Weekly Program Updates / Sign Up

Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?

By Sarah Laskow
Monday, March 28th, 2011
  • comments (8)

The Indian Point Nuclear Energy Center

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has long opposed the nuclear power plant at Indian Point and has been speaking since the Japanese nuclear crisis about the possibility of closing it for good. For New Yorkers who agree that the nuclear power plant at Indian Point should cease operations, there is a simple way to further that goal: stop buying the plant’s electricity.

Most residents of New York City are Con Edison customers, and Con Edison depends on Indian Point for power. Con Edison, though, is primarily a transmission company. It buys the electricity and brings it to consumers. Those who depend on Con Edison to keep their lights on can choose to accept the energy mix (and the price) that the company offers. But they also have the option of buying their power elsewhere and having Con Edison deliver it.

Which means that it’s possible for an individual to cut ties with Indian Point now. NYPIRG has put together a list of alternative energy options: in the New York City area, consumers can choose to buy energy generated from wind and hydropower. These options are a bit more pricey: They cost an additional one or two cents per kilowatt-hour, and plans that contain 100% wind power are more expensive than those that draw from a mix of renewable sources. Over the course of a year, these additional costs total about $50 to $100 extra dollars for the average customer.

As a state, New York has been cementing its commitment to these alternative energy resources: The state’s current goal is to have 30% of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2015. According to the latest figures available from the New York ISO, which helps run and monitor the state’s electricity system, 22% of all electricity generated in the state comes from renewable resources. The vast majority of that (19% of all generation) comes from hydropower.

 
Right now, the majority of Indian Point’s spent fuel is stored in the same sort of cooling tanks that proved a problem at Fukushima. If the plant was decommissioned, the fuel would likely be stored differently, in dry casks.
 

But while the state — and the city — depend heavily on nuclear power for electricity, Con Edison is decreasing the amount of power it is contracted to buy from Indian Point over the next few years, from 1000 megawatts in 2009, to 850 MW in 2010, to 350 MW this year and next. The company still says, however, that approximately 30% of the power it delivers to New York and Westchester County comes from the plant. And in New York State as a whole, 32% of electricity generated relies on nuclear power, according to NYISO. (There are four other reactors in the state, the majority of them clustered outside of Oswego, NY, near Lake Ontario.)

Shutting down Indian Point would mean finding a different source for that portion of the electricity New Yorkers use. The NYISO, in a report published near the close of 2010, wrote that if Indian Point were to close, it would create reliability problems for the New York area electricity grid — in other words, the likelihood of blackouts and brownouts occurring would exceed acceptable limits.

Cuomo’s office reiterated last week that the governor believes the state will be able to find enough new sources to make up the gap.

But where will it come from? Although the thought of a nuclear meltdown 20 miles from New York City can be unnerving, nuclear does have certain advantages over other fuel sources for electricity generation. New York City’s fuel mix produces emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide significantly lower than the national average. Carbon dioxide emissions, for instance, are 54% of the national average emissions rate. The better carbon emissions rates are one of the reasons that national leaders, including President Obama, have been staunch nuclear supporters.

In New York, the alternatives to nuclear come with their own baggage. Wind power only accounts for a tiny slice of the state’s electricity, and new wind projects cannot account for the amount of electricity Indian Point generates. And wind power doesn’t necessarily account for most new growth in this sector, either. “Currently most of the larger generators coming online are high efficiency combined cycle natural gas generators,” Ken Klapp, a spokesman for NYISO, told State Room. Closing Indian Point could mean relying more heavily on natural gas, extracted by controversial hydrofracking techniques.

Even if the state does succeed in finding replacement sources for Indian Point, closing Indian Point won’t mean that New York City is immediately safe from the hazards of nearby nuclear materials. The process of decommissioning a nuclear plant takes years. Indian Point hosts three nuclear reactors; one is already inactive, but Entergy, which owns all three, has delayed decommissioning it until a second reactor ceases operations.

Decommissioning doesn’t necessarily require Entergy to move the nuclear materials left over from the generation process from the decommissioned site. There’s still no national facility for storing used nuclear material, and it’s common for nuclear materials to remain on the site of a decommissioned plant.

The federal government requires companies that own nuclear reactors to set aside funds to decommission their plants and draft a plan to decommission them, so in theory, Entergy should be prepared to shut down the plant, should its bid to renew the reactors’ licenses fail. In 2009, however, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission discovered that Entergy’s fund for decommissioning one Indian Point reactor fell short. In 2010, the company and the NRC agreed that Entergy could store nuclear materials onsite until 2063, under conditions that safely allow the radioactivity to decay.

Right now, the majority of Indian Point’s spent fuel is stored in the same sort of cooling tanks that proved a problem at Fukushima. If the plant was decommissioned, the fuel would likely be stored differently, in dry casks. In this storage method, the spent fuel is placed in steel casks, which are in turn stored in ventilated concrete capsules. Since 2008, Entergy has stored some of its spent fuel in dry casks, which the NRC says would keep the materials safe during an earthquake.

“They’re designed to not move during earthquake activity,” Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC, said. “Unlike the spent fuel pools, they don’t use water, pumps or valves. They don’t use electricity. They’re very self-sufficient.”


  • mrcleo

    No, Indian Point should not be shut down. All of these comparisons to the situation in Japan are useless. The situations are not the same. the plant provides a lot of the power for New York City. And, the power is cheap and clean. Any other options would raise my bill too much. I say we need Indian Point.

  • Peggy Prichett

    Yes, Indian Point should be shut down. A nuclear disaster at Indian Point would probably kill everyone in New York City. In Japan, radiation is at very high levels at 25 miles from the disaster. An extra $100 a year for clean energy sounds like a bargain, and if more people use it the price will probably drop.

  • karen roche

    This is a no brainer, SHUT INDIAN POINT DOWN!
    I have lived in its shadow all my life,and it has always been a concern. Now, we see, the devastating,castastrophic reality of meltdown happening in Japan.
    Can we continue to deny the real cost of so called “cheap energy” ?
    America ,as a global leader,can and must do better.

  • Ann Sully

    .”…… the plant is located near the intersection of two fault lines and is closer to an urban area than any other plant in the country….”
    The Associated Press
    updated 8/23/2008 8:00:06 AM ET 2008-08-23T12:00:06
    Share Print Font: +-”WHITE PLAINS, New York — An analysis of recent earthquake activity around New York City has found that many small faults that were believed to be inactive could contribute to a major, disastrous earthquake.

    The study also finds that a line of seismic activity comes within two miles of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, about 25 miles north of New York City. Another fault line near the plant was already known, so the findings suggest Indian Point is at an intersection of faults.”

    “A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[11] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[12] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 excess deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination” – Wikipedia
    Do the people of New York want to play Russian Roulette, I hope not…PLEASE shut down Indian Point, it’s not safe.

  • Donna Bowles-DeBiasa

    Nucllear energy is a mistake and unsafe. All facilities need to be shut down. The danger to all of us and our planet is not worth the risk for cheaper power. We need to be more mindful of what we are doing and more protective of our resources and not let large corporations dictate what is ‘best’ for us. Not only is the fact that Indian Point is located on a fault line a concern, but a new worry is the possibility of solar flares which will cause the entire power grid to go down, perhaps for weeks at a time. This will cause a meltdown and our demise. We need to take action before this disaster occurs. Please contact your representatives and inform your friends and neighbors. This is an unpleasant and frightening issue to contemplate but ignoring it will not make it go away!

  • http://www.wivind.us Analisa Sovern

    hey,I obtain that your blog is incredibly informative and useful and we wonder if there is a possibility of getting More content like this on your blog. If you willing to assist us out, we can be willing to compensate you…

  • Pingback: Nuke power plant safety shuffle. - Page 2 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  • Ralph Dimmaggio

    I say if you want The 5 boroughs of NYC to explode and more of New York States Beautiful scenery, then fine. You can keep Indian Point open to take that risk