Shuttering of New York facility raises awkward climate crisis questions as gas – not renewables – fills gap in power generation

When New York’s deteriorating and unloved Indian Point nuclear plant finally shuttered in 2021, its demise was met with delight from environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.

But there has been a sting in the tail – since the closure, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up.

Castigated for its impact upon the surrounding environment and feared for its potential to unleash disaster close to the heart of New York City, Indian Point nevertheless supplied a large chunk of the state’s carbon-free electricity.

Since the plant’s closure, it has been gas, rather then clean energy such as solar and wind, that has filled the void, leaving New York City in the embarrassing situation of seeing its planet-heating emissions jump in recent years to the point its power grid is now dirtier than Texas’s, as well as the US average.

  • AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Modern nuclear technology is much safer than older stuff, additionally when the older plants are well maintained they are much safer than they’re made out to be.

    This is one of those cases where pop culture doesn’t match reality and as a result people who are half informed do more damage to their cause by rejecting the good in pursuit of the great.

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The plant was from 1956, nearing a century of age by now. Old plants like this one explode in their running costs and typically accumulate more and more maintenance incidences each year, ultimately becoming a security risk.

      The main problem though is that countries betting on nuclear power do fuck all with renewables, which makes it unsurprising that you have to resort to other means to fill potential gaps to replace them. In this case they could’ve built renewables, or even other nuclear plants, for several decades already in order to replace this ancient one.

      Articles & comments like this are basically just paid propaganda pieces by the nuclear lobby.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, article just offhand mentions that radioactive material was leaking into the river…

        That means there was multiple ongoing leaks between multiple systems that need to be completely separate for safe operation.

        If the stacks were still good, they should have replaced the reactor. But if those leaks were ongoing and either weren’t addressed or couldn’t be fixed, then it’s incredibly doubtful any maintenance was being done.

        Any nuclear plant that’s leaking radioactive material needs shut down till it’s repaired.

        And this one was just in such bad shape it couldn’t be repaired.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            A leaky containment unit isn’t a hole in a bike tire, you can’t just get it patched.

            And to get a new one in, you’re going to have to be ripping out other systems and literally knocking down walls.

            By “replace the reactor”. I meant containment and primary systems. Secondary system probably didn’t have major issues because it’s basically normal plumbing at that point. But it’s so cheap it would be stupid to not replace it as well.

            But the carbon downside to nuclear is the carbon release from the concrete stacks (cloud makers). So even if literally everything else needed to be replaced, it still would have been worth it.

            If the stacks were fucked, yeah, it’s not salvageable.

            You’d literally be demolishing everything onsite and then building a new one. That’s not even ship of Thesius level “repair”. Everything would be removed and then you’d start fresh.

            • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Indian Point was water cooled, hence the river water leakage and heating concerns. Water cooled plants don’t have those huge stacks you’re talking about. Those only exist on air cooled plants.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                You’re right.

                I saw the giant concrete enclosure in the pic and my brain just saw it as a stack.

                So yeah, to get the actual containment unit replaced, everything would have to be destroyed and replaced.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, article just offhand mentions that radioactive material was leaking into the river…

          Aww man, you were so close to having it figured out. It mentioned that in an off handed way because it left you, the reader, with an impression of what was happening without having to get into the details. Why would they do that? Because said details don’t line up with what you’ve been talking about.

          If we look at the NY RiverKeepers website, a source biased towards getting rid of this plant, we find this article: https://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop-polluters/indian-point/radioactive-waste/radiological-leaks-at-indian-point/

          In there is a leak to the radiological events since the plant opened: https://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Indian-Point-Radioactive-Leaks-Sheet.pdf

          Oh. No leaking reactors, no leaking primary or secondary cooling systems…most of the problem was with their holding ponds and there were some valve failures.

          Now none of that is good but it’s a FAR cry from the “leaking reactor” narrative that you seem to have.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      additionally when the older plants are well maintained they are much safer than they’re made out to be.

      This one was leaking radioactive matter into the river upstream of NYC…

      Even just primary fluid leaking into secondary is a giant issue.

      Radioactive matter in the river means containment leaked to primary, then leaked to secondary…

      If you don’t know why that is so bad, you really shouldn’t be talking about how safe nuclear power is. Because even tho you’re right, you don’t know why.

      • eskimofry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you don’t know why that is so bad, you really shouldn’t be talking about how safe nuclear power is. Because even tho you’re right, you don’t know why.

        You’re kind of gaslighting people by equating “this instance of a 70 year old badly maintained plant” to “how safe nuclear power is”.

        Besides, I am pretty certain some oil and gas lobbying prevented better maintenance here.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          You’re kind of gaslighting people by equating “this instance of a 70 year old badly maintained plant” to “how safe nuclear power is”.

          Where have I ever said nuclear power is unsafe?

          You’re inventing me saying something and accusing me of gaslighting because it disagrees with an opinion you happen to have.

          Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is and how unlikely it is now for me to ever attempt to try and help you understand anything?