations - he's an expert, right? Nope - attorney.... no point in listening to the experts...
But federal regulators have yet to absorb the lessons from this crisis. The owners of the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester County, 25 miles north of New York City, are asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend their operating licenses for 20 years. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo strongly opposes those renewal.
A severe accident at Indian Point, whose two reactors opened in 1974 and 1976, is a remote but real possibility. We’ve had two severe accidents with large releases of radioactivity in the past. The Chernobyl accident was dismissed in Western countries on the grounds that it was the product of Soviet sloppiness and “couldn’t happen here.” But the Fukushima accident involved reactors built to American designs.
The essential characteristic of this technology is that the reactor’s uranium fuel — about 100 tons in a typical plant — melts quickly without cooling water. The containment structures surrounding the reactors — even the formidable-looking domes at Indian Point — were not designed to hold melted fuel because safety regulators 40 years ago considered a meltdown impossible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/opinion/is-indian-point-the-next-fukushima.html
Right up there with `It might never happen' and `You could fall under a bus tomorrow'.
You know that it's just somebody else in a sock and he has a bunch right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center#Incidents
River water is tertiary water, and never comes near primary water.An entire secondary water system ( that you never learned of) stands between primary & tertiary water.
Primary= somewhat radioactive
Secondary= very slightly radioactive
Tertiary= not radioactive.
Any leak of primary to secondary would immediately trip the unit.
Any leak of secondary to tertiary would likewise trip the unit.
( Sensitive radiation monitors detect all radiation changes)
So..... try to get your mind around the fact
that there is virtually no way for primary water to get in the river.
A trip vents secondary to atmosphere, avoiding the river entirely.
So this argument is revealed for what it is....an antinuclear distortion, aimed at attacking the plant, not at helping fish. Yet the distiguished Demos scholar either can't tell lawyeristic bull from eco-truth, or is hoping that we can't.
Which do you suspect it might be?
8/4/2011
White Plains, N.Y. –According to a report conducted by independent experts and finalized today by the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), shutting down Entergy’s Indian Point Energy Center would increase electricity prices, have a negative impact on the air people breathe, and create reliability problems throughout a region whose economy depends on a reliable electrical supply.
The DEP commissioned the report from Charles River Associates to analyze the impact of IPEC on the region’s economy, environment and supply of reliable electricity. The report’s key findings underscore the vital role Indian Point plays in the region and are consistent with similar independent studies that have been conducted over the last five to seven years
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/energy/final_report_d16322_2011-08-02.pdf
Solar is the same or cheaper, though not in NYC.
Wind and waste bio char are half nukes costs, and efficiency is half that again.
I know those millionaires along the shores (CT and LI) would object, but it would be a good thinkg to promote.
New York residents cannot afford another blow to their economy, higher energy bills, dirtier air, brownouts and blackouts, does that sound like progress to you?
The coal itself is radioactive, and spews uranium and thorium in its fly ash.( In WWII power plant ash piles were considered by General Groves as his first choice for mining uranium for the Manhattan Project, but he decided it would be too visible to nazi spies, and give away his plans)
http://www.gdr.org/radiationincoal.htm
After several hundred lawsuits were settled after TMI, not a single case was decided in favor of any plaintiff.... the evidence for civilan radioactivty injuries was just not found....(there WAS none).
Using examples that are in foreign countries, built and operated under totally different rules & requirements than those here are not valid comparisons. But - you better reelect that politician who will save you, or it might happen.
Shutdown Indian Point? How many fully functional perfectly maintained 1965 Corvettes do you see sitting in the junk yard... In this era of financial crisis, that an elected official would suggest such an incredibly wasteful, foolish and expensive decision is outrageous. He should be removed from office!
get a real job, not death!
Cancer is the right answer. From uranium mining and from TMI, and from "routine releases" from reactors. But you cling to the lies from World nuclear.
pubs.pembina.org/reports/ClearingAir_UraniumMining.pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=abandoned-uranium-mines-a And nuke folks still want to claim no deaths from nuclear power, incredible.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdaf.html uranium min tailing dam failures.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopusa.html "Reopened Arizona 1 uranium mine largely left to regulate itself: Denison Mines ";
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469835/?tool=pubmed TMI cancer deaths
http://www.albionmonitor.com/9703a/3milecancer.html
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/3/20/increased-cancers-in-tmi-radiation-plumes.html
Nuclear energy producers are required to provide their cost data - the average operations and maintenance cost for the existing nuclear power plants in the US is just 2.13 cents per kilowatt hour according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Indiant Point is already building an largely paid for, so those are the costs that matter.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/
The Price-Anderson insurance pool that is a key talking point on the antinuclear industry's briefing sheets has NEVER cost the American taxpayers a single dime. It provides more than $12 billion in insurance coverage for any accident.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html
There are also not any other reliable, emission free power sources available to replace Indian Point. Natural gas promoters would love to sell an additional 400 million cubic feet per day. Other interest groups would love to build new transmission lines at $2 million per mile. If you live in NYC, look around and see if you think that wind turbines or solar panels would do much good.
Even after melting three nuclear reactor cores in Japan, we can still say that commercial nuclear power plants have only killed about 60 people from radiation - all as a result of Chernobyl. That is far less than "grotesque consequences" from radiation releases.
nothing does.
All the worlds nuclear waste now perfectly contained would fill 1% the volume of the Great Pyramid at Giza which has lasted 5000 years - less than a football field buried 40 feet deep. Not waste. It is fuel enough to power the world for hundreds of years while being destroyed in gen IV reactors like India's new 500 MW first of 5 units. Ironically that is the only way to get rid of it.
First, there is an existing interim solution. That is: all spent fuel is currently being stored.
Second, there is an existing, built long term storage facility (WIPP) that could be easily and cheaply expanded (per Gwyneth Cravens) to hold all the worlds spent fuel (what you call 'nuclear waste').
Third, there is a mostly-built long term storage facility that we could choose to finish (Yucca).
Fourth, there are multiple technologies we could build to eat all the spent fuel while producing power (eg: LFTR, WAMSR, TWR).
So it's simply not accurate to say that there is no solution. There are in fact numerous solutions; all that is lacking is the political will to choose, implement, and use one or many of the longer-term solutions, and in the meantime we have an existing interim solution that is working.
O&M is the least of nukes costs.
rooftop solar O&M is zero.
Capital is the main coasts, you know it, you lied. You deceived.
16 cents per KWH is the conservative levelized cost of new nuclear power.
16 cents per KWH conservative cost of nuke power. new nukes 7$ per W.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
New nuclear power plants are not cheap. In the UK and the US cost overruns on nuclear plants contributed to the bankruptcies of several utility companies.
The same as rooftop solar conservative estimates.
Nuke power costs 3 cents a kwh solar starts at 70 cents today when transmission and filthy deadly polluting and ghg spewing gas backup is included. Add a buck a kwh for green storage to replace the gas.
Rather than quotes from Big Oil blogs here are the real nuke/solar costs.
Here is the real cost of a real solar install just completed by expert engineers at Duke Energy.
Google "biofuelswÂatch.com/sÂolar-farm-Âstarts-opeÂration"
$43 a watt average, 18% capacity factor, 50 cents a kwh at Dukes discount rate. It's in sunny South Carolina.
AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installatiÂons 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.TÂhe last one was completed in 2007 in Europe.
Google "cnnc.com.cn/tabid/1Â68/Default.aspx"