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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 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.

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Everything can be repaired. It just stops being cost effective at a certain point to do so.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 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
          7
          ·
          3 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
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 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
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 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.