wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

this is an easy one, really.

Spend the money.

Fix the plant, and fix it properly, so we can have the Hudson back. A few years without Indian Point online might well raise electricty for new york - but so what? IT should be clear to everyone that the benefits outweigh the cost by far.

disclaimer: I would also love to see commercially viable fusion power plants one day. They seem to me, along with better battery technology, our most likely means of getting away from fossil fuels in their entirety.

I live within 6 miles of the plant and became interested in this issue after the February 2000 steam pipe failure that sent radioactive steam into the atmosphere. The more I learned, the less sense it made to have a nuclear plant on the banks of the Hudson, 35 miles from midtown. In addition to the water use and heat pollution that kills fish populations, the plant has, and continues to leak radiactive effluent into the Hudson, including tritium, strontium, cesium and nickel. The counties around the plant have highly elevated thyroid cancer rates (relative to US average). Too much damage, too high a risk, not necessary. During the August 2003 blackout, the reactors stayed offline for days after the grid came back. The subways ran and the air conditioners hummed. It wasn't missed then. We can do without it permanently.

Yes, lets close the cleanest baseload energy source we've got and burn more coal. Just don't build those coal plants near me (they're icky)!

That said, Indian Point does need to fix the water problem. I'd rather see new plants, but that won't happen until we stop letting coal plants dump coal byproducts into the air for free (and educate ourselves about those scary atoms).

Here is my take on a possible scenario that could unfold down the road. Separating the water quality issue from re licensing would allow Entergy to bring a tremendous amount of pressure to bear on the state as the sole hold out for the plant's continued operation. We have all seen how effective their expensive and successful campaign to convince people that we can't live without the electricity has been. Given the Supreme Court decision on the right of corporations to spend money in the public arena Entergy can effectively underwrite the campaigns of any number of politicians who want the plant to continue to operate. They could pump millions into the race for Governor and Attorney General supporting "pro business, pro jobs candidates." (It is odd how the business community seems reluctant to allow the free market to fill the gap should this one source go off line.) If Entergy bought five seats in the state Senate they could probably defund the DEC in the reconciliation process just like Pataki did. In addition, cabinet level state offices like the head of New York DEC have to approved by the Senate.

So, ladies and gentlemen, in the end my guess is that it all comes back to politics. I would love to be found wrong. In the meantime stay tuned for the next exciting chapter...

Technical question: The heat pollution from Indian Point sounds like a serious problem for the health of the Hudson. Could you please factual substance to the quote from the Times editorial: What percentage of the life in the Hudson is affected and or killed. Is the 1 billion life forms 1%, 10%, 50%, or 100% of the life in the Hudson? Sounds like a false and/or misleading unsubstantiated statistic.
Also, what will replace the power lost if Indian Point closes? Efficiency? Coal? Hydro? Natural gas? Oil? Propane? Wind? Solar? Waves? What will their environmental impact be and will people opposed NIMBY/BABNANA any new energy if we do not have heavy mandates on efficiency?
(I’m pro mandated efficiency, BTW)

Even the safest nuclear power plants located in Sweden have been scientifically proven to have adverse effects on the environment. This all needs to stop.

Agreed on points outlined: ecosystem damage, opportunity for energy decentralization. Permit has been denied. This is an opportunity to implement a creative cooling system. Perhaps the unused tower at Three Mile Island is available for sale. I stood under it two years ago. It works great!

By selling the heat they would have more to sell, and the process would use more of the energy creating more revenue. There is a mini reactor which only works by using a container that gives off heat, It could cost money, but it would come up with more profitable solutions in the final analsys.

Warm water released from power plants affects fish because it reduces the Oxygen saturation of the water. Oxygen saturates into colder water. The warmer the water, the less oxygen in it. With less O2 in the water, fish literally suffocate. It is a serious problem.

Hot water holds less oxygen than cold water. Fish die when their water is heated because the suffocate. That's why you can't put cold water fish in indoor fish tanks.

the heat creates some chemical changes in the water, one of which is to reduce oxygenation of the water, making it harder for the fish to breathe.

I'm glad that the water permit was denied. Whether or not the energy company wants to admit it, these projects DO have a negative impact on the environment. It's about time we stop ignoring negative externalities and start holding companies accountable for the damage they do to our environment (and, thus, to all of us).

We should shut it down, and build decentralized solar and wind energy projects instead. If NYC maximized its solar installations (PlaNYC 2030 cites studies showing this could provide 18% of peak demand energy) and wind installations, we wouldn't need the Nuclear plant - plus, from a national security standpoint - it makes a lot more sense to have these infrastructures decentralized.

if I were a free marketer, should I be upset with the heavy federal subsidies received by the nuclear industry? and where does the waste go?