Nuclear Power

[RTH10260]

A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up
Shuttering of New York facility raises awkward climate crisis questions as gas – not renewables – fills gap in power generation

Oliver Milman
Wed 20 Mar 2024 11.00 CET

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.

“From a climate change point of view it’s been a real step backwards and made it harder for New York City to decarbonize its electricity supply than it could’ve been,” said Ben Furnas, a climate and energy policy expert at Cornell University. “This has been a cautionary tale that has left New York in a really challenging spot.”



https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... s-new-york

[Volkonski]

NY did open its first offshore wind farm recently. More to come.

Hard to beat Texas in wind though. All the windy plains here ready to be covered with generators while farming and ranching continue underneath.

[AndyinPA]

We saw lots of windmills on the trip on the Amtrak Texas Eagle, and I was surprised at how many there were. In my memory, though, the ones outside of Palm Springs CA dwarfed them. But I don't really know what the stats are TX v CA.

[northland10]

We saw lots of windmills on the trip on the Amtrak Texas Eagle, and I was surprised at how many there were. In my memory, though, the ones outside of Palm Springs CA dwarfed them. But I don't really know what the stats are TX v CA.

Texas is way up there in terms of generation and counts, way above California. However, the wind power as a percentage of their portfolio is not in the top. They are a big state with lots of power usage.

The second-highest in turbine counts, under Texas and above California, is Iowa. They are the highest percentage for wind in their portfolio and the second-highest for generation amount (under Texas).

Unsurprisingly, the leading states for wind power are the wide-open plains and the South; OK, and TX.

[AndyinPA]

Thanks. That all makes sense.

[Suranis]

Ironically enough, it was then governor George W Bush that greenlighted the first large scale wind Generation trial in Texas. He likely did it thinking that it would turn out to be a total disaster and oil would still remain king. Instead it was a runaway success, and Texas has been in the enviable position of publicly attacking Wind generation but at the same time using wind power because it is a fuck load cheaper to use, develop and expand than anything else. At least in Texas.

As for Nuclear power, in terms of Greenhouse gas emissions it is one of the best things out there. There are a lot of so called environmentalists who wont ever admit that. Because they just have a programmed reaction that Nuclear is bad, farming is bad, and Aircraft are great because trips to Spain twice a year WOOHOO!!!

But ya, sorry, if you look at the narrow issue of greenhouse gas emissions, its Nuclear all the way baby. If you widen that focus it gets more and more mixed, but they cant even admit that fact. So it's no surprise that New York got screwed when that Plant shut down.

[keith]

As for Nuclear power, in terms of Greenhouse gas emissions it is one of the best things out there.

Incorrect. Photovoltaics and wind are at least equivalent to nuclear in terms of GHG emissions - likely much better since they don't require monumental amounts of concrete.

There are a lot of so called environmentalists who wont ever admit that. Because they just have a programmed reaction that Nuclear is bad, farming is bad, and Aircraft are great because trips to Spain twice a year WOOHOO!!!

Incorrect on so many levels that it is clear you are programmed to regurgitate propaganda on a subject about which you know absolutly nothing about.

But ya, sorry, if you look at the narrow issue of greenhouse gas emissions, its Nuclear all the way baby.

That is simply bollocks. It takes a LOT of concrete to build a nuclear power station. A LOT. Concrete manufacture is a huge source of greenhouse gas and other extreme toxic pollutants. Hint for the clueless: it has to do with waste, catastrophic accidents, waste, cost to build, waste, time to build, and long term sequestration of waste.

Once touted as generating electricity too cheap to meter, Nukes are in fact the most expensive way to to generate electricity by a wide margin.

If you widen that focus it gets more and more mixed, but they cant even admit that fact.

Admit what? Who won't admit what? Complaints about greenhouse gas has NOTHING to do with opposition to nuclear power. NOTHING.

So it's no surprise that New York got screwed when that Plant shut down.

Screwed how? The plant reached its end of designed life. Where is the end of life replacement plan? If you wanted another nuke you needed to have broken ground 10 years ago. You don’t build a nuke in a year or two.